House Impeachment Inquiry

[Skeptic Ginger]

The case was still legally open when Shokin was fired.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/worl...e8d3fa-e68d-11e9-a6e8-8759c5c7f608_story.html

But you didn't say anything about the case technically being open. You said Shokin was investigating it.

Instead of repeating the facts: the investigation of Burisma was completed, had been over and done before Hunter joined Burisma, you repeat the false narrative:

Joe Biden had the prosecutor investigating corruption in the company Hunter worked for fired.

Investigating: going on at the time. Using the suffix ing means it was going on at the time Biden took action. You did not say the prosecutor who had in the past investigated Burisma, you said the one who was investigating. You did not say the case was open even though Shokin wasn't investigating it.

Since the prosecutor wasn't investigating Burisma or Hunter, how is your statement true just because the inactive case wasn't officially closed?
And if you want to talk about precise language Dr Keith, how is a prosecutor actively investigating a case the same as an inactive case he investigated in the past?

How is it productive to repeat the false narrative that Shokin was investigating (present tense) when he wasn't? Just because the case was still formally open does not change the fact, 'officially open' does not equate to 'investigating'. That's like saying all the millions of cold cases in police department files are being investigated despite they are sitting idle on shelves in storage.


When Trump asked Zelensky for a favor, Trump and/or his staff had plenty of opportunity to know: Ukraine agency says allegations against Burisma cover period before Biden joined. (Reuters)

A Ukrainian investigation of gas company Burisma is focused solely on activity that took place before Hunter Biden, son of former U.S. Vice President Joe Biden, was hired to sit on its board, Ukraine’s anti-corruption investigation agency said.

So how could J Biden possibly influence an investigation of his son? He couldn't have. How could Trump not know that? He ignored it to put his false narrative out there that Shokin was actively investigating Hunter Biden and Burisma.

I realize you think you are technically correct and know full well why J Biden was being falsely accused. We do not need another go-round about those details.

But you nonetheless promoted the false narrative based on the hypothetical that the inactive, soon to be closed investigation might have been active and Hunter might have been under investigation. That is the false narrative Trumpers repeat over and over.


We are back to this whole discussion that Shokin could have hypothetically been investigating Burisma even though he wasn't. It's a sidetrack that belongs in the 2020 candidates thread.

If you had intended to discuss the point Trumpers could falsely believe about Shokin/J Biden, then why focus on some legal sidetrack: maybe we should outlaw family members employment connections to legislators? That belongs in a whole new thread.

Bottom line, you said, investigating. Shokin was not investigating. You did not say the problem was because the case against Burisma was open (or if you did it was much later).


That's enough for me. After a few clean-up posts, back to the interesting hearing this morning.

 

[Stacyhs]

Impeachment is a process put forth within the Constitution. How in the name of Zeus's butthole can that be a "Coup?"
It's like calling "Being voted out of office" a coup which... at this point wouldn't surprise me if Trump or his followers actually try to do.

It's not, but Trump supporters, as kellyb said earlier, just parrott Trump's talking points.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

While this is an over simplification of what happened, it is a factually true statement.

Not factually true as I said above, because an open case doesn't mean an investigation was going on.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I've been listening to the public hearing on and off this morning. Ambassador Taylor is not doing Trump any favors today.

I am impressed by how carefully he words his testimony and his background was impressive, 5th in his class at West Point, volunteered for active duty in the Infantry in Vietnam.

Even when the GOP tried to get him to confirm their versions he simply declined.

 

[acbytesla]

I am watching the same proceedings as the rest of you. Unlike the rest of you, I have cast a critical ear to the thousands of "smoking guns" alleged against the president that have been shown to be lies and quickly forgotten by the left. I see duplicity and special privilege given to the Democrats by a press firmly in their pocket. I am not even sure this is a lawful hearing. I see the Democrats attempting a coup. This will not end well for them at the polls. I see multiple investigations that have gone in Trump's favor only to have the results spun to say the exact opposite of the findings.

See no evil huh? If you don't see the smoking guns, it's because you refuse to look.

Which ones are lies? Be SPECIFIC. Bet a hundred to one they are not lies only that you claim they are lies.

 

[JoeMorgue]

It's not, but Trump supporters, as kellyb said earlier, just parrott Trump's talking points.

Well if that leads to them voting him into a second term (or voting for Republican Senators/Representatives or putting pressure on them) that's not a factor we can just shrug off.

 

[Trebuchet]

Explain exactly how this could be a coup? If Donald Trump is impeached, Clinton doesn't become president. Mike Pence does. How exactly is this a coup?

And unlike Trump, Pence is a genuine consevative, genuine Republican, and genuine fundy Christian. To me, that's a good reason not to impeach Trump.

It's like calling "Being voted out of office" a coup which... at this point wouldn't surprise me if Trump or his followers actually try to do.

I would be astounded if the DON'T do that.

 

[Stacyhs]

See no evil huh? If you don't see the smoking guns, it's because you refuse to look. Which ones are lies? Be SPECIFIC. Bet a hundred to one they are not lies only that you claim they are lies.

Maybe that's because he's looking for a smocking gun instead.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Yeah, in the same sense that "Trump never lied to the American people" is true, because he only lies to the subset of people who listen to him.

I don't buy it. Kelly and others are just trying to retrofict a technical truth onto a statement that was untrue to begin with.

Yes, clearly the problem is that we're too stupid.

See! We can be friends. You don't have to hate me all the time.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's not, but Trump supporters, as kellyb said earlier, just parrott Trump's talking points.

Well if that leads to them voting him into a second term (or voting for Republican Senators/Representatives or putting pressure on them) that's not a factor we can just shrug off.

What do you suggest we do other than refute those talking points by presenting evidence that they're false? As we already do that and they choose to believe those talking points instead, I don't see what else we can do.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I think if you have the time to go back and read her recent contributions to this thread as a whole she has a valid point to make and that statement is a part of that valid point. But it may be easier to just be mad at her.

Uh uh tsk tsk. I like kelly and have a lot of respect for her posts. And in this case, I am right and ergo, not mad.

Her contributions are valuable but don't belong in the impeachment discussion unless you want to talk about Trump's accusations relying on some technicality that he's using to snooker his fans.

Trump made false statements. Kelly made false statements but wants to pretend it was always based on the case being technically open. As if Trump would have any clue how to exploit that kind of nuance unless he picks it up now that it's been injected into the social media stream.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Nunes is on, saying "democrats are lying" and giving examples where Schiff has casually said things and paraphrased the Trump transcript in ways which I'd call "engaging in some mild hyperbole, mixed with speculation presented as fact."

Good lord, I hate that Schiff does that stuff. I had a feeling they'd put that stuff on CNN over and over again.

And now Nunes has transitioned into getting Taylor to... debunk the Steel Dossier? And support a theory of Ukrainian election interference in 2016.

Nunes is a jerk, of course we all know that.

I don't think Schiff's parody was wrong at all. It was right on.

Trumpers and the GOP will take anything like that an beat it to a pulp. If it wasn't that parody it would be one of the dozen other things they are currently beating:

Everything is second hand knowledge.
Reveal the whistleblower there's a deep state CT there for sure.

And so on.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The Republicans are going to use the Trump impeachment to go with educating the US public about this:
https://twitter.com/aaronjmate/status/1194675914971463681

And somehow try to use THAT to try to say the "arms for anti-Biden headlines and oppo research material" deal was legit "foreign policy," looks like.

It's hard from a Tweet to fact check that claim that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 election. Clearly Mueller and the FBI found nothing about such interference.

Their problem is going to be that the Zelensky call never mentioned any of that stuff. Not once. I'm not sure what kind of acrobatics they'll try to pull, to try to scandalize the fact that Ukrainians who had just been invaded by Russia didn't want a freakishly pro-Russia weirdo to get elected as POTUS in the US (duh), and make that somehow justify a quid pro quo.

That's not a problem for people looking at the evidence and Trumpers aren't looking no matter what. The evidence is there in multiple sources beyond the phone call.

Nothing is going to change the dishonest Trumper talking points. Other than not feeding into them and repeating them, what else should people do?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

This witch hunt is going to be disastrous for the Democratic party.

Is this Poe sarcasm?

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Sheesh. The Repubs are actually saying that Zelensky's denial of any quid pro quo is evidence it didn't happen. What do they expect him to say? "Yes, it happened"? We all know how petty and vindictive Trump is. Zelensky had no real choice other than to deny it unless he wanted Trump to take out his anger on Ukraine. Zelensky knows he has to deal with Trump for at least another 14 month and maybe another 5 years.

Zelensky is in the same position as an abused wife who tells the police here husband didn't beat the crap out of her because she's scared to death of the repercussions.

I thought Schiff had a good rebuttal to that as well as to the point the money was released while Zelensky didn't do what was asked. Schiff pointed out the money was released 48 hours after the White House found out Congress was aware of what was going on.

 

[quadraginta]

Yeah, so what?

Kelly, (for whatever reason because she's usually on top of these things), mistakenly repeated the GOP lie that J Biden got the prosecutor dismissed because said prosecutor was investigating H Biden. That is not and never was true; that was a GOP/Trump lie.
The rest of this is a side show. It is relevant in the 2020 candidates thread. It is not relevant in the Trump impeachment thread.

Your first paragraph is just restating what I said (I'm agreeing that Biden did nothing wrong) and for the second, of course it was a hypothetical, and having to recuse yourself is a form of having tied hands.

This is off-topic here. Take it to the 2020 candidates' thread.

Perhaps it is off-topic here in the "House Impeachment Inquiry" thread.

But having listened to just a little bit of today's House Impeachment Inquiry in the House of Representatives it certainly appears to be a hot topic by the GOP.

I guess that isn't enough reason to discuss the use it is being put to in the House Impeachment Inquiry here in the "House Impeachment Inquiry" thread, but it is unclear to me why it would be more appropriately placed in the 2020 candidates thread, as you suggest.

I could see it being appropriate there also, I suppose.

 

[dudalb]

I am watching the same proceedings as the rest of you. Unlike the rest of you, I have cast a critical ear to the thousands of "smoking guns" alleged against the president that have been shown to be lies and quickly forgotten by the left. I see duplicity and special privilege given to the Democrats by a press firmly in their pocket. I am not even sure this is a lawful hearing. I see the Democrats attempting a coup. This will not end well for them at the polls. I see multiple investigations that have gone in Trump's favor only to have the results spun to say the exact opposite of the findings.

Pretty clear that no amount of evidence would convince you that Dear Leader is anything but perfect.

 

[Belz...]

Impeachment is a process put forth within the Constitution. How in the name of Zeus's butthole can that be a "Coup?"

It's like calling "Being voted out of office" a coup which... at this point wouldn't surprise me if Trump or his followers actually try to do.

It also sounds like a justification for an actual coup, were either to succeed.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I hear the Democrats grasping at straws and Republicans delivering thoughtful questions. There is nothing here to support impeachment.

Hmmm, another Poe?




Republican from the GOP Overseas, Mark Porter, (I didn't know such a formal group existed) is on France 24 now doing a better job of defending Trump than the legislators did today:

Sabotage by the deep state, those things are just the way Trump does things, Porter tried to bring in Clinton and Steele, equated a candidate to a person in office, Mueller found nothing, change the subject, changes the subject, changes the subject...

He's full of all kinds of far-fetched lies.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I wish there was a good journo out there liveblogging this. Some of this stuff is stuff I want to put in a file and save...

I looked, and only Fox seems to be liveblogging it, tho.

eta: nevermind, found one!
https://fivethirtyeight.com/live-blog/trump-impeachment-hearings-day-1/

You can get the transcript and live stream the hearing on CSPAN3.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?466134-1/impeachment-hearing-william-taylor-george-kent

Bypass the YouTube claim you need to log on if you get that page.