Trump Impeachment: Public Hearings Have Begun

*gets in seat and starts eating popcorn* Shit is going to be good.

 

Hmm...not to rain on anyone's parade, but thus far nothing really new is coming forward.

Sure, it's now broadcasted live. So what? Remember how the group that needed any convincing in the Mueller case first refused to read the full report because it was too long and then complained that the summaries were biased? It's this same group that first claimed these hearings were a sham because they were secret (they weren't) and then all voted against making them public. The irony is that they're trying to make it a sham by requesting Hunter Biden to testify (yes...because surely HE knows more about blocking US military aid ) and then downright violating whistle blower protection laws by insisting he (they?) should be testified(1).

So yeah...once again: "top diplomats testify that Trump cared more about a Biden investigation than about the state of the country". "by denying an ally military aid, Trump went directly against crucial policy regarding the safety of the US". I'm curious to see how it'll all affect the polls on Trump popularity, but what impact will it have on a larger scale?

Yes, he's now boo-ed at sports events and "IMPEACH" signs are put up wherever he goes. But that's not really the aim of the investigation. I'm all with Pelosi on this one: this is just about doing the right thing. The house shouldn't be about impeaching the president. It's not what they want to do or why they joined politics. It's just that push has come to stove; you can't just ignore a president committing crimes.



(1): to be fair: I would be able to understand this reasoning if (s)he was the sole voice complaining. but at this stage, there are so many confirmations of everything that there is literally no need for a public outing aside for political revenge (which is exactly what the law aims to prevent).

 

Aid gets held up every so often. Trump could've with held aid to see what they were about since it was a new Ukraine administration, wait it out, spend some time talking to them, and if they were genuine then give them the aid.


Joe Biden getting a prosecutor fired. And the person being cleared of all charges. They are making a case that Biden was doing what Trump did before Trump and that an investigation into him was warranted.


Ukraine had no idea they were being extorted. Trump extorting them with out telling them? Implied extortion argument doesn't seem to go far either.

President Zelensky denied the Democrats characterization of the call, which is a big blow to the case since they relied on the extorted argument, how can one be extorted if they are unaware of it? Ukraine didn't know at the time that a temporary delay was put on them. Some of the witnesses were uninformed about the indications of Ukraine election meddling and what Trump was concerned.

It may have been inappropriate for Trump to call and say do me a favor, but it was in the interest of the country looking into election meddling. It was not just dig up dirt, it was more then that, its election meddling. And I'm sure they are not uptight people following the law exactly and exceptions can be made for Trumps case, that how all law cases work, they have to look at the circumstance of the situation.


Why give military aid for a country that was illegally meddling in our election?
Trump can argue his way out of any criminal charges based on the situation. He may get away with this case.



Then there's this, that just came up
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-...n-probe-to-aid-ukraine-minister-idUSKBN1XO1HK

So who are we suppose to believe? U.S. Democrats claiming Trump doing this and that? Or what the Ukraine officials themselves say?
Unless they go fucking psycho and say Trump is a criminal mastermind controlling the entire country of Ukraine and making them say stuff to protect Trump. Just like what they said for Russia, Trump in control of Russia.


Impeachment witnesses never met Trump ever, so it wasn't first hand witnesses. I was going through a bunch of articles that claim, damning evidence this and this is really bad, and some of those articles are not true, flat out lies or are just click bait. And people will believe those articles rather then what the Ukraine minister says. This case looks like its going the way of the Russia case. Especially when they make the argument that hearsay is much better evidence then direct evidence. You know they've gone crazy. The Democrats are creating this fake scandal to cover themselves.

 

Imagine thinking this is anything more then political theater.

 

True. But never for personal political gain. There's a reason the diplomats claim Trump puts his personal agenda over the benefits of the USA.

(1) Not quite. The EU and individual governments were equally pressuring onto Ukraine (as well as some instances within the country) to get Shokin removed. Joe Biden was just representing the US in this regard.
I'd also like to repeat what I said earlier: that Shokin slowed down the investigation of Burisma (source).
(2) again: wrong. Shokin was never cleared of his charges. And in case you're referring to Hunter: he was never officially charged, for the simple reason he was just one of the many employees of Burisma. The investigation against Burisma just continued...and ended in an anticlimax (read: there was no evidence of corruption).
(3) yes...republicans are indeed wishing they could make that claim. Too bad that the differences aren't exactly details
-Trump doesn't have the backing of other countries or instances. Heck...he doesn't even have the backing of his own diplomats
-There was plenty of evidence against Shokin. Against Hunter, they've got nothing

I beg to differ. When I'm suddenly getting promised money withheld from a country, and then shortly after get on the phone with the country's leader saying I need to do them a favor(1), I know what is implied. It doesn't make it less extortion.


(1): that's based on the publicly released transcript. The actual phone call had Trump insisting repeatedly that Zelensky start an investigation.

...which further proves that there's something fishy going on. A delay of nearly 400 million dollar and republicans can't even produce a valid reason for it being withheld?

Inappropriate is pretty light. If diplomats call it "very disturbing", then I'm more inclined to go with that. Is it any less inappropriate to set up an entire alternative diplomatic entity for this job? C'mon...are you really expecting us to believe that a former hotelier (Sondland) and a NYC mayor (Giuliani) have better interests in the country than veteran diplomats?
Fuck...Ukraine isn't part of the EU, but I think that piece of trivia flew over the head of the guy interrogating Taylor (Steve Castor: "ok, so it's unusual <that EU diplomat Sondland schemes in Ukraine>...but it's not as outlandish as it could have be...correct?" Taylor: <*holds back laughter*>).

This isn't about Russia, dude. Crowdstrike is at best a hoax because Trump doesn't want to keep promises USA made to the world.

Easy claims when he's hiding in the white house.

It's an interesting link, I'll give you that. Unfortunately, it doesn't answer the main question I have: what explanation was given to Prystaiko for the delay?

It'd be nice to hear more about the Ukraine side of the story, but at this point I don't see much contradiction in either statements (remember: the charges are Trump requested president ZELENSKY to open an investigation).

Lol, what? Seriously: Trump may be many things, but he's too incompetent to be a mastermind. I've seen him described as a puppet of Russia quite some times, but never in charge of it.

So no...the USA isn't in charge of Ukraine. But again: the allegations are that Trump uses military funds for personal political gains. That's perfectly doable without being "a criminal mastermind controlling the entire country".

If they witnessed actions and conversations tracing back all the way, it's irrelevant whether or not they literally met Trump. Taylor claims, for example, that Trump shouted so hard that his employees on his side of the line could hear it. It doesn't somehow make them less a witness to the incident.

It goes without saying, but I don't share your opinion of democrats. If you ask me, it's the republicans going all sorts of nuts. Which is in and of itself amazing (yes, I've got a different world view than them...but even so I find it scary how blind they follow Donald Trump's opinion)

 

So, today the former Ambassador for Ukraine, miss Yovanovich testified.

For clarity, she was removed in April from Ukraine and was replaced with Volker after Rudy "I'm not a part of Trump's administration but I act like it" Giuliani ran a smear campaign against her.

Notable things about the hearing:

• Republicans didn't have much. Most wound up in two camps; either congtatulating the ambassador for her work or opting to attack the investigation rather than questioning the witness (also going here were a number that asked very misleading questions within regards to why she was there.)
• The Republicans also seemed to violate their talking time extensively and interrupted the Ambassador repeatedly. There also is a rather strange kerfuffle they seem to be blowing up. Apparently there's a predetermined order but apparently Elise Stefanik had a minor habit of trying to cut in line to get more time out of another Republicans unused time.
• And of course, Trump attempted to intimidate the Ambassador about an hour into the hearing by slandering her on Twitter.

Important to keep in mind is that this hearing is to set up the prologue of the Ukraine scandal, not the scandal itself, which Republicans consistently failed to grasp.

 

Actually, when asked if she had any information that could prove quid pro quo (now being called bribery because the Liberals overused the original term) or if she had any evidence that Trump broke the law she said answered both times saying "no". Seeings as the impeachment inquiry is based on impeaching the president for quid pro quo (now being called bribery) and any criminal wrong doing I see this as a positive thing for the Republicans. The only relevant facts directly relate to what the Democrats are trying to impeach Trump for and she admitted she has nothing that reflects that - she simply stated that she has no information that Trump committed an impeachable offense. Turns out that reality bit the Liberals in the ass so they tried to turn the attention to the fact they have ZERO evidence and focus on what Trump tweeted. What she does have, is that she's upset she was fired and that has no bearing on what the impeachment effort is about. It's Trump's job to fire people like her. He's the boss an within his rights to do so. Also about the intimidation accusations. It's funny that Yovanovich would have had no clue that Trump tweeted about her unless Shift for Brains would have brought it up. I mean, what are the Liberals doing checking their smart phones when they're supposed to be running an inquiry? I'd also like to point out that this isn't a criminal trial so Yovanovich isn't an actual witness that was in the position to be intimidated (even if Trump was directly doing so, which he wasn't). Besides, if you focus on the intimidation accusation you're doing exactly what the Liberals want you to do. They simply want to distract you from the fact that their witness had zero actual evidence of any quid pro quo or bribery.

Quote Source (Watch the Hearing or -> https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2019/nov/15/marie-yovanovitch-tells-chris-stewart-no-info-that/)

This (the quote) is the only information from the witness that matters.

 

Different settings, different language. Quid pro quo is still the term for talkshows and so on and so forth.

But then dont separate the act from the intent. If act would have been bribery, so what - thats part of the job in some way I suppose. But bribery to get stuff on your political opponent, while harming national security (because Ukraine is kind of important geopolitically). Now thats something.. The word bribery somehow feels too small for that.

 

Well, I do understand Liberals and their need to constantly redefine things or change names to suite their agenda. I wonder what actual linguist and other people that study the spoken word think about how the Liberals ignore years of history and simply redefine shit on the whim to fit stuff into their agenda (when in reality they're simply making this shit up most of the time from thin air). Though, I agree that both of these terms are interchangeable. At least they didn't have make up a completely fake defintion this time. Anyway, what they are doing are simple basic psychological tactics. I was just pointing out they're playing petty word games again. How do you feel about the quoted questions and answers that I just added to my original post? The questions that Yovanovich answered. Do you think these are the only relevant questions?

 

This is something I really believe in:

"One cannot not communicate" ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Watzlawick )

The terms that get coined, or framed a certain way - arent that important themselves. A certain frame might stick, or not - sometimes its just pure luck. Even if you try your hardest - or even if you don't try at all, a frame (or a certain meaning of a word in context) usually will happen on its own. And when it does (Quid pro quo) you usually are better off driving that one (the one that develops) home, than to try sticking one yourself.

Quid pro quo was probably used in legal speak context, because - its common there, to express a distinct situation. Then it got picked up in a public context, and some people might not have known what it meant, and then they looked it up, and then they started using it boastingly, and all of a sudden it trended. That most likely was a natural process (because its so dumb), but if you pick up on people being interested in that little something they might not have heard in the past - you drive it home, by overusing - and it becomes more of a thing, if you do it correctly.

Designing memes, usually is much harder than going with whats already out there in some form. And framing in general has more to do with generating context. (Which sort of language to use, to generate certain associations.)

Its not a 'now, how do we twist words in public perception today' kind of situation. Never works that reliably.

 

Oh, and I know we're conversed about politics before I left. So if you're interested in why I left or why I'm back I've posted about this in my blog. Just in case you're wondering why I'm posting again.

 

I'll look at it tomorrow. (Don't pull me too many people to the extreme edges of the political spectrum, in the meantime.. ) n8

 

Crowdstrike may be a hoax and yet Russia got investigated. There was indications in the Russia case which not much came out of it just like there was in Ukraine. Trump can use this to his advantage. They shot themselves in the foot with Russia and it can back fire on this case. "Look at Russia hoax, you guys investigated that and you are not going to investigate Ukraine"



"I beg to differ. When I'm suddenly getting promised money withheld from a country, and then shortly after get on the phone with the country's leader saying I need to do them a favor(1), I know what is implied. It doesn't make it less extortion."

I beg the differ differ, because aid could've been with held for different reasons. The problem is implied. Anything could be implied, since it wasn't directly said they can make a case for a different implication, like new leadership are they worthy of military aid? Are they trust worthy? Lets withhold money and talk it over in the White house before making bad rash decisions. The withheld money was a coincidence in timing with the phone call.


We are basically arguing/debating over nothing said. Trump does this a lot. He's always very vague in what he says and people give their opinions on what he implied which is influenced by their personally biases of what they already think about Trump.

Like when Trump says about Megyn Kelly on CNN that he doesn't respect her as a journalist and he said that you can see blood was coming out of her eyes and coming out of her wherever. People got mad and called him a sexist because they believed he implied that he was talking about her lady private parts, that she was menstruating and she couldn't do her job properly. But that statement is vague, people that already believed that Trump is sexist against women say we know what he meant, c'mon look at all the past sexist stuff Trump did, its as easy as putting two and two together. While his defenders say no he probably meant eyes or nose, he just said wherever because that was a quick response for the moment because he couldn't think of any other body part, how could he be talking about her lady parts if he couldn't think of that answer at the moment.


This is basically how many arguments of what Trump actually meant go down.Trump is so vague and people are basically arguing over nothing said. Implying what he meant based on their personal biases. Which is why many of these arguments lead to no where and nothing gets solved.

 

Trump is also very good at using these vague statements to infuriate his critics. They get all outraged and spend a lot of time arguing with each other over what they are implying that Trump meant. When you hear Conservatives talking about how Trump plays Liberals like a musical instrument, this is one of his tactics they are referring to. Like I've always said and this is rooted in psychological fact - is that outrage (hatred) blinds you. The chemical reaction in your brain going on when you're outraged will influence your behavior and make you basically start making poor decisions. Trump knows exactly what's he's doing. Maybe it's not so much of what he's actually saying that matters, but how he says it and his intentions of saying it. If you're constantly outraged by what Trump says and spend all sorts of time obsessed with his Tweets then that's exactly what Trump wants. He's playing you. It's sort of like the Liberals trying to redefine words with no logical basis other then doing so to push their agenda. It's psychological warfare, except Trump is on a much higher level then the Liberals are. Renaming, outlawing or redefining words are like level 2 in world 1 when Trump's beaten the game twice and is replaying it currently on level 483.

You've also got to realize that Trump isn't a traditional politician. His tweets aren't edited by a team of 20 members or pre-written and read off of a teleprompter. It's unprofessional, but he's not part of the PC culture that requires people to edit whatever they say because they are dishonest and won't speak their mind and tell you how they really feel. So sometimes he says stupid shit and offends people. I rather have a President that's honest and makes mistakes them some plastic PC piece of shit. He's unique in that fashion. I'm sick of tired of being lied to by Liberals and rather have someone that makes honest mistakes in office. At least he's fighting for America and not trying to rip up the Constitution and turn us into Venezuela (or worse).

As per today's testimony. It really came down to these two questions. The impeachment is supposed to be for quid pro quo - does this witness do anything to prove the Liberals case?

 

You fail to grasp the reasoning in the same way several Republicans during the hearing failed to.

Back in April, she was suddenly subjected to a smear campaign by Giuliani and two associates of his which resulted in her removal. Whilst it's not fully clear why this happened, during the hearing she made clear that the act of witholding funding in exchange for digging up dirt on Biden (which is what the investigation is about and what Volker, her successor, did do) is something she would refuse to do since it's illegal.

The reason she's being heard is because there's a not-insubstantial argument to be made that Giuliani ran the smear campaign so she could be replaced with a more Trump-sympathetic person (Volker although he also picked eggs for his money), to ensure that they could do the illegetimate acts that make up the impeachment hearing without her standing in the way as a roadblock.

 

That's her side of the story. Modern smear campaigns (aka "cancelling") by ignorant Liberals is more harsh and unfair (and publicly accepted) then being fired for not doing your job the way your boss wants you to. It also has zero relevance nor can prove there was any quid pro quo. It would be an entire different ball game if she had been fired for actually personally witnessing any actually illegal and impeachable offenses and then trying to expose the President. If that was the case I would have called her a good witness. What you're doing is stretching and reaching because you have no evidence of any actual impeachable offenses. Actually, both witnesses this week had no evidence of any. It's like basing your entire case on hearsay when you have no first hand knowledge of what happened - oh wait, that's what is actually happening. I've been to court many times over the years and I've never run into a Judge that would take "I overheard people talking about something they overheard" as credible evidence. So yes, since she had zero first hand knowledge of any quid pro quo - you know, the reason behind the 10th impeachment effort so far by the Liberals, I'd say she was a really useless witness. I also don't have it wrong. I understand exactly why she was called into the stage. She's more of a character witness that's there to gain sympathy and make Trump look bad. Looking bad doesn't mean you're actually guilty of anything though.

 

The point is to establish the ambassador for Ukraine was systematically replaced by someone more pro-Trump. This entire incident took place before the phone call, she wasn't fired for "not doing her job". They probably replaced her because they knew she wouldn't stick to the withholding aid when it would come up and decided to plant someone who would there to make sure it wouldn't become an issue.

Hearsay is not relevant yet or here.

The current proceedings are investigation based, which means you're absolutely allowed to investigate on things originating from something that would be hearsay.

The actual articles of impeachment and the subsequent vote will use more concrete evidence (such as that gathered from witnesses in both open and closed hearings) rather than the original complaint.

To put it in another way; if I hear someone say "Bob is gonna murder his girlfriend tonight" and I out of concern call the cops on Bob to make sure his girlfriend is protected, the cops are essentially going on hearsay. That said, since the cops aren't in court at that point, they're just investigating a claim made by me, they're absolutely allowed to go and arrest and question Bob.

In this case, what we're seeing now is the investigative phase. Hearsay as a legal argument is not considered valid at this stage, since this is not the judgemental phase.

 

Which is pure speculation with no basis in reality. I personally support Trump replacing any diplomat that isn't loyal to him. Seeings as the two main people involved, both of which are Presidents of entire countries mutually agree there was no quid pro quo the entire 10th impeachment effort will end up like the previous 9. I don't care about speculative theory or how some people interpreted what they overheard. You're acting like it's some major conspiracy when it was a normal phone call between two Presidents. If there was any proof that Trump was planning on bribing the President and fired her because she expressed concern that would be an entirely separate issue that I would agree would make a good case against Trump, but she testified that she has zero evidence about any bribes or any illegal activity. So she has nothing to prove that Trump had her fired over the entire issue. She's simply pissed off because she got fired. You can continue to be fooled by the Liberals approach, which is fine, it just shows that you are making a poor decision as there's no basis in reality for it. There's no facts to support your speculation. If there were she would have put them on the table. It's pretty clear cut - she has zero evidence against Trump. So she turned out to be a bad witness for the Liberals and a good one for the people who don't support this current attempt.

Yet, if the police were to waste their time protecting Bob's girlfriend and investing him and there was no actual threat made because you don't like that Bob is dating your ex-girl friend and all of this is based on what you claimed you overheard someone else (not Bob himself saying) you'd be on the hook for filing a false report. There would also be no arrest unless the police could prove that Bob actually threatened your ex-girlfriend and could prove intent. So unless Bob confessed he threatened her and meant it, his girlfriend claimed he did or if there was a recording that clearly records saying "I'm going to murder her tonight" it would go nowhere. I'm pretty sure the police won't like the fact you lied to him and will probably treat you like the boy who cried wolf the next time you try to lie to them again. The funny part is the next time it might be your life on the line and since you tried to manipulate the system they might just simply ignore you and you'll end up dead.

I realize there is a transcript of the call, but the transcript isn't clear cut and the Liberals are twisting what the President said to make it look like there was quid pro quo. I read it with an open mind, because after all no one is perfect and Trump makes mistakes (I don't worship him, he doesn't fill my mind all day long, I don't blame him for everything in life that goes wrong, he's not God), but there was no clear cut evidence of bribery and thus far the only thing the Liberals have is "what some people overheard and how they interpreted it", which can easily be reputed by asking the actual two people involved (who happen to be Presidents) "what happened"? What other people think happened doesn't matter to me.

It's like back in High school when a friend of mine told me he overheard two girls saying that they overheard one of their friends saying she was into me. What did I do? I went up to the girl that might be into me and asked her if it was true. I don't really care what a bunch of gossiping morons have to say. Schiff and the Liberals are like the bully you used to play kick ball with as a 5 year old that would constantly change the rules of the game so they he would always win. Impeachment wasn't intended to be use a premeditated tactic to remove a President out of office based on the sole fact that your side lost the election and refuse to accept the results. When Obama won his election I simply told myself "I voted and my side lost, Obama is the new President of the USA and I'm going to respect him for that fact". I didn't go into denial and plan to overthrow him from the start by abusing a process meant for removing a President for actually doing something wrong. This entire 10th impeachment effort was planned from the begging because Liberals can't accept defeat and play by the rules of the game. If they tried this shit in a NFL Football Game they'd get their entire team kicked out of the organization.

I can't image playing against Liberal in Fortnite. Not only would they be using aimbots and still lose, but after the fact they'd try to claim there was a bug in the game and then spend the next 3 months trying to get me cancelled from social media and fired from my job.

 

It's not clear cut, only because Trump didn't outright say "investigate Biden or we don't give you money" on the call but sugar-coated it in a mob thread.

I've said it elsewhere, but Trump essentially made a very transparent mafia-esque threat. "I'd like you to do us a favor" is not a thing with much interpretation if you've read any mafia novels or seen mafia movies (and for Trump -> his family has ties to the mob) and then having several people send to Ukraine to ensure an investigation is started before the money gets handed over is a quid quo pro.

We don't just need to look at Trump here for the call. Giulianis, Sondland and all the others around him tell us much more about what actually happened and how it was intended. The White House made an active effort to cover up the call itself, Giuliani has been involved in notorious shifty deals, Volker outright came clean in his hearing because he didn't want to get scapegoated by Trump et al., the White House is actively telling it's own administration members to not testify.

They know they fucked up with this situation. Let me put it like this: The allegations made are really damn serious. Trump is facing impeachment charges. Now, the best way to respond would be complete openness. If it's all as horseshit of an investigation as Republicans claim it is, then they should show it. But instead, they're going on a full lockdown mode, not revealing anything and instead constantly complaining about non-existent procedural issues whilst telling everyone to shut the fuck up and not say anything.

Saying it's not a "quid pro quo" is incredibly disingenuous at this point.