Trump Impeachment: Public Hearings Have Begun

Discussion in 'World News, Current Events & Politics' started by IncredulousP, Nov 13, 2019.

Loading...
  1. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    3
    Sep 27, 2019
    United States
    Lindsey Graham is finally committing to investigating State dept communications with Bidens. Biden had a terrible performance in the debate this week. He is eroding the up-swell of support that was gained during the impeachment probe. Sanders and Warren have increased further.

    I guess if I was to consider the state of the others:

    I haven't understood the allure or reason of Pete Buttigieg. People will be better to back someone who has more experience than just a mayor. The only reason he's done well is because he's unknown, but the small amount of digging already has shown he's not going to garner African American support. Klobachar or Harris will be a better moderate candidate choice. Booker is likely not going to make it to the next debate as he's capped out in funding and narrowly squeezed through. Yang may stay in the race until the spring but there are already two far left candidates who haven't lost any support thus far.

    So now to bring things back into focus:

    I am looking at how the impeachment inquiry would impact the democratic primary. Klobachar, Harris, Booker, Sanders, Warren (I'll add Biden as he's going to take a harder hit once a trial spends enormous effort doing political damage to distract people from the actual subject of the trial - unless Justice Roberts is given enough power to steer this trial away from becoming a circus where Russian propaganda will be aired openly and we start scrutinizing previous administration under the guise that Trump is 'concerned with corruption' defense. I can't see how that can be avoided as the cornerstone to his defense of 'perfect call' requires him to validate why it is legitimate for him to seek those investigations in the manner shown in the July 25th memorandum)

    The impact of this senate impeachment trial may come down to how much grassroots support do the senators listed above have that will go out and campaign on their behalf, in their absence, in the early battleground states and primarily in the south. I'd expect the trial to be over sometime after super Tuesday. I'd expect republicans purposefully draw it out until then. If small dollar donations are any indication, Sanders and Warren will fare the best.

    The only wildcard in this entire process is funnily enough, Trump. His erratic nature doesn't make it easy to speculate. If the democrats were able to produce documents and testimony from senior staff or Rudy Giuliani then it would be over quickly (either the evidence would support or refute the current narrative).

    Perhaps it would behoove us to gain the testimony of Lev Parnas? I'd like to see Nunes question him under oath. I wonder if he has anything of substance to provide...
     
    Last edited by RationalityIsLost101, Nov 22, 2019 - Reason: Grammar Fix
    CallmeBerto and Xzi like this.
  2. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    3
    Sep 27, 2019
    United States
    Xzi likes this.
  3. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    11
    Nov 21, 2005
    United States
    The inquiry hearings may not be over just yet, unless Chairman Schiff and other Democrats on the Intel Committee choose to ignore the general House rules. Apparently H.R. 660 establishing the special rules for the impeachment inquiry did not displace a general House rule regarding the rights of the minority party to present witnesses. The general House rules were written and adopted by the Democrats earlier this year when they took the majority.

    [​IMG]
    [​IMG] 111111
     
  4. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    Member
    20
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    A number of the witnesses that have already testified were requested by Republicans. Though I agree that this should be far from over, as the testimony from several people implicates Pence, Pompeo, Bolton, among others in the scandal.

    It's not surprising that requests to hear from the initial whistleblower have been denied, AFAIK they're under federal witness protection and their complaint has been corroborated multiple times anyway. The request to have Hunter Biden testify is completely asinine, just as a request to have Trump Jr testify would be. There's nothing relevant to this process that either of them could tell us.
     
    Last edited by Xzi, Nov 23, 2019
    CallmeBerto and IncredulousP like this.
  5. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    11
    Nov 21, 2005
    United States

    I agree Hunter Biden as a witness is stupid. But he wasn't even on the Republicans' witness request list. The so-called 'initial whistleblower' may not have followed the requirements for protection under the act (by meeting and coordinating with Schiff's staff first). If witnesses can be called to establish that, then the whistleblower isn't a whistleblower at all, and isn't protected.

    We can only rely on what gets reported in the press, but afaik this was the witness list the Republicans submitted. Of course according to the rule cited in the letter, which was from yesterday before the last hearing ended, they can submit more. They should add Keith Kellogg, who just issued a public letter 3 days ago, at the least. Obviously some of these did testify as you said, but the others were presumably denied by Schiff.


    Devon Archer, the longtime business partner of Hunter Biden
    U.S Ambassador Kurt Volker
    Nellie Ohr, a former contractor for opposition research firm Fusion GPS
    Tim Morrison, the former top presidential advisor on Russia and Europe on the National Security Council
    David Hale, former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs
    Alexandra Chalupa, former Democratic National Committee staffer
    The anonymous "whistleblower"
    "All individuals" whom the whistleblower "relied upon" in drafting "his or her secondhand complaint"


    As for implicating Pence, Pompeo, Bolton, others, I guess you are speaking of Sondland's statement that they were in the loop and there was a quid pro quo. But he clarified, repeatedly, that the quid pro quo he was confident existed was with respect to Zelensky's desire for a direct call with the President, and an eventual meeting at the White House. Sondland made it clear as he could that the quid pro quo he knew of did not involve the defense aid. There's nothing wrong with a quid pro quo where foreign aid is concerned - that's standard. The Democrats have alleged all along that the impeachable quid pro quo was withholding the defense aid in exchange for an investigation into Biden. No witness established that beyond the level of assumption or belief.
     
    Last edited by Hanafuda, Nov 23, 2019
  6. monkeyman4412

    monkeyman4412 Gbatemp's moronic trash

    Member
    8
    Jun 16, 2016
    United States
    Darn, I can't come up with something edgy
    First off pargraph 1.
    Good job on spinning the story. Impeachment inquiry is happening specifically because of the whistle blower leak.
    Second off
    Good job on reading the Muller report, because you didn't. As a fyi to everyone, Robert Muller is not a Democrat, he is Republican. third issue, you claim (I say claim because, I don't know) Hillary colluded with foreign governments, (this I do know) while also ignoring Trump done the same. Why? because one of his pundents had asked for dirt on the DNC. Which implicates trump in the matter. Especially with his most recent saying that he would accept help from a foreign country, even by potentially illegal means. My source is the Muller Report, which if you haven't actually read the document, or at least skimmed it, you really lack context. Next point
    "I went into this thinking, "Well, it's setup, it's rigged, it won't be fair, they'll lie, they'll cheat and if they lose they'll refuse to accept the fact they lost, but maybe, just maybe Trump is actually guilty". You see, unlike the Liberals I deal with reality, logic and facts. So far based on these things that I value the Democrats have not produced any solid evidence. All they have so far is circumstantial, hearsay and assumptions. Stupid people like @Xzi and @Ev1l0rd are the reason why the Liberals are getting away with this shit."
    this has a absurd amount of logical fallacies. last line is ad hominem, or attacking the person rather than the argument.
    Second piece. "So far based on these things that I value the Democrats have not produced any solid evidence. All they have so far is circumstantial, hearsay and assumptions."
    this is a gross generalization, another logical fallacy, as you generalize them again.. And you've ignored any facts they have supplied, and nor have you properly argued against those facts. Often using a straw man or red hearing fallacy argument.
    Third point you lack understanding of how hers say works, and even then, this is a inquiry, not a court. Which inquiry have a different stature that courts. Hence why often both sides are grand standing in the inqury.
    third paragraph. Is red haring, you separate from your original argument, and use that as your conclusion.
    four paragraph, uses another fallacy, hasty generalization. Claiming every liberal is a cheat, sore loser, and a liar. While there can be one or two that do such things, not all do.
     
    Last edited by monkeyman4412, Nov 23, 2019
    Ev1l0rd and RationalityIsLost101 like this.
  7. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    3
    Sep 27, 2019
    United States
    I think the best method for republicans to pursue this (aside from the whistleblower witness) is actually via Senate Judiciary Committee. Otherwise I don't know how much traction their defense will gain until this goes to the senate.

    Unrelated:

    I marvel at Lindsey Graham's then/now. This was something from his campaign trail from the last republican primary.

    https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1197837291554775040
     
  8. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    11
    Nov 21, 2005
    United States
    They can call any witness they like if it gets to the Senate. This is about their right, per the rules, to present witnesses now.

    If you're suggesting that House Dems will vote yes on articles of impeachment regardless of the evidence, you may be right. If you're suggesting the Democrats have already made an ironclad case that can't be touched ... you seriously aren't suggesting that are you?


    Even Jonathan Turley, the very liberal Constitutional Law expert, Georgetown Law School Professor, etc., said this morning on CBS that the Democrats did NOT make a case to justify articles of impeachment and maybe this whole thing was intentionally designed to fail (which would mean it was only done for political effect). I don't agree with his analysis, but I do agree with his conclusion.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Turley
    https://www.youtube. com/watch?v=TLbCmFtYOsc



    John McCain died. I don't know how true it may be, but I've heard for years that McCain had Graham's balls in a vise.



    tell us then, how does it work?
     
    Last edited by Hanafuda, Nov 23, 2019
  9. monkeyman4412

    monkeyman4412 Gbatemp's moronic trash

    Member
    8
    Jun 16, 2016
    United States
    Darn, I can't come up with something edgy
    source?
    because
    https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th...osponsors?q={"search":["H.Res.+660"]}&r=1&s=8
    I am not finding that document.
     
  10. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    11
    Nov 21, 2005
    United States
  11. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    3
    Sep 27, 2019
    United States
  12. monkeyman4412

    monkeyman4412 Gbatemp's moronic trash

    Member
    8
    Jun 16, 2016
    United States
    Darn, I can't come up with something edgy
    I am asking about your source, as what I linked was what you claimed as H.R. 660
    But the paper says it's H.Res. Which is a house resolution, different from a H.R
    And I checked under H.R 660 and it was a similar issue. What you claim that paper is, does not match at all to what the papers are on the site.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    https://www.congress.gov/bill/116th-congress/house-resolution/660/cosponsors it doesn't match with the signed page.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    Nor does the date for that matter.
     
  13. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    11
    Nov 21, 2005
    United States
    660 is just the procedural rules the House passed for the inquiry. But there are general rules of the House which supersede and control over all Committee hearings. I'm not sure exactly how or whether special rules like 660 can 'opt out' of the general rules, but apparently since 660 doesn't specifically displace the general rule about the right of the minority party to present witnesses of their choosing, the general rule controls.

    In other words, Schiff's rules have a hole in them.
     
    Last edited by Hanafuda, Nov 23, 2019
  14. monkeyman4412

    monkeyman4412 Gbatemp's moronic trash

    Member
    8
    Jun 16, 2016
    United States
    Darn, I can't come up with something edgy
    My point I'm making is the signed page, and the date, to what you claim that paper is, does not match up.
     
  15. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    11
    Nov 21, 2005
    United States

    Well the source for the images I posted are Rep. Kevin McCarthy's twitter.

    https://twitter.com/GOPLeader/status/1197542482927636483


    When did I "claim it" to be anything?? It's a letter from the House Intel Republicans to Schiff.
     
    Last edited by Hanafuda, Nov 23, 2019
  16. monkeyman4412

    monkeyman4412 Gbatemp's moronic trash

    Member
    8
    Jun 16, 2016
    United States
    Darn, I can't come up with something edgy
  17. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    3
    Sep 27, 2019
    United States
    I think @Hanafuda was presenting that letter and then referring to HR660 to open up discourse about the letter as it is referenced in that letter.

    However, I'm going to stop butting in as I may be misunderstanding this entirely.
     
  18. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    11
    Nov 21, 2005
    United States

    My brain's starting to hurt a bit now.

    Yeah, I never said the jpg images I posted up there was HR660. It's a letter from the House Intel Republicans to Schiff, informing him that HR660 as written does not 'displace' the general House rule guaranteeing the minority party the right to present witnesses of their choosing. I suppose that's something that could've been written into HR660, but they didn't. And the letter was presented to the Chair (Schiff) before the end of yesterday's hearing, so their request to call additional witnesses is timely.

    Nifty. Now let's see if Schiff follows the Rules, or violates them.


    How does hers say work?
     
    Last edited by Hanafuda, Nov 23, 2019
  19. cots

    cots GBAtemp Maniac

    Member
    9
    Dec 29, 2014
    United States
    Sonland never talked to Pence about the issue before the meeting he attended that Pence was present in, during the meeting or after the meeting. He simply said something to Pence and Pence nodded. He never mentioned quid pro joe in front of Pence. Seeings as Pence never said a word to the assumptive idiot there's no proof what so ever Pence had any idea about any sort of quid pro quo. The Democrats are really desperate and their party members are fucking dumb, blind and deaf sheep. Of course this is @Xzi we're talking about. So you're really wasting your time trying to talk any logic into his hate filled pee brain.

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    *yawn*

    — Posts automatically merged - Please don't double post! —

    The Democrats run the house. They make up their own rules as they go along. The question is if they'll follow their own rules they've made. Which is easy to answer. When they lose the bitch about the rules they agreed to, won't admit or accept defeat and then try to have the rules changed. So it's simple. They're not going to play by the rules. They never have and never will. It'll take the Republicans to bitch slap them back into reality. Seeings as this entire impeachment effort was planned from the get go I'm not really sure if evidence matters to them. Not to say any of the evidence presented clearly implicates Trump's guilt. Seeings as how Sonland can simply state something and people take it as fact after he admits he's just making assumptions I have a real lack of faith in the people involved in this process.
     
    Last edited by cots, Nov 23, 2019
  20. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    11
    Nov 21, 2005
    United States
    Well @cots, I'll pass on the personal vitriol. I disagree with @Xzi on political issues, but there's more to life. Really. And we're just people at home on Friday night at a keyboard instead of somewhere better. I'm a middle-aged dude with a teenaged daughter out on a date, waiting up till she gets home, so at least I have an excuse lol. But we all here get our one measly vote, and I expect everyone to cast it. (Just one each though, you wascally Democrats ;) )

    Point being, we're all just venting thoughts here, debating if you will ... but it doesn't matter for shit. What will happen will happen, regardless of what we say to each other here on a vidya board of ill repute. :yaysp:
     
Quick Reply
Draft saved Draft deleted
Loading...