Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Meadmaker said:
Sondland is not the only person who spoke directly to Trump about it. Volodymyr Zelensky also spoke directly to Trump about it, and we have a transcript of that conversation, where something entirely different was said.
Click to expand...
We don't have a transcript. We have a summary. Just because Trump and his chimpanzees keep shouting "transcript" those of us with a foot in reality are under no obligation to believe them.
 
"We've asked the drunken guy standing the door of the trailer in a white tanktop and the terrified woman with the black eye hiding in the closet if there was any domestic violence going on and they both said no so...."
 
thaiboxerken said:
Something entirely different, but not really. The notes on the call, that the White House released, shows that Trump wanted "a favor though" before releasing military aid to Ukraine.

In context, Sondland's testimony fits with the Zelensky call to show Trump's corrupt intent.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree about the corrupt intent. I think Trump's request was an abuse of power. I was just asking about the question of whether Trump actually wanted an investigation, or merely an announcement of an investigation. I think Trump's own words are clear. He wanted an investigation.

Is the abuse of power sufficient to justify removal from office? It's not a crime. He won't be prosecuted after leaving office, regardless of how he leaves. Therefore, it's really a political judgment.
 
Parsman said:
We don't have a transcript. We have a summary. Just because Trump and his chimpanzees keep shouting "transcript" those of us with a foot in reality are under no obligation to believe them.
Click to expand...

The full transcript has been declassified and released
 
Meadmaker said:
Is the abuse of power sufficient to justify removal from office? It's not a crime.
Click to expand...

Abuse of power is not always a crime. In this case, it was also a crime (or two).

Criminal Bribery, 18 U.S.C. § 201

Although President Trump’s actions need not rise to the level of a criminal violation to justify impeachment, his conduct here was criminal.
Click to expand...
 
Meadmaker said:
The full transcript has been declassified and released
Click to expand...

Can you link to it? They released the edited memo of the second call, which is the relevant one, and a transcript of the first call, but I'd not heard about them releasing a full transcript of the second call and nor can I find it online.
 
Meadmaker said:
The full transcript has been declassified and released
Click to expand...
"The release of the 30-minute phone call is not a verbatim transcript. As the White House does not typically record conversations with foreign leaders, the transcript is likely based on notes of their conversation made by US officials who listen in to the call." Daily Telegraph 25/09/2019. If you call that a transcript you are playing with words and not with facts.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
Can you link to it? They released the edited memo of the second call, which is the relevant one, and a transcript of the first call, but I'd not heard about them releasing a full transcript of the second call and nor can I find it online.
Click to expand...

You're right. I was referring to the first call.

I guess I'm behind on my scandals.
 
This is all pointlessly academic because impeachment is not predicated on the President committing a crime, or if we simply must be technical the President has to have committed a crime but the crime can be whatever Congress says it is so it's functionally the same thing.

It's kind of like how jury nullification works in that a jury cannot, in a purely legal sense, be wrong since the result is defined as what conclusion the jury comes to. If all the evidence says Johnny No Nose is the guy who wacked the rival gang member, there's footage of him doing it, a signed confession of him doing it, and the jury still finds Johnny No Nose not guilty, he's not guilty. The jury can't be "wrong" in this sense of the term.

Same thing with Impeachment. If 1/2 of the House and 2/3rds of the Senate agree in saying peeing with the seat up is a "High Crime or Misdemeanor" all the caterwauling in the world that nowhere else is peeing with the seat up considered a crime won't change the legal reality of it.

But this works the other way as well. If 2/3rds of the Senate don't agree that openly and blatantly hiring a foreign government to perform a political hit on a rival isn't illegal... *shrugs*

You cannot "well technically speaking...." an impeachment or "well technically speaking" an impeachment away.
 
Last edited:
Oh good in mens rea.

So Trump can't commit crimes because he was a little tired and walked into the wrong Oval Office and ruined the country in self defense.
 
Last edited:
JoeMorgue said:
"We've asked the drunken guy standing the door of the trailer in a white tanktop and the terrified woman with the black eye hiding in the closet if there was any domestic violence going on and they both said no so...."
Click to expand...
Of all the idiotic defenses of Trump's actions, this one takes the cake. It assumes, correctly, the intended audience consists of morons and/or cultists.

I've heard it said that to survive election season, one must understand Hymie the Robot, the hyper literal character from Get Smart.
 
Meadmaker said:
Sondland is not the only person who spoke directly to Trump about it. Volodymyr Zelensky also spoke directly to Trump about it, and we have a transcript of that conversation, where something entirely different was said.
Click to expand...

That "transcript" (the one Trumpy keeps screaming at us to read) is NOT a verbatim one. It says so up top. The actual transcript--such as it is--has been squirrelled away into a top secret computer repository. How about the WH cough up *that* one?

Assigning more weight to the desperate victim of extortion--who decidedly doesn't want to piss off the extortionst--than to a co-conspirator in the extortion? Yeah, we know to believe the wife's protestations of her husband's innocence while sporting black eyes and an arm sling. Sure, Zelensky is gonna spill the tea on the pressure exerted upon him by Trump for this sham 'investigation', expecting no repercussions from a spiteful, vengeful witholder of precious aid down the road.
 
Lurch said:
That "transcript" (the one Trumpy keeps screaming at us to read) is NOT a verbatim one. It says so up top. The actual transcript--such as it is--has been squirrelled away into a top secret computer repository. How about the WH cough up *that* one?
Click to expand...

They released it last week. You're behind the times.

Of course, I can't talk. I have to see if I can find something about the second conversation, whatever that was.
 
Norman Alexander said:
There is no "getting on top of this" in the current Trump atmosphere. In a sane political environment, sure.

But nowadays, anything Biden says about this will be pounced on, misquoted, misconstrued and generally turned into the crap Trump feeds his hardcore followers by Fox & Friends and the Trump Bubble.

So better to simply ignore the provocation.
Click to expand...

Ignoring it also won't work in this political atmosphere. What will not work is Biden proclaiming his innocence.

What will work is a campaign of defenders pointing out Burisma was not under investigation and the prosecutor was holding up evidence the UK (or EU) had requested to prosecute an oligarch.
 
Last edited:
Belz... said:
... He never said that, actually. He just said that he wasn't looking at impeachment right now. Did you even go back to read his post?
Click to expand...
You go back and look. Joe referred numerous times to impeachment in terms of Trump not being impeached because the process was still ongoing. I was merely correcting that imprecise language everyone around here is attacking everyone else on.

JoeMorgue said:
.... As I just said, I ask why they are impeaching even though it's both a legal dead end and politically unpopular, ... I ask why after that we're seriously considering sitting on the impeachment process as a cheap lawyer tactic....that the Democrats are just panicking and acting pretty much at random hoping something sticks, ...
Click to expand...

JoeMorgue said:
I'm fairly lost here. That the Senate is who gets to hold the actual impeachment trial is not something anyone is arguing.....
Click to expand...

JoeMorgue said:
... If the idea from the Dems is to somehow keep Trump is limbopeachment until they get a majority back in the Senate... that's not a good plan.
Click to expand...

JoeMorgue said:
My whole issue with this is that whole reason I keep getting told why we are impeaching Trump when there's a metaphysical certainty that he isn't going to be convicted in the Senate and you can make fair arguments that it's counterproductive is because of some appeal to their "moral duty" to do it....
Click to expand...

JoeMorgue said:
... "OH MY GOD OUR CAREFULLY LAID OUT PLAN TO IMPEACH THE PRESIDENT DIDN'T ACCOUNT FOR THE REPUBLICAN LEAD CONGRESS NOT MAKING IT EASY FOR US! WHO COULD HAVE FORESEEN THIS!?"
Click to expand...

JoeMorgue said:
... Then why stall the impeachment now?
Click to expand...

You wouldn't talk about an indictment that way. You would say the indictment has happened, now comes the trial. Trump has been impeached. That part is done.



Belz... said:
... If everybody knows about Trump's corruption then why do you think it'll change anyone's mind as more evidence pours out?
Click to expand...
'Everyone knows' primes the pump. Dripping moves the handle.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom