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

    Sondland says the quid pro quo, to the extent it existed, was for Zelensky's desire for a call with the President and a White House meeting. Had nothing to do with the aid package. And what the US wanted was transparent, honest investigations into Burisma (which had been a known problem since the Obama admin, which Yovanovitch confirmed) and whether Ukraine took part in any effort to influence the 2016 election. No mention of aid being conditioned on this. And Sondland interrupted Schiff later to say so, and also to say that when he spoke to the President directly and asked what he wanted from Ukraine, the President said Nothing, no quid pro quo .. just tell Zelensky to do the right thing. i.e., follow through on the anti-corruption platform he ran on to get elected. Sondland flatly responded "NO" to Schiff that the quid pro quo he knew of was in regard to the aid, and acknowledged to Turner that he only presumed that possibility.

    And yeah my mind was made up, because Sondland already said all this before.
     
    Last edited by Hanafuda, Nov 21, 2019
    cots likes this.
  2. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    Member
    20
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    Which is a necessary first step in legitimizing and showing support for a newly-elected Ukrainian president in the midst of a conflict with Russia.

    In which case the aid wouldn't have been delayed at all, let alone delayed until after the whistleblower complaint had been filed. That story doesn't jive with how things actually went down.

    If the focus was general corruption in Ukraine, one company is meaningless in the grand scheme of things. Not to mention the president wouldn't have been satisfied with only the public announcement of an investigation being opened, he would've wanted to be shown actual results.

    Vindman confirmed that Ukrainian meddling in the 2016 election was a baseless conspiracy theory. Not that we needed his confirmation; if they had meddled in the election on Clinton's behalf she'd be president now.

    So get Giuliani under oath, or that presumption stands as correct. Everybody already knows he was the "fixer" in this series of events, the guy who personally presented Ukraine with the conditions that had to be met before a meeting/phone call/release of aid would occur. Yovanovitch was ousted specifically to pave the way for Giuliani to make those types of moves on Trump's behalf.
     
    Last edited by Xzi, Nov 21, 2019
    Ev1l0rd likes this.
  3. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    11
    Nov 21, 2005
    United States

    You'll have to ask Sondland about that. I'm just repeating what he said today.


     
    Last edited by Hanafuda, Nov 21, 2019
    cots likes this.
  4. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    Member
    20
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    He says in that clip he is presuming that the aid WAS part of the quid pro quo, which is a pretty obvious conclusion to come to when you look at the order in which events occurred.

    Even if only the meeting and phone call hinged on the condition that Ukraine open an investigation into the Bidens, that wouldn't change the fact that such an arrangement would still be unlawful and/or unconstitutional.

    I'm not sure how many people testifying to the same thing would be enough to cross the line into credible/believable for you, but we're up to seven already. The hole can only get even deeper for Trump from here on out.
     
    Last edited by Xzi, Nov 21, 2019
    monkeyman4412 and IncredulousP like this.
  5. Taleweaver

    Taleweaver Storywriter

    Member
    14
    Dec 23, 2009
    Belgium
    Belgium
    I read a local article today (source for Dutch speaking people (EDIT: clarified a bit) ) about Laura Cooper's testimony. It touches on something that somewhat went under the radar: how did the Ukranian system react to this situation?

    A timeline (from last week) is interesting in this:

    <early 2019>: the $391 million military aid to Ukraine is approved by congress
    February 28 and May 23: officials are notified that the military aid will be released to Ukraine
    July 3: Vindman finds out the money is actively withheld
    July 10: meeting with Sondland, Mulvany and Bolton. The latter leaves the meeting furious, wanting "no part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up"
    July 18: white house memo of a freeze on Ukraine military aid until further notice, based on presidential order
    July 25: the infamous phone call between Trump and Zelenskiy
    July 25 onward: worried Ukrainian calls to Cooper regarding the status of the aid
    <somewhere in August>: a request by Ukrainians asking for the status
    August 12: the formal whistleblower complaint is filed
    August 28: politico publishes the freeze on the military aid
    August 29: Ukrainian officials start banging on Taylor's door wanting to know details that Taylor at that point doesn't have
    September 9: start of the democratic investigation
    September 9: Trump/Sondland call wherein the former says he wants nothing from Ukraine ("no quid pro quo").
    September 11: sudden release of the aid
    (mail source)

    It's interesting to put things in chronological order, to say the least. Trump and his fan club always touted that it was the whistleblower that put things into motion, but from this, it looks like it was at best only a matter of time before this'd be public. I mean...Bolton's currently writing a book about his time in office, multiple Ukrainian officials were reaching out to find out why allocated money wasn't set up and it's not a given that politico based their publication on the whistleblower's report.
    Republicans also claim that nothing is out of the ordinary (apart from a witch hunt), but in total nearly 400 million dollars in military aid is delayed for over half a year. Any moron can see that it would just be further delayed if it wasn't for these events.


    EDIT: also interesting: according to Sondland, both Pompeo and Pence were also in the know about this entire ordeal. As far as Pompeo goes, it doesn't surprise me (I'm fairly sure - but I could be mistaken - that Giuliani also told the news he got his orders from both Trump and Pompeo). But Pence? That's honestly the first time I hear him being involved. I'm not rooting for him, but up until this point I just assumed he was, in fact, innocent in this entire ordeal. :unsure:
     
    Last edited by Taleweaver, Nov 22, 2019
    IncredulousP and Xzi like this.
  6. urherenow

    urherenow GBAtemp Psycho!

    Member
    9
    Mar 8, 2009
    United States
    Japan
    I can understand how hard it is to actually pay attention, or even research (especially research, in fact) when everything is spoon-fed by a biased media. Google "what has Trump Accomplished" and your top 5-10 hits are nothing but opinionated Trump-trashing pieces that do everything but actually answer the damn question that you just Googled. Stop and think about that for a second. Then tell me I'm wrong. I asked some opposing questions to Never-Trumpers flooding his Twitter feed. I am permanently banned from Twitter, and I'm unable to make a new account. Any IP from any device I have ever used is flagged. The second I make a new account and check the feed without using a VPN, my account gets put on hold, pending Phone verification. Which, of course, is flagged. Free speech, right?

    Back on track, I'll forgive the difficulty in finding the actual answers with internet searches. This article points out a few: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/a..._has_accomplished_much_in_2_years_139402.html

    Another article that lists a BUNCH, although it seems to me that much of the list should be consolidated, since several actions were toward a single goal: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/...-in-just-20-months-relentless-promise-keeping

    And I hope you read the list very carefully. Some things promised CANNOT come to fruition until/unless the CONGRESS signs off on it. But you are simply drowning in hatorade if you can't realize that Trump has actually at least tried to work towards every campaign promise he has made. Congress and other external forces working against him, does NOT make him a liar.

    How old are you? Are you an American? I'm not rich. Not even close. MY taxes were lowered. The only idiots who state otherwise complained about getting lower tax returns, because they're idiots and didn't account for the less taxed being taken out every month.

    I bet you're another one who likes to cling on to thoughts of Trump taking money from the military to build his wall. If that upsets you, then again, you don't even understand the context or the dynamics. Trump says 3 billion comes from <here>. Some other people decide which individual projects they take that money from, not the POTUS. So no, you can't blame him directly for "taking money from project X". With that 3billion in funds removed, he has STILL provided more funds to the military than Obama ever did, including giving the military a bigger raise than they've seen in at least 6 years.
     
  7. Taleweaver

    Taleweaver Storywriter

    Member
    14
    Dec 23, 2009
    Belgium
    Belgium
    I can't argue with your tax returns, but that doesn't make the criticism go away. And that's not because of jealousy or not being American, but because it's the general consensus by economists. Here's a quick example by Joseph Stiglitz, but I can dig up quotes from Thomas Piketty as well if you like. Or more recent by Saez and Zucman. Since you're so opinionated, you undoubtedly heard their reasoning why the top 1% now pay LESS taxes than the average American. So no...calling @IncredulousP an idiot isn't going to win you the argument, buddy.
     
    IncredulousP likes this.
  8. urherenow

    urherenow GBAtemp Psycho!

    Member
    9
    Mar 8, 2009
    United States
    Japan
    The top 1% employ people. It trickles down. You can deny it all you want, and get a million finacial 'experts' to disagree (or rather agree to the disagreement), but the numbers don't lie. The average income has raised far more than under the past administration, and unemployment IS at a record low. Any by the way... taxes have been tiered as long as I've been alive. Only people who make above a certain amount pay the top (36% at the moment?) tax against thier personal income. You might *think* they pay less because of deductions and such that they take advantage of. Some of which comes from employing people... who guess what? Pay taxes on those dollars they earn.

    I know you'll want to point out that the national debt has risen another roughly 3 trillion dollars... yet fail to concede that somehow the Obama administration, by itself, accounted for nearly half of that debt by the time Trump took over. With that in mind, the rising of said debt has actually slowed under the current administration, even though it's still going up. There's also this pesky fact that the Democrats enjoyed bringing up in the current impeachment... it's THEM who "control the power of the purse". Heh. That was a joke. If only they'd actually do their jobs and make a budget instead of focusing all of their time (which us citizens are paying for) trying to take on the bad orange man...

    The thought process that leads you to believe the top 1% pay less, is the very same that gives birth to socialistic ideas that have worked for NO country EVER. Venezuela as an example Ad nauseam...
    Take away those tax deductions (that are presumably all made deductions for a good reason), and there will be no incentive for them to do what they do; employing people, making charitable donations, etc... all things that keep our economy strong, and does spread wealth without giving it all directly to the government. But I guess you'll be happy knowing that they're paying more taxes than you so that congress can be paid to NOT do their jobs...

    And final remark: I didn't call any individual an idiot. Don't put words in my mouth. I used generalizations. If any of my statements hit home in your mind (i.e. applies to the collective <you>), then I'm not going to apologize for <your> guilty conscious.
     
    Last edited by urherenow, Nov 21, 2019
    CallmeBerto likes this.
  9. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    3
    Sep 27, 2019
    United States
    Just FYI my taxes went up because I lost the ability to deduct my state taxes from my federal, but then again I also enjoy a home that generates property tax and hold other properties that are also taxed. I'm just saying people's taxes went up and I take notice when apple, fedex, amazon pay nothing in corporate taxes. When you think about the magnitude of how much money is exchanged and the amount of profit generated, that is a metric ton of taxable income that is lost. The reality, that money has to come from somewhere and the middle-uppermiddle class got to share that load. I must also mention the proportion of stock-buybacks that immediately occurred after corporate tax reduction vs 'trickle down' hopes that are disingenuously sold with every tax cut since Reagan (which I admit, when I was young and naive I aggressively supported).

    Does it significantly impact my quality of life, no I pay my taxes and will continue to do so, I'm not going to discuss my finances further but only to serve as an example of the disparity of tax burden of the mega wealthy to the working class. It's intellectually dishonest to not recognize that the Trump Tax cut disproportionately benefited the rich and the working class got scraps in comparison.

    Just one of the huge boons that no one else benefited from except the rich, estate tax:
    https://www.forbes.com/sites/ashlea...rich-the-22-4-million-exemption/#17a888ff1d54

    However, I've strayed off-topic enough in discussing this. If you want to discuss this further open a thread for Trump Tax Cut and I'll entertain economic discussion there.
     
  10. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    3
    Sep 27, 2019
    United States
    I know this is completely unrelated but I would like Bill Taylor and Fiona Hill dictate the audio book I'm currently enjoying. They would greatly improve my experience. Maybe this could be crowdfunded?
     
    CallmeBerto and Hanafuda like this.
  11. cots

    cots GBAtemp Advanced Maniac

    Member
    9
    Dec 29, 2014
    United States
    No I didn't. You have no idea what I was thinking. If Sonland would have said "I know for a fact because I have evidence" as opposed to "I'm only assuming" then it would be clear and cut. You're only hearing what you want to hear and misinterpreting and misrepresenting facts while I'm just basing shit on reality. It's okay though, you're a Liberal so I understand your confusion.

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

    I see you didn't watch the hearings. Pence was never informed or told by Sonald that Sonland thought there was quid pro quo. Pence never talked with Sonland before their pre-meeting and never spoke a word to him during it or after. Pence nodded to something Sonland said so Sonland assumed Pence knew exactly what he was thinking, but that's also another assumption. Sonland had no idea what Pence knows. This is coming from Sonlands account. It's been misrepresented and taken out of context to make it look like Pence was involved to the extent he knew there was quid pro quo. You can see how fucking stupid the Liberals are to try to twist and imply this. Seeings as this is how they go about things their entire operation should be under question.

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

    "Tax the rich, feed the poor Till there are no rich no more". What exactly happens after we run out of the rich peoples money? Who are the ones that will be wealthy and in power? It's not going to be the general public. We'll have created Government Lords at which point we'll have no way to control because they've taken our guns away. We'll all be poor and begging for scraps. The Government are our "servants". If I tell my Congress man to jump he better ask me how many times.

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

    Another Liberal hack job pretending to be rational and "I'm only here because it's entertaining". I see right through your political agenda. You're not fooling anyone with the position you've taken.
     
  12. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    3
    Sep 27, 2019
    United States
    I'm here exactly for entertainment through discourse. I work in an industry and hold a position that doesn't allow me to be openly political without repercussion. Do you think an obscure hacking forum is really the most effective way for me to push a 'political agenda'? What on earth would I hope to accomplish? Swaying potentially what amounts to a handful of people to do what exactly?

    Just as I directed to the other gentleman, you're welcome to open an economic thread and we can discuss Trump's Tax Cuts in detail there. I've said all I'm going to say in this thread though, the tax income bracket changes speak for themselves to support my statement among other changes already mentioned.
     
    Last edited by RationalityIsLost101, Nov 21, 2019 - Reason: Grammer fix
    CallmeBerto likes this.
  13. cots

    cots GBAtemp Advanced Maniac

    Member
    9
    Dec 29, 2014
    United States
    Well, whatever your reasoning is or regardless your refusal to identify your political party your bias is leaking.
     
  14. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    3
    Sep 27, 2019
    United States
    I don't actually have a 'party'. I have a set of issues that I think are worth discussion and enjoy discussing them. Besides how would it satisfy you if I 'picked a team'? Is it because you've been conditioned to accept a tribal nature in politics? Would that provide anything of substance in discussing this topic? Or would my own statements be sufficient? I argue the latter hence why I don't think it's necessary.

    I feel the real cause of your frustration is you wish to write off all disagreement as partisan. It allows a quick dispelling of discussion and doesn't require true discourse where sometimes hard questions are asked and concessions in beliefs have to be made. The world is very much in shades of grey. I'm done responding to this line of attack though. If you want to debate something I've stated that's been on topic (impeachment public hearings), I'm happy to oblige.

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

    I'd also add that holding a position is not equal to bias. Refusing to accept any information that has been corroborated that challenges that position, well that would indicate a bias.
     
    CallmeBerto likes this.
  15. cots

    cots GBAtemp Advanced Maniac

    Member
    9
    Dec 29, 2014
    United States
    Yeah, well, I'm still waiting for any information that has been corroborated that proves Trump is guilty of anything. You mentioned how actions define reality. You can say whatever you want, but if you look at this from the perspective of the fact it's the fucking 10th impeachment attempt, the fact it's premeditated after the fact of the entire "Trump was supposedly a Russian Agent" 2 year bullshit witch hunt you would realize how fucking stupid it would be to take any of what the Liberals say at face value, that is, unless your agenda has nothing to do with finding the actual truth and simply want to get rid of the President (which, if that's the case I understand). I really don't give a shit what party you identify as. I'm an independent, but not part of the independent party. I'm independent in the sense that I stand alone. I'm a one man party. You're supporting and going along with this charade so you clearly have the desire to see Trump canned. I don't care either way (if he's canned or not), but I think he deserves a fair inquiry and what is going on is no way in any shape or form fair.

    Edit: And what happens after the inquiry if Trump isn't impeached? Will there be an 11th attempt? The Liberal agenda is to get rid of the President at all cost regardless if he's done anything wrong. I know this because that's what they say they are fucking doing. They've said it from the start. They've planned this before Trump was even elected. They can't accept the fact they lost. No matter what happens they won't admit to defeat after the fact they agreed to the rules of the game. If the roles were reversed and the Conservatives impeached a Liberal President do you think the Liberal President would give up his office? Hell no. They wouldn't accept the fact they lost by the rules of their own game and would probably try to take over the other two branches of Government. Luckily, we have guns and would fucking remove the piece of shit from office by force. Liberals are a fucking cancer.
     
    Last edited by cots, Nov 21, 2019
    digipimp75 likes this.
  16. Taleweaver

    Taleweaver Storywriter

    Member
    14
    Dec 23, 2009
    Belgium
    Belgium
    I didn't, indeed. They don't air those things at a convenient time for me.
     
  17. RationalityIsLost101

    RationalityIsLost101 GBAtemp Regular

    Member
    3
    Sep 27, 2019
    United States
    If the democrats continue to attempt to impeach Trump after the senate clears him then it falls to the public to make a decision whether they support or not support it. If it isn't warranted and desired then the public will likely not support that decision and they will face backlash at the polls, be it 2020 or 2022.

    Inquiry isn't fair because he's not letting it be fair. If he wants to defend his innocence and produce/release a host of documents showing everything was above board then he would give his republican defenders something to work with. If he allowed senior officials to testify and they dispelled this whole thing as a lack of communication among peons then the public can see that as presented evidence in his favor. His biggest mistake, presuming his innocence in this entire situation, is tying the republican's hands behind their backs and asking them to fight a one-sided fight.
     
    Xzi likes this.
  18. Ev1l0rd

    Ev1l0rd (⌐◥▶◀◤) Developer - noirscape

    Member
    11
    Oct 26, 2015
    Netherlands
    Site 19
    Pedant hat on: De standaard is Belgian, not Dutch.

    Now, I must say that Sondland blew my expectations yesterday. He blew every single defense the Republicans were still using out of the water.

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

    Just heard Schiffs speech. Damn. That's gonna be one for the books.
     
    Last edited by Ev1l0rd, Nov 21, 2019
    IncredulousP and Xzi like this.
  19. Xzi

    Xzi All your base are belong to the proletariat

    Member
    20
    Dec 26, 2013
    United States
    Spiraling Out
    Riiight, because your signature really screams "objective and non-partisan." There's no point in denying that you're thoroughly indoctrinated into cult 45, you're free to have your opinions. Just don't expect anybody to believe that you suddenly became an open-minded observer throughout a process that's been undeniably damaging to the king you've sworn fealty to.
     
    monkeyman4412 likes this.
  20. Hanafuda

    Hanafuda GBAtemp Addict

    Member
    11
    Nov 21, 2005
    United States

    How many people expressing the same belief/assumption without evidence would it take for me to join them in that belief?

    Well, I'm not religious. Does that answer your question?



    Are you religious???
     
    Last edited by Hanafuda, Nov 21, 2019
Quick Reply
Draft saved Draft deleted
Loading...