Trump Impeachment: Public Hearings Have Begun

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

Loading...
  1. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    11
    Nov 21, 2005
    United States

    Bullshit. You're inferring what you want to get out of his expressions of opinion. But Stefanik asked, point blank: Do you have any evidence of quid pro quo? NO. Do you have any evidence of bribery? NO. Do you have any evidence of treason? NO.

    They're just offended that the President cut through their gravy and exerted policy straight from the horse's mouth. But even Vindman yesterday acknowledged that the President makes foreign policy, not the procedures and not the advisors. And that the President has the authority to cut through the protocol and make policy on the fly, and even has the authority to request of a foreign power that an American suspected of wrongdoing in that nation be investigated. He complains the President should've followed the procedures they have for initiating such an investigation, but the authority is there. And he also acknowledged that the Biden situation at least has the potential of corruption worth investigating.
     
    CallmeBerto and cots like this.
  2. cots

    cots GBAtemp Maniac

    Member
    9
    Dec 29, 2014
    United States
    But, but, opinions about how you feel about the issue and second hand hearsay is much more valuable then any actual proof or solid evidence, especially after admitting you have no evidence /s
     
    CallmeBerto likes this.
  3. UltraDolphinRevolution
    This message by UltraDolphinRevolution has been removed from public view by DinohScene, Nov 20, 2019, Reason: Rubbish.
    Nov 20, 2019
  4. cots
    This message by cots has been removed from public view by DinohScene, Nov 20, 2019, Reason: Rubbish.
    Nov 20, 2019
  5. Ev1l0rd
    This message by Ev1l0rd has been removed from public view by DinohScene, Nov 20, 2019, Reason: Rubbish.
    Nov 20, 2019
  6. UltraDolphinRevolution
    This message by UltraDolphinRevolution has been removed from public view by DinohScene, Nov 20, 2019, Reason: Rubbish.
    Nov 20, 2019
  7. UltraDolphinRevolution
    This message by UltraDolphinRevolution has been removed from public view by DinohScene, Nov 20, 2019, Reason: Rubbish.
    Nov 20, 2019
  8. cots
    This message by cots has been removed from public view by WeedZ, Nov 20, 2019.
    Nov 20, 2019
  9. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    3
    Sep 27, 2019
    United States
    Just FYI David Holmes testimony - First hand knowledge, Has President's own words. You can selectively ignore all the evidence presented thus far but there is a reason Whitehouse has stonewalled with producing any documents and no cabinet members have come forward. The reason is to allow this slim defense to stand despite the information that has already come out to the public.
     
  10. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    3
    Sep 27, 2019
    United States
    I think people are genuinely misunderstanding the impeachment hearing of presenting fact witness vs having them assert their own legal opinion. Our congressional officials are the ones who make the charge. Republicans or Democrats who ask legal defining terms will not be getting satisfactory answers from these witnesses.

    George Kent summed this up quite succinctly when he told Nunes, I'm here to present the facts and your job, congressman, is to interpret them.

    Also, did anyone else notice that Lev Parnas was present in a meeting w/ Rudy and Volker per Volker's testimony? I sure did.
     
    Ev1l0rd likes this.
  11. cots

    cots GBAtemp Maniac

    Member
    9
    Dec 29, 2014
    United States
    So I'm watching it on ABC News. Kinda funny how they have all of these pre-setup info screens with pictures and charts for the Democrats testimony, but for some reason they forget to go all out and make any for the R-Nunes. Kinda shows where their priorities lie. I mean, everyone loves fancy looking infographics, yeah, not working on me. If it were fair they'd have created them for the Republicans.

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

    I understand that Congress decides based on the testimony with a vote on what to do. So far the Democrats have no produced any evidence that would make me vote to impeach Trump if I were a member of Congress. Though, this guy testifying now has stated he believes there was quid pro quo. He's straight up said so twice so far. He also said he's still not sure to this day as to why the aid with withheld, just that he believes it was over Biden. He was never given an official reason.

    Edit: Yeah, ABC has prior knowledge of what is being testified. They're syncing their infographics, pictures, etc ... straight with the testimony. So much for fairness. Shit is rigged.
     
    Last edited by cots, Nov 20, 2019
  12. UltraDolphinRevolution

    UltraDolphinRevolution GBAtemp Advanced Fan

    Member
    5
    Jul 30, 2016
    China
    How was Ukraine meddling in US elections?
    Anyway the military aid is directed against Russia, therefore it is in the (perceived) US interest.
     
    RationalityIsLost101 likes this.
  13. urherenow

    urherenow GBAtemp Psycho!

    Member
    9
    Mar 8, 2009
    United States
    Japan
    TL;DR
    Some of you seem to be parroting what you hear on <pick your biased news source> without knowing what you're talking about. I'd personally like to see this law that states a whistle-blower has anonymity, because I have heard of no such law. A whistle-blower is protected against reprisal. But NO LAW can contradict the constitution. THAT requires an amendment, and the 6TH amendment GUARANTEES that you can FACE your accuser. How does that work with an anonymous whistle-blower? It doesn't. It CAN'T. So, no... shifty shiff is an idiot.

    Not that it would really matter. Every single thing the whistle-blower has to say is hearsay. The only 2 ACTUAL witnesses so far don't prove anything criminal, whether you like it or not. At best, it's pure OPINION on their part that kicks any dirt Trump's way, and impeachment requires HIGH crimes and misdemeanors. The whole thing is indeed a political theater. Even the house democrats know that the Senate will never remove this president, so this whole thing is nothing but a waste of tax dollars, and further excuse not to do their jobs. If you're taking the side of attacking Trump, why the heck aren't you attacking the Congress? Many things people are calling Trump a liar over because he promised things that haven't taken place... have already been taken care of on Trump's part AS PROMISED. The house dems focused on this crap is what's holding it all up. The deal with Mexico, that Canada also folded into? About to collapse. Because the congress is not voting on it. Trump already did the damn work.

    Love him or hate him, he's the only person getting things done. I don't care for him as an individual, but I will vote for him next year.
     
    Last edited by urherenow, Nov 20, 2019
  14. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    3
    Sep 27, 2019
    United States
    That's an interpretation to what you want 'done'. Others would like many house resolutions to go to the senate floor and hold a vote. But discussing this is getting off-topic.
     
  15. cots

    cots GBAtemp Maniac

    Member
    9
    Dec 29, 2014
    United States
    Wanting to face your accuser is not off topic when you're dealing with an entire inquiry based on someone accusing you of something. It sounds fair to me. Though, this isn't technically a court case so I'm not sure if that law would apply in this situation. It's just kinda shady to start this entire thing based on something someone overheard, but then not give the opposition the ability to question the person who supposedly overheard the stuff.

    As for the current testimony it's not looking good for Trump's defense. I do however wonder how much it's costing the Democrats to rent out ABC News.
     
  16. WeedZ

    WeedZ Possibly an Enlightened Being

    Moderator
    14
    Jan 13, 2015
    United States
    The State of Denial
    This isn't a trial. You face your accuser during a trial, not an investigation. As far as this being theater, it was the Republicans that were complaining that their investigations weren't public, that trump hasn't had the opportunity to see who outed him (which he shouldnt be able until a trial, because things like witness intimidation exists).

    So, they put it to vote to have a public inquiry. And every coward Republican voted against it. Because it's not about what's good for the American people, its what's good for your party, which can be completely contradictory from one moment to the next. None of these people have any integrity.
     
  17. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    3
    Sep 27, 2019
    United States
    Please reread my response. I made no position on what you are discussing and haven't decided to do so.
     
  18. cots

    cots GBAtemp Maniac

    Member
    9
    Dec 29, 2014
    United States
    You claimed that what he posted was off-topic and it wasn't. It just makes sense to be able to question the person supposedly responsible for starting the entire thing. So it's not off topic regardless if you have a position on the issue or not. My position is it makes sense to question the person responsible for the original accusations. Oh well. Renting ABC News. An entire news channel and a live broadcast with fancy pre-rendered slides, infographics, pictures all synced and coordinated that goes on for hours on end. That must cost a lot of money. I wonder how many days of planning was put into this. I wonder how many days ABC has been sitting on what was going to be said.
     
    Last edited by cots, Nov 20, 2019
  19. WeedZ

    WeedZ Possibly an Enlightened Being

    Moderator
    14
    Jan 13, 2015
    United States
    The State of Denial
    That's not what's happening. I checked 3 different networks hosting the stream. The graphics are being done before it reaches network.
     
  20. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    3
    Sep 27, 2019
    United States
    I will expand to help explain further, 'This' that I am referring to are specific policies or proposed bills. I'm saying that if I was to pursue further discussion by listing individual house resolutions I would be steering off topic and anyone who would engage with me would as well.
     
  21. cots

    cots GBAtemp Maniac

    Member
    9
    Dec 29, 2014
    United States
    Okay, so the Democrats have had prior knowledge of everything and have the stuff ready to go. Same question though. I wonder how many days have they've known what was going to be said? I mean, it takes a little bit of time to get all of this setup. I guess it would be cheaper to produce it yourself. But like, they had all of the emails and texts ready to be put up so they had some prior knowledge of what he was going to answer meaning they also knew what was going to be asked. So it's rigged. The Republicans get their 45 mins next. I wonder if we'll see fancy pre-rendered stuff, pictures, charts, emails for their questions? This sucks. If everything was planned and setup then it's just a show. I kinda wasn't expecting that.

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

    Okay, sorry, I misunderstood you.

    Edit: So far Sonland seems honest enough, but he really has a shit memory. He openly admits that he has no proof of "quid pro quo" and that's he's only speculating that there was. I'm not sure if I believe his educated guess just yet. I mean it's fits into the narrative, but he narrative is being created by the Democrats which apparently pre-planned the entire broadcast/testimony. "I do not recall" LOL.
     
    Last edited by cots, Nov 20, 2019
  22. Ev1l0rd

    Ev1l0rd (⌐◥▶◀◤) Developer - noirscape

    Member
    11
    Oct 26, 2015
    Netherlands
    Site 19
    Or maybe it's because this is the second time Sondland is testifying about these facts, except it's now open hearings because it's now an official impeachment hearing.
     
  23. cots

    cots GBAtemp Maniac

    Member
    9
    Dec 29, 2014
    United States
    Yeah I realize that so they planned out the testimony and prepared the material before hand. Meaning, they knew exactly what he was going to say. His testimony was planned. I mean, that's smart and all, but it kinda brings down the hole "answering questions on the spot" honestly factor. They had it all worked out before he even sat down.

    Anyway, update to what's happening. Sonland is saying there is quid pro quo, but can't say for certain why the aid was being withheld and it's just his guess it was over Biden. So it's he has no proof, it's just what he thinks happened. Seeings how the MSM painted the narrative he could simply be buying into it. I guess the Democrats are preventing the person who handles the actual foreign aid money from publicly testifying. He's the only one that can say for certain why the money was being withheld as he was responsible for withholding it. The MSM also is running with his "everyone was in the loop" comment claiming that a lot of people were involved in the quid pro quo and knew about it including Pence, but that's a big misrepresentation of what he said. There was no one else "in the loop" that knew Sonland was assuming there was quid pro quo. He never voiced that to any of his colleagues. Nice to see the MSM spin-masters at work. Congress is taking a 30 minute break for now (peoples gotta eat). I guess if you trust Sonlands judgement you could claim there is quid pro quo, but I've made up my mind. If he has no idea why the money was being withheld there's no way he can prove his claims. It's just his guess. The only way I'd agree with him is if someone could tell us exactly why the aid was being withheld. If it was because of Biden then there is quid pro quo. If it was because of trust issues with the Ukraine Government or other legitimate issues then there was no quid pro quo.

    So far I can see how the Liberals could use this to their advantage, but someones "best guess" isn't good enough for me. It might be for you, but the red herring is the fact he's got no idea why the money was being withheld. Anyway, I can't keep my eyes open any longer. I'll read the transcript of the rest of the testimony when I wake up.
     
    Last edited by cots, Nov 20, 2019
  24. Ev1l0rd

    Ev1l0rd (⌐◥▶◀◤) Developer - noirscape

    Member
    11
    Oct 26, 2015
    Netherlands
    Site 19
    I mean, the only reason we're doing these hearings again is because Republicans kept publicly whining about them being initially private. Of course the Democrats are going to repeat the same questions as before, they know what they wanted to know and this is just to ensure the public knows as well.

    For the Republicans the only reason these hearings are public is so they can publicly cry foul of the investigation or cast doubt on witnesses, I don't think I've seen any single one of them ask a single meaningful question so far to get information on the case (which makes sense since the party line rn is to downplay the incident.)
     
  25. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    3
    Sep 27, 2019
    United States
    If congress gained access to relevant documents and had the involved senior staff along with the president testifying (even in writing), this would wrap up quite quickly. That's just my perspective. If he's innocent and as smart as he says he is, he should have no problem avoiding simple perjury traps and proving to the American people that there is nothing to be concerned with.
     
  26. Taleweaver

    Taleweaver Storywriter

    Member
    14
    Dec 23, 2009
    Belgium
    Belgium
    So... Sondland's testifying. Those claiming that democrats have nothing can now start undermining his credentials (despite his testification being backed up by the other ones).

    Trump, meanwhile, tries distancing himself by saying he doesn't know Sondland (his own EU diplomat) that well. Anyone going to believe that statement?.... Anyone? :creep:
     
    Xzi and Ev1l0rd like this.
Quick Reply
Draft saved Draft deleted
Loading...