Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

Good evening. The opening arguments are being made, FOX news has had a little box showing a live feed of it with no audio of it while their hosts talk about the horrible "do nothing Democrats" are and Hillary Clinton. Is there any wonder why those that use FOX as their source of news have no idea what's going on?
 
Did I just hear what I think I just heard?

I was riding home, listening to the trial on the radio. There was a female house manager laying out the case, and she said something that made me do a double take.

In describing the meeting of Senator Chris Murphy with President Zelensky, she said that Murphy told the Ukranian President that there was bipartisan support for continued military aid to the Ukraine, but that support could be jeopardized if Zelensky became embroiled in American politics.

I only vaguely remembered that senators had gone to Ukraine, so I looked up the meeting when I got home, and the accounts didn't include that, although they didn't contradict it either. Did I hear it right? I was driving and thinking about something else at the time, so I wasn't paying close attention.


(Yes, I know I could probably find a transcript, but what's the fun of that? I want to hear other's reactions as well.)
 
acbytesla said:
You do understand that foreign policy is the Senate's primary responsibility?
Click to expand...
I don't understand why it would be relevant to begin with. But I haven't been watching, or listening.

It strikes me as having nothing to do with the impeachment case. Baffled why anyone would bring it up, but especially a House manager. They don't need filler and they *really* don't need accounts of senators putting their own pressure on Zelensky.

Unless they know the defense is going to bring it up and just want to get ahead of it.
 
JPK said:
Good evening. The opening arguments are being made, FOX news has had a little box showing a live feed of it with no audio of it while their hosts talk about the horrible "do nothing Democrats" are and Hillary Clinton. Is there any wonder why those that use FOX as their source of news have no idea what's going on?
Click to expand...

I saw a clip from Fox News yesterday. The chyron read: AFTER RAMMING THROUGH BOGUS IMPEACHMENT SHAM, HOUSE DEMS NOW MOANING ABOUT FAIRNESS IN SENATE TRIAL

They had a feed of Adam Schiff delivering opening arguments (muted) while the upper right-corner had a scroll of Trump's accomplishments (renegotiated NAFTA, started buildng the wall, etc). Someone on Twitter described it as "State TV on steroids." ******' idiocracy.
 
Squeegee Beckenheim said:
It really doesn't.

Other way round. In order to imply that it was deliberate you have to add an adverb, such as "deliberately".

Here's an example of a definition that doesn't imply "did it purposefully".

https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/mischaracterize

Can you provide a link to a dictionary that defines in in a way that does imply what you are calling the "default definition"?
Click to expand...
This is a silly argument. Perhaps you read a different connotation than I do. I also read the news headline to be ginning the issue up. A misleading manner suggests the desire to mislead.

I don't see the point in this tedium beyond that.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
You do understand that foreign policy is the Senate's primary responsibility?
Click to expand...

Senate approval and consent is required for treaties but foreign policy is under the purview of the President as are all other executive functions. Furthermore, funding for specific foreign policy objectives originates in the House. It's common for Senators and Representatives to travel to and interact with other countries as part of their oversight but they have no executive authority.
 
marting said:
Senate approval and consent is required for treaties but foreign policy is under the purview of the President as are all other executive functions. Furthermore, funding for specific foreign policy objectives originates in the House. It's common for Senators and Representatives to travel to and interact with other countries as part of their oversight but they have no executive authority.
Click to expand...

Yes. But their primary responsibility is foreign policy oversight.
 
Minoosh said:
They don't need filler and they *really* don't need accounts of senators putting their own pressure on Zelensky.
Click to expand...

And at least one person gets the issue.

But, I checked a conservative web site or two, and there was nothing, so I probably misheard it. I checked accounts of the meeting from this fall, and the big story about it was that one of the Senators changed his story between giving two accounts. Not nearly as big of a deal.

I did find myself wondering today what if Trump and team actually had something in their back pocket. Not likely, but they have to say something.

ETA: Here's a link to a story from November https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...zelensky-feeling-the-pressure-to-probe-bidens

In the story, Murphy said he would advise Zelensky not to get embroiled in US politics. In tonight's speech, I thought the manager said that Murphy warned Zelensky that getting involved could threaten the bipartisan support for the aid. I couldn't find a transcript, and the computer I'm on right now has a faulty sound system, so I can't listen to any videos.
 
Last edited:
Skeptic Ginger said:
This is a silly argument. Perhaps you read a different connotation than I do. I also read the news headline to be ginning the issue up. A misleading manner suggests the desire to mislead.

I don't see the point in this tedium beyond that.
Click to expand...

Okay, so you can't find an example of what you call the "default definition" and you admit that rather than being the "default definition" it's just something that you personally infer, contrary to the actual definition. Glad we're on the same page.
 
Cain said:
I saw a clip from Fox News yesterday. The chyron read: AFTER RAMMING THROUGH BOGUS IMPEACHMENT SHAM, HOUSE DEMS NOW MOANING ABOUT FAIRNESS IN SENATE TRIAL

They had a feed of Adam Schiff delivering opening arguments (muted) while the upper right-corner had a scroll of Trump's accomplishments (renegotiated NAFTA, started buildng the wall, etc). Someone on Twitter described it as "State TV on steroids." ******' idiocracy.
Click to expand...

The Trump Administration's version of Tsentral'noye televideniye SSSR... acts just like it too!
 
theprestige said:
Huh. I always read that as "the GOP has been taken over by Trump", not "there is a faction of the GOP that is pro-Trump".
Click to expand...

Given that President Trump has a 95% approval rating within the GOP then I think that's a distinction without a significant difference.

That's not to say that it was a hostile take-over, the GOP has willingly aligned itself to President Trump and his objectives and in the process has seems to have changed some of its fundamental principles such as free trade and fiscal responsibility.
 
I was pretty impressed with Schiff's delivery yesterday. It was repetitive but very clear. He did an outstanding job of using Trump's own words, pressers and statements against him to expose what he was doing. Everything was laid out in an easy to understand way.

I find it hard to think the Dem's didn't have this as their plan all along. Schiff really, REALLY nailed home that the defense can't claim that what the House managers are saying is wrong because the defense is sitting on the evidence. If they want to prove the House wrong they can literally provide evidence any time they want without any issue at all. I thought it was great and really put the defense in a box.
 
Because here's probably a more appropriate place than the general Trump Presidency thread...

The Senate Republicans didn't even try to follow the set rules, with no consequences from Roberts.

So naturally, throughout the day, Republicans left their seats, wandered out into the hallways, and complained that they were “bored.” Though the rules of the trial require all senators to be present, double-digit numbers of Republicans were missing at any given time. At least one, Missouri’s Josh Hawley, found an opportunity to make an appearance with Fox News’ Tucker Carlson during the trial … without garnering as much as the shake of a finger from Chief Justice John Roberts.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom