Cont: House Impeachment Inquiry - part 3

[plague311]

I'm saying Trump and his apologists win more and more the longer we talk about whether or not Biden did anything because it doesn't matter.

Normally I'd agree with you because I feel this statement is correct, but I don't think it applies to this forum. Talking about Biden isn't really a distraction and there's only so much news in a day. I don't think anyone here is distracted by the stream of bull **** and asshattery related to Biden for it to change a mind 'round these parts.

The President doesn't get order political hits on opponents using foreign agents just because it's justified.

If a split hair is equal on both sides, it doesn't need to be split.

But 2 > 1

 

[Segnosaur]

Looks like some of the claims by Parnas have had some independent verification:

From: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rec...e-dinner-ukraine-ambassador/story?id=68506437
A recording reviewed by ABC News appears to capture President Donald Trump telling associates he wanted the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired while speaking at a small gathering that included Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman...
...
On the recording, it appears the two Giuliani associates are telling Trump that the U.S. ambassador has been bad-mouthing him, which leads directly to the apparent remarks by the president. The recording was made by Fruman, according to sources familiar with the tape.

Assuming it is authentic, it certainly destroys Trump's claims that he didn't know Parnas at all. (Well, whatever credibility Trump had on the matter.... the constant stream of Parnas/Trump pictures was a pretty good indication that Parnas was not just some random guy that Trump took a selfie with.)

 

[Stacyhs]

Looks like some of the claims by Parnas have had some independent verification:

From: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rec...e-dinner-ukraine-ambassador/story?id=68506437
A recording reviewed by ABC News appears to capture President Donald Trump telling associates he wanted the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired while speaking at a small gathering that included Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman...
...
On the recording, it appears the two Giuliani associates are telling Trump that the U.S. ambassador has been bad-mouthing him, which leads directly to the apparent remarks by the president. The recording was made by Fruman, according to sources familiar with the tape.

Assuming it is authentic, it certainly destroys Trump's claims that he didn't know Parnas at all. (Well, whatever credibility Trump had on the matter.... the constant stream of Parnas/Trump pictures was a pretty good indication that Parnas was not just some random guy that Trump took a selfie with.)

It says a lot about Trump when a slug like Parnas is more credible than Trump.

 

[smartcooky]

Is anyone else a bit nervous about how often Russia is being called "our enemy"?

"Enemy" is such a harsh term, and usually reserved for people with an actual military conflict, even if it is a cold war.

In some ways, I'm glad. There was some reluctance for a while to acknowledge that they weren't really on our team, but there's something vaguely disquieting about a steady stream of "our enemy, Russia". Not even "adversary" or "hostile power".


Not a big deal, but just something that sounds awkward about it.

Not an "enemy" more of a hostile foreign power.

If you doubt that Russia and Putin are doing everything they can to undermine and ultimately destroy western democracy, in particular US democracy, then you are a fool.... one of the same kinds of fools who pursued appeasement with Hitler, and didn't want to push forward into Iraq and take out Saddam at the end of Desert Storm.

 

[dudalb]

Not an "enemy" more of a hostile foreign power.

If you doubt that Russia and Putin are doing everything they can to undermine and ultimately destroy western democracy, in particular US democracy, then you are a fool.... one of the same kinds of fools who pursued appeasement with Hitler, and didn't want to push forward into Iraq and take out Saddam at the end of Desert Storm.

THIS.What makes Putin dangerous is he has found "Useful Idiots" on both sides of the political spectrum ...something the Soviet Union never could have done. Still amazed on how many on the Left..particulary in Europe seem to be Putin supporters, probably thinking he is somehow still a "Marxist At Heart".
We have a couple of examples who post here.

 

[Meadmaker]

Not an "enemy" more of a hostile foreign power.

Absolutely.

 

[dudalb]

Schiff and Nadler are both lying about the Hamilton quote. It was not about impeachment. It was lifted from a letter to George Washington about tax policy five years after the Constitution was adopted. He did discuss the possibility of a monarchy developing, but that was poo-pooed by Washington.

"He (Hamilton) does, however, warn that, "the only path to a subversion of the republican system of the Country is, by flattering the prejudices of the people, and exciting their jealousies and apprehensions," to throw affairs into anarchy and drive citizens into, "the arms of monarchy for repose and security."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/se...ote-out-of-context-in-trump-impeachment-trial

Foxnews….really?????

More and more I think we are being trolled here.

 

[Cain]

Looks like some of the claims by Parnas have had some independent verification:

From: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rec...e-dinner-ukraine-ambassador/story?id=68506437
A recording reviewed by ABC News appears to capture President Donald Trump telling associates he wanted the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired while speaking at a small gathering that included Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman...
...
On the recording, it appears the two Giuliani associates are telling Trump that the U.S. ambassador has been bad-mouthing him, which leads directly to the apparent remarks by the president. The recording was made by Fruman, according to sources familiar with the tape.

Assuming it is authentic, it certainly destroys Trump's claims that he didn't know Parnas at all. (Well, whatever credibility Trump had on the matter.... the constant stream of Parnas/Trump pictures was a pretty good indication that Parnas was not just some random guy that Trump took a selfie with.)

I'd liken this to Republicans and the Stormy Daniels affair. If pressed the rank-and-file will concede the Trump lied and there WAS a relationship. They just don't care.

Trump's gangsterism/indiscretions can be forgiven because he's going to drain the swamp, build the wall, march to save babies, etc.

 

[Segnosaur]

Schiff and Nadler are both lying about the Hamilton quote. It was not about impeachment. It was lifted from a letter to George Washington about tax policy five years after the Constitution was adopted. He did discuss the possibility of a monarchy developing, but that was poo-pooed by Washington.

"He (Hamilton) does, however, warn that, "the only path to a subversion of the republican system of the Country is, by flattering the prejudices of the people, and exciting their jealousies and apprehensions," to throw affairs into anarchy and drive citizens into, "the arms of monarchy for repose and security."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/sek...eachment-trial

Foxnews….really?????

More and more I think we are being trolled here.

As much as fox news deserves criticism, I think the article is a little bit less critical of the Democrats than brooklynbaby really thinks. I suspect he just read the headline and first few lines and stopped.

The article contains the following passage:
While Sekulow is correct that Hamilton's message was not about impeachment, Schiff and Nadler were careful to note in their remarks that the Hamilton quote was about the type of leader that would be most harmful to the American government and not about impeachment. "The framers worried then, as we worry today, that a leader might come to power not to carry out the will of the people that he was elected to represent, but to pursue his own interests," Schiff said Wednesday. "A fear that a president would subvert our democracy by abusing the awesome power of his office for his own personal or political gain."

So in other words, brooklynbaby's own source points out that the comments by Schiff and Nadler were not lies, and the only one who is practicing deception is republican Sekulow, who is ignoring the context of their statements.

 

[Armitage72]

Looks like some of the claims by Parnas have had some independent verification:

From: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rec...e-dinner-ukraine-ambassador/story?id=68506437
A recording reviewed by ABC News appears to capture President Donald Trump telling associates he wanted the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired while speaking at a small gathering that included Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman...
...

She's lucky. Given the people he's associated with in the past, telling them "Get rid of her" and "Take her out" could have had very different results.

 

[pgwenthold]

I'd liken this to Republicans and the Stormy Daniels affair. If pressed the rank-and-file will concede the Trump lied and there WAS a relationship. They just don't care.

Well he wasn't President yet, so it's ok

 

[plague311]

She's lucky. Given the people he's associated with in the past, telling them "Get rid of her" and "Take her out" could have had very different results.

That's the talk of Twitter right now. "People are saying" that for a guy who is well-known for having the catch phrase "you're fired", saying "Take her out" is a tad ominous. I don't, personally, give Trump that much credit. I don't think the Orange puckered anus has that much thought process.

 

[acbytesla]

As much as fox news deserves criticism, I think the article is a little bit less critical of the Democrats than brooklynbaby really thinks. I suspect he just read the headline and first few lines and stopped.

The article contains the following passage:
While Sekulow is correct that Hamilton's message was not about impeachment, Schiff and Nadler were careful to note in their remarks that the Hamilton quote was about the type of leader that would be most harmful to the American government and not about impeachment. "The framers worried then, as we worry today, that a leader might come to power not to carry out the will of the people that he was elected to represent, but to pursue his own interests," Schiff said Wednesday. "A fear that a president would subvert our democracy by abusing the awesome power of his office for his own personal or political gain."

So in other words, brooklynbaby's own source points out that the comments by Schiff and Nadler were not lies, and the only one who is practicing deception is republican Sekulow, who is ignoring the context of their statements.

It's why despite being against almost everything that Thomas Jefferson stood for, Hamilton slammed fellow New Yorker Aaron Burr when it came down to the two of them becoming President.

He said it is better that the President be of different principles than your own than be absent of principles as Burr was.

 

[BobTheCoward]

Looks like some of the claims by Parnas have had some independent verification:

From: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/rec...e-dinner-ukraine-ambassador/story?id=68506437
A recording reviewed by ABC News appears to capture President Donald Trump telling associates he wanted the then-U.S. ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch fired while speaking at a small gathering that included Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman...
...
On the recording, it appears the two Giuliani associates are telling Trump that the U.S. ambassador has been bad-mouthing him, which leads directly to the apparent remarks by the president. The recording was made by Fruman, according to sources familiar with the tape.

Assuming it is authentic, it certainly destroys Trump's claims that he didn't know Parnas at all. (Well, whatever credibility Trump had on the matter.... the constant stream of Parnas/Trump pictures was a pretty good indication that Parnas was not just some random guy that Trump took a selfie with.)

Maybe? Considering he had that outburst a year before he fired the person he could have fired at that time, it is difficult to out much stock in the significance of the conversation.

 

[Segnosaur]

So an awkward moment for Trump's legal team...

During the hearings, a member of the Democrats talked about "FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) lawsuits", and how they are no substitute for proper congressional oversight.

Trump defender Jay Sekulow seized on the comment, but misunderstood, thinking the speaker said "Lawyer lawsuits". He then began a rant:

“Lawyer lawsuits? We’re talking about the impeachment of a president of the United States, duly elected, and the members, the managers, are complaining about lawyer lawsuits?” Sekulow said. “The Constitution allows lawyer lawsuits.”

Umm, first of all, nobody used the term 'lawyer lawsuits' (except Sekulow).

Secondly, nobody was suggesting FOIA lawsuits (or 'lawyer lawsuits') don't have their place, just that they aren't as effective in proving congressional oversight.

ETA: Sorry, forgot link.

http://www.abajournal.com/news/arti...awyer-sekulow-may-have-misheard-foia-lawsuits

 

[pgwenthold]

I don't know if I read it here or elsewhere, but there was the scenario, something like, suppose someone got elected President and then moved to a cabin in Montana, and spent the whole day sitting around in his underwear watching TV, by the GOP arguments, he couldn't be impeached.

It makes it clear how silly the claim that you can't impeach if no law is broken really is.

 

[plague311]

Maybe? Considering he had that outburst a year before he fired the person he could have fired at that time, it is difficult to out much stock in the significance of the conversation.

No, it's not difficult at all. Well, maybe for you.

It's been well documented from previous employees of Trump's that his staff has kept him in check in a bunch of different situations. That's why the those people aren't there anymore, because he got sick of them talking him out of things.

The ambassador was extremely well respected among her peers, and I have no doubts that they put it off as long as they could.

 

[pgwenthold]

So an awkward moment for Trump's legal team...

During the hearings, a member of the Democrats talked about "FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) lawsuits", and how they are no substitute for proper congressional oversight.

Trump defender Jay Sekulow seized on the comment, but misunderstood, thinking the speaker said "Lawyer lawsuits". He then began a rant:

“Lawyer lawsuits? We’re talking about the impeachment of a president of the United States, duly elected, and the members, the managers, are complaining about lawyer lawsuits?” Sekulow said. “The Constitution allows lawyer lawsuits.”

Umm, first of all, nobody used the term 'lawyer lawsuits' (except Sekulow).

Secondly, nobody was suggesting FOIA lawsuits (or 'lawyer lawsuits') don't have their place, just that they aren't as effective in proving congressional oversight.

Where is the judge in this situation? Did he correct the record?

 

[plague311]

Where is the judge in this situation? Did he correct the record?

The judge is just for show. He doesn't have any actual power or oversight.

 

[carlitos]

Schiff and Nadler are both lying about the Hamilton quote. It was not about impeachment. It was lifted from a letter to George Washington about tax policy five years after the Constitution was adopted. He did discuss the possibility of a monarchy developing, but that was poo-pooed by Washington.

"He (Hamilton) does, however, warn that, "the only path to a subversion of the republican system of the Country is, by flattering the prejudices of the people, and exciting their jealousies and apprehensions," to throw affairs into anarchy and drive citizens into, "the arms of monarchy for repose and security."

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/se...ote-out-of-context-in-trump-impeachment-trial

You didn't read beyond the headline, did you? Towards the end:

While Sekulow is correct that Hamilton's message was not about impeachment, Schiff and Nadler were careful to note in their remarks that the Hamilton quote was about the type of leader that would be most harmful to the American government and not about impeachment.