• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
portlandatheist said:
listening to the hearings today was torture. listening to any Trump apologist is torture. I read a thread this last week by a Trumper that was making a big stink that Biden had not formally announced his candidacy yet(at the time of the call) as if that somehow means something. Or that Zelinsky didn't say it was quid pro quo and countless other meaningless "data points" that are super important.
Click to expand...


A lie; one that is easily exposed.

Biden announced his campaign on April 25, 2019

The Zelensky call was three months later on July 25, 2019.

However, you might want to point out to that poster, that the smear campaign against Amb Yovanovich and the attendant attempts to get dirt on Joe Biden and his son, began in early May, within days of Biden making his announcement, as well as within days of Zelensky being elected President of Ukraine - April 21, 2019
 
Stacyhs said:
So? What's the point of that statement other than to reveal you own idiocy, Matt?

This is one of those times it's better to say nothing. Gaetz and Trump need to learn that.
Click to expand...

The only thing Gaetz is missing is a round red nose and a mop of brightly coloured hair.

When pointing out that a former president can be impeached, he needs to be careful about the implications of what he is saying... if you get my drift!
 
I found the constitutional scholars interesting to listen to yesterday, but I did wonder how many Americans would want to sit through a lot of the legal jargon that was used. Turley and Gerhardt were perhaps the most serious and sensible. Gerhardt and Karlan, though knowledgeable, just seemed too animated or excited by the prospect of impeachment to have been able to sway fence-sitters.

I winced a little when Rep Doug Collins said "irregardless". Searched online to to see if maybe I had misheard, but just found evidence of him saying it previously, so he probably did. I'm not making fun of him, I think it's easy to get one of those words stuck in your vocabulary, but to me it sticks out like dogs balls when someone uses it in a sentence.
 
Impeachment is meant to be used when Election is too slow or endangered by the President; if this was not so, then there would be no need to put it into the Constitution in the first place.
I invite Impeachment Skeptics to come up with a measure that would be less than Impeachment but enough to stop Trump from soliciting foreign interference for his benefit. It seems to me that any efforts to directly oversee or even curtail the President's ability to conduct Diplomacy would set a much more dangerous precedent than Impeachment would.
 
Paul2 said:
The best interpretation I can imagine is that the Dems did not want Turley to rebut their criticism, given that Turley is capable of doing so, it would merely give him more time to make his point. There is a strategy that you try to make the other side play on your side of the field. Not sure if the Intel committee played it that way, though.
Click to expand...

This is why I said he'd have to be cross-examined by a good lawyer. Otherwise it just feeds into the narrative that the Republicans are being suppressed because the Democrats are too afraid, because they know that the Republicans are right and letting them have their say would scupper the Fake Witch Hunt.
 
Paul2 said:
I downloaded Turley's opening statement and scanned the section on bribery [ETA]abuse of power. Turley doesn't keep track of whether he's considering a criminal, impeachable act or a non-criminal impeachable act. Page 47-8, Abuse of Power, he acknowledges that a president can be impeach for a non-criminal act,


but then,

But why is a plan to violate federal law the standard here when a non-criminal act may be impeachable?
Click to expand...

I wasn't talking about the opening statements, but the questioning.
 
Trump Tweets


When I said, in my phone call to the President of Ukraine, “I would like you to do US a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.” With the word “us” I am referring to the United States, our Country. I then went on to say that......

....”I would like to have the Attorney General (of the United States) call you or your people.....” This, based on what I have seen, is their big point - and it is no point at a all (except for a big win for me!). The Democrats should apologize to the American people!
 
dasmiller said:
I only saw parts of it, but I saw Turley repeatedly say that he hadn't seen sufficient evidence of any impeachable act. Did anyone say, "The 3rd article of impeachment against Nixon cited his defiance of House subpoenas. Is it your position that we do not have sufficient evidence that Trump has defied House subpoenas?"
Click to expand...

I forget the substance of what he said, but he made quite a lengthy argument about how Article 3 of the Nixon impeachment is terrible and is exactly against the intent of impeachment.

It's exactly that kind of thing that makes me think he earned his money. He wasn't just making vague talking points, he'd clearly done his homework and did a very good job of making his side sound plausible.

And I think the Democrats dropped the ball, too. For example, Turley spoke about how the defining feature of this impeachment is that it'll be the fastest impeachment in history, and how that's unfair to Trump because it doesn't allow him the time to legally challenge the subpoenas in court and thereby robs him of the due process that he is entitled to. Not once did I hear someone from the Democrats side say that the reason for the speed of the impeachment is because it's about interference in the upcoming election and so it has to happen quickly.

The best defence against it give was that Trump's claims of total executive privilege are bogus and therefore there is no requirement to let him challenge the subpoenas in the Supreme Court before declaring him to be obstructing Congress. Which may be right (although I'm certainly no legal scholar so am happy to be corrected on this point), but what it's not is rhetorically convincing, especially to someone who is leaning towards the idea that this impeachment is unfair. No minds are going to be changed by that argument and, if anything, I'd think it was more likely to sway people in the opposite direction, because it relies on the listener already agreeing that Trump's claims of absolute privilege are bogus.

And if there is to be any hope of the Senate voting to remove Trump from office, then the public are going to have to be persuaded first, because the Republican Senators are only going to vote against Trump if they believe that Trump remaining is politically damaging for them and the Republican party, and that's only going to happen if there's a swing in public opinion.
 
Captain_Swoop said:
Trump Tweets


When I said, in my phone call to the President of Ukraine, “I would like you to do US a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it.” With the word “us” I am referring to the United States, our Country. I then went on to say that......

....”I would like to have the Attorney General (of the United States) call you or your people.....” This, based on what I have seen, is their big point - and it is no point at a all (except for a big win for me!). The Democrats should apologize to the American people!
Click to expand...

Yeah, just ignore the sworn testimonies to the contrary by Sondland et al.

Nothing to see. Move along.
 
Sideroxylon said:
Yeah, just ignore the sworn testimonies to the contrary by Sondland et al.

Nothing to see. Move along.
Click to expand...

Sondland is a proven liar.

Once he saw the other evidence, he changed his testimony so as not to commit perjury. He lied at first when he said that President Trump did nothing wrong and so all of his testimony can be discounted :rolleyes:
 
I wish there was a detailed timeline at hand. I'm constantly dissatisfied with the timelines I find online regardless of topic. I've been threatening to write a timeline app almost since the day I joined the forum. One of these days... ?
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
I forget the substance of what he said, but he made quite a lengthy argument about how Article 3 of the Nixon impeachment is terrible and is exactly against the intent of impeachment.
Click to expand...

Ah, that makes sense. I didn't see all of his testimony and didn't see that part.

It's exactly that kind of thing that makes me think he earned his money. He wasn't just making vague talking points, he'd clearly done his homework and did a very good job of making his side sound plausible.
Click to expand...

Concur. To me, he came across as a lawyer who'd carefully crafted a legal defense for his client, rather than a legal scholar who was trying to give an unbiased view. But then, by this point, I can't claim that I'm unbiased, so that probably colors my perceptions of others' biases.

And I think the Democrats dropped the ball, too. For example, Turley spoke about how the defining feature of this impeachment is that it'll be the fastest impeachment in history, and how that's unfair to Trump because it doesn't allow him the time to legally challenge the subpoenas in court and thereby robs him of the due process that he is entitled to. Not once did I hear someone from the Democrats side say that the reason for the speed of the impeachment is because it's about interference in the upcoming election and so it has to happen quickly.
Click to expand...

And because the White House defied the subpoenas, all of those witness didn't testify, dramatically shortening the proceedings.

And if there is to be any hope of the Senate voting to remove Trump from office, then the public are going to have to be persuaded first, because the Republican Senators are only going to vote against Trump if they believe that Trump remaining is politically damaging for them and the Republican party, and that's only going to happen if there's a swing in public opinion.
Click to expand...

Turley repeatedly made the point that the process should take longer so that the public had time to come around to the idea that impeachment was needed, and AFAIK nobody ever pointed out to him that support for Trump's impeachment is already higher than it was for Clinton's. But Trump has a stronger hold on his party than Clinton or Nixon ever had, IMO largely because he's been so willing to politically sabotage members of his own party who upset him.
 
TragicMonkey said:
2. December 5, 2019, TragicMonkey corrects aup's mangling of writing the date.
Click to expand...
OK pardon me for encouraging this but... That's actually highly amusing! I always envisioned a multi-scenario feature, allowing different people to create different versions, and the ability to see the versions side by side. :thumbsup:
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom