Trump Impeachment: Public Hearings Have Begun

Really? (watch from 4:00)



And for that matter, watch from 0:58


Ambassador Taylor is asked about how he reached his "clear understanding"

 

I'd disagree that he's a star witness for republicans:

He consented that the July 25th call's request to investigate the Bidens was inappropriate and disturbing.
That Biden acted in good faith with no conflict of interest.
That Guiliani was an obstacle in executing foreign policy.
He also wasn't present on majority of instances that alleged quid-pro-quo was presented in the testimony of other officials.

Notice she only asked Volker of his opinion of the readout. That's not the same as the memorandum. The feedback of the call by Ukraine is again not the same as the memorandum. She specifically framed it to not have his opinion. This opinion was presented by Volker in other parts of the testimony. Its worth noting that she could have purposed that line of questioning to only obtain info that he had first-hand during the development of these events.

I guess I can concede that these are probably the two most supportive witnesses to Trump's defense that I am aware of, with reservation of Sondland as his testimony tomorrow is a tossup.

 

Yes, really. He didn't use the terms quid pro quo or bribery specifically, but that's exactly what he describes in his amended testimony. He changed it to protect himself from being charged with perjury.

Pathetic soapboxing. He already knew the answers to those questions, since Yovanovitch was ousted from her position beforehand to make room for Giuliani's ratfuckery. Vindman is the guy with firsthand knowledge of the call, since he was personally on the line while it happened.

 

I realize that the Democrats are trying to spin a tale, but I find the Republicans direct line of questioning more valuable then dancing around a subject. What do you think of the Republicans method of directly asking all of the witnesses thus far if they have any actual evidence of quid pro quo, collusion or crimes? They've all answered that they have no evidence. The Democrats are basing their house impeachment by claiming Trump is guilty of these things that their witnesses are saying they've never witnessed. If their witnesses openly admit to having no evidence because they've not witnessed anything that proves Trump did anything that they are claiming is impeachable then what use are they? I mean, what's the use of a witness to a crime if they didn't witness any crimes?

That's like I'm being accused of slandering someone using a racial slur, the prosecutor calls a witness that is supposed to testify they heard me using the racial slur, but then when my defense asks the witness if they heard me using the racial slur the witness says "no". Can you see how I am confused on how that would prove that I used a racial slur?

 

The first two videos are exactly what I've posted about - the fact these witnesses have zero evidence of any quid pro quo or crimes. A witness that didn't witness anything is a pretty useless witness.

Taylor seems honest up until he's asked to clarify the multiparty conversation, but I think anyone would be confused on trying to juggle what multiple people were discussing in any situation like that. I believe everything he said up until being "clear" as he couldn't provide a reason what made it become "clear' to him. I'm a good judge of honesty especially if I see the face of the person talking and he seems honest enough and he's not lacking when it comes to the confidence department. He's the kind of guy that I would want working for me. The Congressman asking the questions seems a bit annoyed he's having to ask them and is confident in his line of questioning. He seems honest, but not too familiar with the facts (he has to keep reading them, but maybe this is because the facts are such complete nonsense he rather not memorize them?) He's also kinda pushy. Not sure if I'd want him as a team mate. Schiff is looking shifty like usual. He has the eyes of a pathetic coward and a scared look on his face 24/7. His lack of confidence is surely showing with his careful shaky body motions. I'd feel sorry for him and might think the stress and publicity is too much if he was honest, but since he's a liar it just makes sense that he's acting like he is. I can't blame him for being scared though. He's running a shit show and doesn't want it to blow up in his face. Cowards are all the same. I definitely wouldn't want to associate with someone like him. He's weak and frail and not because of age and illness - it's a reflection of his personality. He'd wouldn't last 10 minutes on the street.

Thanks for posting the videos. It's good for people to be able to see and Judge for themselves as opposed to simply reading interpretations on websites. This is why I ignored all of the cherry picked information being purposely leaked from the closed door sessions because then you don't only have liars like CNN twisting facts, but the original facts themselves are twisted and there's no proof to back any of it up. At least least I get the chance to see and judge for myself. I have an open mind. If the Democrats produce a witness that has actually witnesses a crime then I might support impeachment (if they look honest and all). So far that has yet to happen (and that's not my interpretation as the witnesses have been directly asked if they've witnessed any crimes and have answered that they have not).

 

Tha media isnt a homogeneous body. And as with all things taboo, once you start to dissect them they stop working. Thats the whole thing behind the Pepe the frog meme, remember? Induce people to use taboo topics as if they were ironically deconstructing them - thereby disabling the taboo.

Once you come into 'but well there is an edge case' and 'what he actually meant' territory theres always room to push for a little more.

If you need specific definitions on white supremacy, law and a few scientifc fields should be able to provide them. But for the purpose of societal taboos - you don't need specific. You basically need everyone to have an unfaltering 'feel'. You want, that people can get into the vicinity of maybe even getting wrongly accused, so they dont get near even arguing in this matters. Thats how taboos work.

Thats also why we dont have many of them.

 

I just wish people would stop overusing terms like racism, gas lighting and white supremacy. Heck, even the word socialism is applied broadly to things that aren't even considered under it's definition. Overusing/abusing words only allows you to manipulate the uneducated for so long and the result is that these words become background noise and thus allow for real racism, gas lighting and white supremacy to go unchecked. For someone who's supposedly against such things by manipulating the terms you're only causing the issues to backfire on you and thus allowing more of them to happen. After hearing you cry wolf for so long no one is going to take you seriously. Imagine the wisdom that is contained in that child's story is even valid to this day.

 

I'll admit I didn't get to hear Volkers hearing completely, but what stood out to me is that they only asked those questions to the secondary witnesses that were used to establish and get a grip on the background for the scandal.

They didn't ask those questions to Vindman from what I recall anyway, instead generally opting to cast doubt on his loyalty or just complain about the process again.

 

I understand the need to present what you're calling the background, but at some point in time you're going to have to present some actual proof otherwise you've set up the stage for nothing as you have no actual content to put on it. Seeings as these hearings are almost over I'd hope for the Democrats sake that if they want to make their case they have someone that has actually witnessed what they are claiming Trump is guilty of. A foundation for a house is useless unless you have an actual house to put on it. Though, what has been presented so far wouldn't really hold up anything you'd try to build on it.

 

Precisely. They only ask those questions when they already know the answers. It's similar to how they criticized the witnesses early on for not being close with or having talked with the president directly, knowing full well that the White House had ordered everyone close to him to ignore subpoenas. Unfortunately these types of underhanded tactics do work on low-information voters who have the attention span of gnats, but that's a group which was already largely cemented as part of the Republican base anyway.

 

Uh... Did you watch yesterday's hearings?

I'm reading back summaries, but even without those, Vindman was a direct listener in on the call and to quote him directly: "That maybe, in certain regards, my worst fear of how our Ukraine policy could play out was playing out, and how this was likely to have significant implications for U.S. national security." While Jeniffer Williams, an advisor to Pence who also listened in to the call (so someone who would be on the Republicans side here) described the call as "unusual and inappropriate", which is the closest you're ever going to get to a Republican who is active within the administration on such a close level to Trump to say "he's guilty".

The background has been set with Yovanovitch, Talor and Kent. Vindman and from what I am reading back Volker (who updated his testimony again to explain that at the time he did not connect Burisma with Biden and only realised it after his second hearing) as well are direct witnesses to the entire incident and have claimed in all but an outright "he should be impeached" that Trump committed impeachable offenses and Vindman specifically noted that if Trump were a military officer, he'd be court martialed for a similar act.

 

So the Republicans know that the Democratic witnesses don't have any evidence and are asking them to testify as such. So you're right - the Republicans are only asking those questions when they already know the answers. Republicans know they don't have any evidence so having them admit by testifying seems to be a perfect way to show the public that they have no evidence. If there's no evidence then there's no case and no impeachment. Seems to be a very good way to go about doing things. I'm glad you're catching on.

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

Yes I did watch. Claiming something is "unusual and inappropriate" and then testifying you have no evidence of bribes or criminal activity is pretty self explanatory. So he thinks that the situation is "unusual and inappropriate". Okay, fine. He's entitled to think whatever he wants about it. Does he have any actual evidence of the crimes Trump is being accused of? No. Seems pretty cut and dry to me.

I could be called to court to testify that I witnessed a shooting. The prosecutor asks me what I think about the shooter. I say he's ugly and I'd never date him and he makes me feel scared. Then he asks me what happened during the shooting and I tell him I didn't see it. Well, I'm there to testify if I saw any actual crime not to testify what I think about something.

 

They know the second-hand witnesses don't have any evidence beyond what they've heard from others. As Ev1l0rd pointed out, they didn't ask such direct questions of Vindman, a first-hand witness, because they feared the answers would not be favorable to Trump. Really though none of the testimony, when taken as a whole and not in cherry-picked five-minute segments, has been favorable to him. Support for impeachment and removal from office has continued to rise steadily throughout the hearings.

 

That was Williams who has a vested interest in keeping her position in the White House and can't speak up too much, lest she gets sacked.

Vindman was much more vindicative (pun not intended) about Trumps actions on the call and the subsequent resulting actions. The evidence for Trumps actions is the phone call itself as well as the aid being cut.

To my knowledge no Republican this time went for the "do you have evidence for us" questioning line towards Vindman.

--

Completely unrelated -> what the fuck is wrong with Jim Jordan? It's almost like hearing a self-parody of a Trump supporter. I'll freely admit I look forward to his rambles in the hearings just because of how completely off-base it all is (call it a guilty pleasure) and how he barely questions the witnesses, but seriously, what the hell.

 

https://www.scribd.com/document/434064258/Vindman-pdf

He admits he wasn't sure if a crime had happened, but he thinks what happened wasn't right. So yeah, I think you're right. I couldn't find any direct question. I had it mixed up with the other two guys that got asked those questions. So I retract that point from my previous replies. He still however didn't claim straight out that Trump is guilty of anything, but I suppose what he had to say could be used to make the case that what Trump did was wrong. The Democrats still need to produce something more then "this is what I felt about it". It's too bad the Republicans didn't directly ask him for any evidence of Trump doing anything illegal. "How I feel about something" doesn't prove anything actually happened.

I also still disagree that the phone call transcript proved anything. There's no direct evidence of Trump leveraging aid. There's no direct statement from Trump saying that. You can pick and chose words and stuff and put them together, but if you read it from start to finish there's no quid pro quo. Plus, you've got two Presidents, you know, the actual people involved saying there was no quid pro quo. You'd think if there was the person being pressured would say something and admit there was. Whatever some bystanders thought of the exchange doesn't reflect what actually took place. The people making the all and dealing with each other, who happen to be Presidents get to decide that. That's like me watching two people have sex and then claiming it wasn't consensual when both of them say it was.

 

The thing is: it's not any one witness' job to define what does or doesn't constitute a crime committed by the president. It's meant to be the Department of Justice's job, but since they as an institution full of sycophants decided to refuse to do their duties, it falls to Congress and the impeachment process to decide whether his actions were criminal. That's what this whole thing is about, holding Trump accountable for those actions, regardless of whether they're ultimately deemed criminal or just plain unethical.

Probably needless to say, but I'm confident that any other president in history would've been removed from office for a lot less. It really is insane to think about how much the bar has been lowered as a result of the nation's first (and hopefully only) reality TV presidency.

 

The first part would actually make sense and be believable if this wasn't the 10th attempt in a premeditated attack to oust Trump from office that was planned from the start because the Liberal Democrats refused to accept the election results. So yeah, I'm skeptical as fuck. If the Liberals wouldn't have stated that they were going to impeach Trump before he was even if office and then this was brought up after the fact I'd be more supportive. However, this has been their plan all along and it's the fucking 10th attempt. I'm not sure why the public is allowing them to abuse the impeachment process like this. I mean, there is a slim chance that this time it'll stick and this time they actually have a case, but the entire thing stinks. I'm just glad that no matter what happens that I have a higher chance of winning the lotto then the Senate impeaching Trump. Per say if I do win millions and he is removed Pence is pretty hard core on Conservative issues, way more then Trump is. So no matter what happens I win.

 

There's been one, and only one impeachment inquiry. Most Democratic voters believed it should've happened much sooner, myself included, but that doesn't change the fact that it didn't. It's happening now. And sure, you can claim that Dems knew Trump would fuck up bad enough to qualify for impeachment, but nobody knew exactly when or how he would fuck up. The fact that he proved them right in the end just goes to show how staggeringly incompetent the man is, not to mention the people he has chosen to surround himself with.

Indeed there's a very slim chance he's removed from office. As some opinion pieces have pointed out, Nixon probably wouldn't have left office either if he had Fox News to defend and fellate him 24/7. At the very least, however, several purple state Republican senators are going to be stuck between a rock and a hard place when it comes time to vote.

On the off chance Trump is removed, Pence would be a lame duck for what little time he has left, and would be guaranteed to lose re-election without Trump's WWE-style personality to carry him. I'd hardly call that a "win" for Republicans. Rather it would be a massive national embarrassment which would stick in the minds of voters for decades.

 

Doesn't just sound like good advice but also a matter of etiquette/manners to me. I'm sure it'll get heated in the opposite way as well.

Tourist: hey...can I ask ya something?
Me: *uh oh* sure?
Tourist: so what's the deal with Wallonia? Is that, like...a region or something?
Me: erm...it's a "gewest". It's...yeah, it's a region. More or less.
Tourist: but they have their own government?
Me: erm...yes. So do we in Flanders.
Tourist: oh...so you're...different countries?
Tourist's wive: *makes face as she knows her husband*
Me: yyyyy...nnn...somewhat. Depends. In some areas. *looks for something that can serve as an exit*
Tourist: is there a global Belgian government?
Me: ...there will be. hopefully. We're currently going for another shot at world record 'government forming'.
Tourist: what? You don't have a government?
Me: *slow* no. We have many. Just not a federal one. yet
Tourist: but...why?
Me: ...
Me: LOOK OVER THERE! IT'S A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!!
Me: *runs for the hills*

 

This is the 10th impeachment attempt and the first impeachment inquiry. The previous 9 failed and didn't make it this far because they were just about as valid as the collusion hoax. No President should be subjected to premeditated impeachment efforts for simply winning an election. Pence is a lot more religious and has more solid faith based values and generally holds more Conservative views then Trump. Just like Reagan Trump used to be Democrat. Most honest people as they get older and start to think for themselves realize they've been lied to their entire life. Especially the ones that start making money to only find out the Liberals want to take it all away from them and then give it away to people that have no intention to contributing to society. Pence though, is a hard core Conservative.

I believe, like Obama, that the Liberal Democrats have gone too far left for their own good and that a more level headed Republican would have much more of a chance at winning in 2020 if Trump wasn't on the ballot. I mean, it's likely that Trump isn't going to get removed from office and will win again, that's unless the Democrats take Obama's advice and ditch the Liberal's that want to push extreme socialistic policies on a generally moderate leaning majority (who want nothing to do with socialism). I've read the communist manifesto. It's actually quiet entertaining because the Liberals are using it as playbook. Every one of the steps they are taking is clearly highlighted in it. Knowing their next move is beneficial as it gives us an advantage. Us being the actual Democrats, Republicans and Independents that love the USA and want to uphold the Constitution. We see through the Liberals trying to illegally import their ranks with people that could care less about our way of life.

So yeah, if for some highly unlikely reason Trump is removed from office Pence will make a good replacement. He'll honestly probably do a better job then Trump, but remember that his job will align with what the voters want and they don't want socialism. Another positive side effect of this 10th attempt that's likely to fail is that it's strengthening the support for Trump. Now, I don't care about polls that may or may not be accurate. I'm judging the response from the moderates and conservatives based on what I see and read and so far this 10th attempt has really helped Trump financially thus will allow him to fight the Democrats with more advertising for the 2020 election. I'm also an Independent and a lot of us are really upset about Congress playing these silly games. We actually gained a high ranking politician in the last week that WOKE up and left the Democratic party. Maybe someday we'll have a candidate in the primaries. A failed attempt will justify people who voted for him for doing so and just like the public backlash from the fact there was no collusion that turned voters on the edge towards Trump this attempt will likely have the same result. Either way it is a win for Republicans because no matter what happens they will still be in office until the 2020 election.