House Impeachment Inquiry

[smartcooky]

No. Shokin was forced out because he was not fighting corruption.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...orced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/

Not to mention that just about every leader in Europe knew this and wanted him gone.

 

[dudalb]

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.

The Dems havea formal organizations for party members living overseas as well.
https://www.democratsabroad.org/

Surprised you did not know this.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's fascinating watching the usual GOP talking heads trying to defend Trump. They're failing miserably.

ETA: I just saw Rick Santorum say that, even if Trump did hold up the Ukraine money in order to get them to investigate Biden, it's not wrong because he has that right. IE, it's OK for him to use tax payers' money for personal political gain. Unbelievable.
Is there NOTHING Trump can do that would get them to pull their heads out of his butt?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Impeachment Tracker

Basically a spreadsheet with each witness called or announced organised by date of scheduled appearance with links to transcripts, where available, and any notes, such as subpoenas issued, and how cooperative they were.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You must be watching a different hearing than me.

I think it's the tint of his glasses.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

How come Bolton hasn't been subpoenaed? He seems to be signalling he would testify if he got one?

He has been. One of the news reporters (or someone, I can't keep track of who) made an uninformed comment. For cripes sake it's been in the news for days that Bolton asked for a court ruling on his subpoena.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Wouldn't it be great if The PDJT is watching this, and gets so pissed off that he insists on testifying himself? Thinking of course that he's going to set the record straight about it being a PERFECT phone call.

His slowed speech and flat affect suggested he was on some kind of downer or come-down.

 

[kellyb]

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

We really can't prove beyond reasonable doubt there was ZERO investigating going on. That seems like a claim going beyond what the evidence allows for. At least, I don't want to have to try to prove that to the smarter republicans and independents out there who aren't completely anti-Trump who might come at me asking for that evidence. I'd rather avoid the potential controversy there alltogether by "Sure, whatevering" the whole deal, so it stops being a issue at all.

Would you honestly have not gotten so mad over this if I'd phrased it as "Joe Biden got the Ukrainian prosecutor whose office had an open investigation into Burisma, the Ukrainian company Biden's own kid sat on the board of, fired"?

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.

I basically don't agree with that whole theory of the best way to do effective and persuasive "narrative management," I guess. I find the evidence that the best way to disarm opposition when you know you're overall correct, is to look for the place where "the other side" is experiencing a sense that something seems wrong to them and trying to agree with them on something, anything there, to open dialogue. You have to practice some "outrage management" here.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Source

Am I the only one paying attention to the news? Not talking about you guys so much but the reporters whose job it is to actually check on this stuff? I suppose the details are tricky.

The CNN link is fine, it was Nov 7th. But since then there was this:

USA: Mick Mulvaney asks to join lawsuit on congressional subpoena enforcement in Trump impeachment probe

WASHINGTON – In a Friday evening court filing, acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney asked to join a lawsuit aiming to force federal courts to decide on whether White House officials have to testify in the impeachment inquiry of President Donald Trump. ...

...The lawsuit, had originally been filed on Oct. 25 by Charles Kupperman, a deputy to former National Security Adviser John Bolton....

... A decision in the lawsuit could also have ramifications for the potential testimony of Bolton. His lawyer, Charles Cooper, said in a Friday letter to House Democrats that Bolton would testify if a decision were reached in the Kupperman lawsuit.

Currently the Democrats withdrew the subpoena for Kupperman to reassess how they are going to present the case to the courts rather than risk a ruling that would have premature ramifications.


Bottom line, Bolton's subpoena and testimony are pending some procedural stuff aimed and getting a court ruling to overturn Trump's obstruction.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Well, to be fair, the democrats basically are serving as "prosecutors" 100%. I guess the fact that Trump's definitely super guilty and everyone knows it matters a lot, but this whole televised deal is not really an "investigation" in a normal sense. ...

I've been watching too many post game reports so I can't recall which one but at some point it was claimed that the Democrats are acting like prosecutors whereas in the Watergate hearings it was the DoJ that did the investigation.

That was one of those times I yelled at the TV. Nixon had a more honorable DoJ during Watergate, unlike Trump's corrupt department headed by Barr.

NPR: A Brief History of Nixon's 'Saturday Night Massacre'

This weekend [2018] marks the 45th anniversary of the "Saturday Night Massacre," when Richard Nixon purged legal officials from the Justice Department. It led to Nixon's resignation the following year.

... President Nixon had upended the Justice Department, having let go of his attorney general, deputy attorney general and the special counsel investigating the Watergate scandal.

Trump did this already before the Mueller report came out and like a good little minion, Barr essentially quashed the Mueller report. Republicans and Trumpers to this day continue to repeat the falsehood that Mueller found nothing and he found nothing on Trump.

So the GOP claim the Democrats were overstepping their bounds doing this investigation is bull ****.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

But prosecutors have added responsibilities (to the truth, to the openness of discovery, and to justice) that defense attorneys do not have. But your point holds to some extent.

Which is a good place to point out Jordan going on like a prosecutor was ignorant because the witnesses he was aiming his Perry Mason moment at had no knowledge of what Jordan was asking about.

But I'm sure he'll get his soundbite repeated ad nauseum in the right wing blogosphere.

Jordan's staged performance:

"Isn't true that blah blah blah?"
"I have no idea, it has nothing to do with me."
"Yeah but isn't it true?"
"How would I know?"
"So it's true then."​

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

... Jordan is spending the great majority of his time making grandstanding speeches instead of asking questions. He also repeats himself incessantly going over the same talking points. He makes me want to puke.

QFT ^

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

That's so special.

 

[kellyb]

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.

I don't think the Mueller investigation was even looking into that, were they? Ukraine's not some nuclear superpower, and if people in some country that's considered a small player on the world stage are "outed" (or just reported, whatever) in the media like that for wanting one party or candidate to win over another, I don't see why that would be even be worthy of investigation.

And it's not shady, sketchy, or suspicious that Ukrainians would have felt strongly that Trump was a threat to their country and thus some of them would have done whatever they did - which appears to be limited to alerting the FBI of Manafort's work there, which, iirc, resulted in Manafort being correctly charged with a violation of a "unregistered foreign agent" law.

This was all very "out in the open" dealings at the time, reported in the widely read magazine FP, and was considered a total non-issue by republicans and democrats alike before right now. The Republicans might try to "throw shade" at the evidence the Ukranians gave the FBI (a ledger with Manafort's name on it in multiple places, iirc) but that's not going to go anywhere. "Using the Trump impeachment to actually exonerate Manafort" would probably not be a wise strategy for them to pursue beyond making conspiratorial-sounding implications. So, they're just going to keep trying to make Ukraine (and somehow thus Biden) look just fishy enough to where they hope it justifies in the mind of some skeptical republicans the "missiles-for-antiBiden headlines" deal as "legit foreign policy," and not the bribe/foreign contributions ban violation it is.

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?

Good question, and I have no idea. The real "audience" here with this is small, (whoever those people in said audience are, which is not immediately obvious. Senate Republicans with a conscience, if they exist? The SCOTUS itself, etc?)

If this the Republicans' best stuff (and I think it might be) then I personally am enthusiastic about the upcoming debates I'll engage in, with "regular voters who are, or are potential impeachment agnostics" being my own intended audience, be they lurkers or active participants in discussion.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

One of many facts that renders this diatribe absurd is the breadth and depth of the pushback to Trump coming from his own team. Nothing like this has ever happened.

There's a mind-boggling list of current/former cabinet members, generals, senators, reps, aids, and otherwise influential Republicans who are part of this "Democratic" opposition. How do you explain that? Marianas State?

But once they turn on Trump it reveals they've always been never-Trumpers. It's a perfect catch 22.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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.

Trump doesn't understand legit complaints about him. A coup was the closest fantasy he could think of.

 

[Roger Ramjets]

Is there NOTHING Trump can do that would get them to pull their heads out of his butt?

There's plenty he could do.

Tax the rich. Believe in Global warming and take action against it. Stack the courts with non-partisan judges. Work with Democrats to make a better healthcare system... the list goes on. Do any of that and they would turn on him in a microsecond.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

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.

Say, can anyone translate this from Crosseyedgibberish to English for me? Many thanks!

 

[kellyb]

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.

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.

When it comes to cries of "Coup! Coup!" being echoed and chanted like some sort of mystical incantation to summon the spirits to make the impeachment stop existing, I've taken to publicly adding it to my "Dictionary of Words in Trumpism Newspeak", an emerging language which uses letters and sounds comprising words from standard American English, but gives them radically different definitions.

Coup:
noun
A process initiated by The President committing Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors, and followed by congress following legal protocol to remove him from office following conviction of the crimes.

 

[kellyb]

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.

Thank you!