A thread for civil discussion on US national politics, formerly known as "Donald Trump has been Impeached [Serious Discussion]" and "Donald Trump has been Impeached, what's next? [Serious Discussion]" Local Rules:- No baiting, trolling or flaming. - If you aren't interested in the opinions of those you disagree with, do not post in this thread. - If you aren't willing to make an effort at being objective, do not post in this thread. - No personal attacks, name calling, tantrums, circular arguments. - Don't be an asshole. - No spam. If you have a signature from a spammy signature campaign, and you make vague post about US politics, I'll probably just delete it. If you don't like these rules, TECSHARE created a thread that isn't self moderated: https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=5201320.0 |
|
|
|
@TwitchySeal The P900 has 83x optical zoom, it's in the specifications...  So because it says it on the box you assume it must be true? You sure Nikon isn't run by a bunch of Satanists that want to make people believe the earth is flat? |
|
|
|
...
Trump has blocked the release of all documents and testimonies of his inner circle, which weakens the "there are no emails, documents or testimonies from high ranking officials that prove Trump did something bad" argument. I'm not saying it proves anything one way or another, but it's definitely something to consider.
Sure, consider it. If the Dems had just used standard parliamentary procedure, equal rights to counter a witness, they wouldn't be dealing with this block. Listening to Rush Limbaugh a bit today, he was essentially telling Pelosi to give this up, saying it's already looking bad for the Dems. I agree but for differing reasons. The impression I got was really one of Deep State Wants To Run Things. So what's going on? After arguing there was no deep state for several years, now the Dems have embraced it? In 2015, when the Republicans controlled the House and were investigating Obama, they changed the rules on issuing subpoenas and voted to give the Chairman final say on every subpoena. At the time the Democrats screamed bloody murder, called it McCarthyism etc. Now of course they are cool with it and it's the Republicans having a tantrum. It was the same for Bush and Clinton. There is no such thing as an investigation into the president where the presidents allies don't say some variation of all the same things Republicans are saying today. I really don't think Trump blocking all his witnesses have anything to do with the 'procedure'. The White House already stated that the only way they would cooperate was if the entire impeachment inquiry was cancelled  Also, if Trump is innocent, and there are E mails and documents or other evidence that would prove this, then he's only hurting himself politically by refusing to cooperate. |
|
|
|
...
Yeah, it's possible that it was just a coincidence that after 2 months of withholding the money, they decided to release it 2 days after realizing the whole thing was likely to be investigated by Congress. There is going to be a ton of evidence that doesn't prove something 100% did or did not happen. It doesn't mean we should just ignore it.
If the money had been released a week earlier, when the only potential motivation was to help Ukraine, the GOPs "the money was released, Ukraine didn't investigate, end of story" defense would be solid. But it wasn't.
Or the Dems knew the upcoming date of funds release, and scheduled their announcement two days prior. Knowing they'd have no "case" in two days. That's a fair point. I hadn't considered that scenario.
Emails or other communications showing a chain of causation, show a chain of causation.
Two dates do not.
Trump has blocked the release of all documents and testimonies of his inner circle, which weakens the "there are no emails, documents or testimonies from high ranking officials that prove Trump did something bad" argument. I'm not saying it proves anything one way or another, but it's definitely something to consider. |
|
|
|
So according to George Kent the Burisma investigations were terminated in early 2015 and someone likely bribed the prosecutor to close them. Kinda throws a wrench into the whole "Joe Biden admitted that he bribed the Ukrainian President with $1 billion dollars to fire lead prosecutor investigating his corrupt son in 2018" theory. The pervasive and long standing problem of corruption in Ukraine included exposure to a situation involving the energy company Burisma. The primary concern of the U.S. government since 2014 was Burisma’s owner — Mykola Zlochevsky — whose frozen assets abroad we had attempted to recover on Ukraine’s behalf. In early 2015, I raised questions with the deputy Prosecutor General about why the investigation of Mr. Zlochevsky had been terminated, based on our belief that prosecutors had accepted bribes to close the case. |
|
|
|
....
I do think there might be precedent on withholding money though -- obviously temporarily. I feel like I read it somewhere that other Presidents have done similar things (obviously not in regards to the portion about asking about dirt on their opponent) with withholding of funds.
I actually don't agree that Trump asking for a look into Biden's son constitutes "asking about dirt on the opponent." There could have been any number of things going on behind the scenes that would make a plausible and sensible explanation for setting the son on the Board of Burisma. In the absence of those explanations or any serious explanation (eg. "We can't tell you- it's a national security matter") then yes, the suspicion of dirt certainly does exist and is not going away. He didn't just ask them to look into it though, he asked the Pres of Ukraine to hold a press conference and announce that they were opening the investigation. (according to testimony) Does not change what I said one bit. I guess my point is that if Trump were only interested in the eventual outcome of an investigation involving the Bidens, why would he want a public announcement from the President of Ukraine. Why not just ask them to investigate it without requiring a public announcement? I can't think of any scenario where the public announcement would help the investigation. If anything, the default for investigators is to prevent whoever they're investigating from knowing about the investigation as long as possible. I think it's pretty safe to assume that if Ukraine made the public announcement, it would damage Bidens reputation. It's also pretty safe to assume that Trump and the Republicans would use it as a talking point for the duration of the campaign. That's why I think that if he asked for a public announcement, which is what is being claimed in the testimony, then it would serve as some pretty solid evidence on Trumps intent. ....
Well yes. The Dems did a VERY good job combating that line of thought, by saying that the money was only released AFTER the house had begun their investigation.
I think the timeline is as follows:
House begins the investigation into the President - Sep 9th
Money is released - Sep 11th
If Trump had released this money the 5th or something along those lines, this would've been a different story. Not totally cleared, but at least the Republicans could've fought on that front.
This is neither fair nor accurate. There are all sorts of things that affect something like, "when the money was released." You are trying to impute cause and effect in a sequence of events. It doesn't work that way - just because one event happened after another does not imply one caused the other. They can both have independent chains of causation, and that's quite common. ....
Well yes. The Dems did a VERY good job combating that line of thought, by saying that the money was only released AFTER the house had begun their investigation.
I think the timeline is as follows:
House begins the investigation into the President - Sep 9th
Money is released - Sep 11th
If Trump had released this money the 5th or something along those lines, this would've been a different story. Not totally cleared, but at least the Republicans could've fought on that front.
This is neither fair nor accurate. There are all sorts of things that affect something like, "when the money was released." You are trying to impute cause and effect in a sequence of events. It doesn't work that way - just because one event happened after another does not imply one caused the other. They can both have independent chains of causation, and that's quite common. Yeah, it's possible that it was just a coincidence that after 2 months of withholding the money, they decided to release it 2 days after realizing the whole thing was likely to be investigated by Congress. There is going to be a ton of evidence that doesn't prove something 100% did or did not happen. It doesn't mean we should just ignore it. If the money had been released a week earlier, when the only potential motivation was to help Ukraine, the GOPs "the money was released, Ukraine didn't investigate, end of story" defense would be solid. But it wasn't. |
|
|
|
....
I do think there might be precedent on withholding money though -- obviously temporarily. I feel like I read it somewhere that other Presidents have done similar things (obviously not in regards to the portion about asking about dirt on their opponent) with withholding of funds.
I actually don't agree that Trump asking for a look into Biden's son constitutes "asking about dirt on the opponent." There could have been any number of things going on behind the scenes that would make a plausible and sensible explanation for setting the son on the Board of Burisma. In the absence of those explanations or any serious explanation (eg. "We can't tell you- it's a national security matter") then yes, the suspicion of dirt certainly does exist and is not going away. He didn't just ask them to look into it though, he asked the Pres of Ukraine to hold a press conference and announce that they were opening the investigation. (according to testimony) According to testimony, is the key portion here. I'm not going to believe such into I see it written somewhere, confirmed by multiple people, in a phone call, text, etc -- from Trump or one of the advisers around him. I think that's pretty fair -- I don't think it's fair to believe hearsay It's already been confirmed by multiple people under oath, most of them career staffers with decades of experience without any sort of political past or scandal. Also, Trump has instructed his advisors and State department to ignore subpoenas and refuse to cooperate with the investigation. The State Dept has tons of documents turned over by the 2 witnesses today, for example, and none of them have been given to congress. It seems pretty unlikely to me that that everyone that has shown up for the hearings are lying and the White House is refusing to allow anyone from the Presidents staff to explain what really happened under oath. I do think that "they're all lying" is a much more valid defense than some of the ones that were used today. Especially the "the money was released, and Ukraine didn't open the investigation, nothing else matters, end of story" defense. |
|
|
|
....
I do think there might be precedent on withholding money though -- obviously temporarily. I feel like I read it somewhere that other Presidents have done similar things (obviously not in regards to the portion about asking about dirt on their opponent) with withholding of funds.
I actually don't agree that Trump asking for a look into Biden's son constitutes "asking about dirt on the opponent." There could have been any number of things going on behind the scenes that would make a plausible and sensible explanation for setting the son on the Board of Burisma. In the absence of those explanations or any serious explanation (eg. "We can't tell you- it's a national security matter") then yes, the suspicion of dirt certainly does exist and is not going away. He didn't just ask them to look into it though, he asked the Pres of Ukraine to hold a press conference and announce that they were opening the investigation. (according to testimony) |
|
|
|
I do think there might be precedent on withholding money though -- obviously temporarily. I feel like I read it somewhere that other Presidents have done similar things (obviously not in regards to the portion about asking about dirt on their opponent) with withholding of funds.
You're right. Obama basically did the same thing with the $1b loan condition of firing the prosecutor. I'm sure there are other examples also. I think it's up for debate on where the line is on what's legal and not legal when it comes to a President messing with funds that Congress approved to go somewhere since the constitution gives Congress the sole "power of the purse" Trump Campaign Public-Impeachment-Hearing-Eve Email: ----snip---- I'm going to assume that the Dems ran an email blast similar to this, talking about how the PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS SELLING THE NATION FOREIGN POLICY OUT FOR HIS OWN CAMPAIGN If anyone has that, would be cool to post it here. There were probably 12 different ones like that. I just thought the official "Impeachment Defense" card was funny. |
|
|
|
Opening statements and first 45 minutes are over, a staff lawyer questioned Taylor and Kent for the Democrats for most of the time. I think Kent did a good job of laying out the timeline of events since he became ambassador last Spring. ....
Taylor came across as an arrogant, frustrated mid level bureocrat. I thought it was quite interesting how he presumed that HE (and his ilk) should be the main forces in policy, not the POTUS. Deep state, right there. Trump appointed Taylor as acting US ambassador to Ukraine (at the recommendation of Pompeo). Taylor agreed under the condition that the general US policy towards Ukraine, especially when it comes to helping them defend themselves from Russia, did not change. (I assume this was because Trump previously mentioned the possibility of recognizing Crimea as part of Russia). The main force in foreign policy is not the presidents alone. Congress is very involved. The Senate confirms Ambassadors* and the House decides where money should go based on information from the Ambassadors that the President appoints. *Taylor hasn't been confirmed as he is officially the "Acting Ambassador to Ukraine" since the previous Ambassador (who is testifying on friday) was fired suddenly. |
|
|
|
Opening statements and first 45 minutes are over, a staff lawyer questioned Taylor and Kent for the Democrats for most of the time. I think Kent did a good job of laying out the timeline of events since he became ambassador last Spring. Apparently he took very detailed notes and was able to provide lots of direct quotes and details of every conversation. The only thing that stood out as something I didn't expect was in Kents opening statement he testified that the the Prosecutor who Biden pressured Ukraine to fire had already closed the investigation into Burisma. Will be interesting to see what Nunez and the GOP staffer focus on for the next 45 minutes. They could attack the credibility of the witnesses some how, push their own narrative without actually questioning the witnesses much or focus on the actual process rather than substance.
It is ironic that Obama gave Pillows to Ukraine after Russia annexed Crimea. So democrats don’t actually care about Ukraine as an ally.
This was just Trump being dramatic and then Gaetz straight up lying about US Ukraine relations under Obama The US did not provide lethal aid to Ukraine under Obama, and the Republicans were not happy about that, but it's not like he just sent Pillows. The United States has committed more than $120 million in security assistance for Ukraine to date, and has additionally promised 230 Humvees in total, as well as $75 million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices, and medical supplies. source
First hearing just started. Live StreamIn 2014, the then President of Ukraine said: "Blankets and night vision goggles are important, but one cannot win a war with a blanket." https://www.politifact.com/florida/statements/2019/oct/25/matt-gaetz/matt-gaetz-says-obama-permanently-stopped-military/The fact remains that Obama did not send lethal weapons to Ukraine and what they received did not allow their military to fight back against Russia. I believe this proves my point, regardless if it was “pillows and blankets” that were actually sent, it is the lack of lethal weapons. Totally fair to criticize Obamas decision to not supply lethal aid. But in 2015 he approved ~$200m in aid to help Ukraine defend themselves against the Russians. They also sanctioned Russia and kicked them out of the G8 for invading Crimea. So I don't think it's fair to conclude that "democrats don’t actually care about Ukraine as an ally". I think it's pretty clear that general view by both Democrats and Republicans is that helping out Ukraine is in the best interest of American National Security. Also worth noting Nunez has mentioned twice now in the hearing that all the Democrats did was "give them blankets". |
|
|
|
It is ironic that Obama gave Pillows to Ukraine after Russia annexed Crimea. So democrats don’t actually care about Ukraine as an ally.
This was just Trump being dramatic and then Gaetz straight up lying about US Ukraine relations under Obama The US did not provide lethal aid to Ukraine under Obama, and the Republicans were not happy about that, but it's not like he just sent Pillows. The United States has committed more than $120 million in security assistance for Ukraine to date, and has additionally promised 230 Humvees in total, as well as $75 million worth of equipment including UAVs, counter-mortar radars, night vision devices, and medical supplies. source
First hearing just started. Live Stream |
|
|
|
Trump Campaign Public-Impeachment-Hearing-Eve Email: Can you believe this Impeachment WITCH HUNT is still going on? Nancy and Chuck have led the Democrats to become the party of high crime and blatant corruption. It’s disgusting. It’s so simple just READ THE TRANSCRIPT! It’s time to stand together and condemn the LIES of the Radical Left, the Fake News Media, and the rogue bureaucrats of the Deep State. That’s why I’m calling on YOU to step up during this critical time. As one of my most loyal supporters, I want you to be one of the first Patriots to get your very own, PERSONALIZED Impeachment Defense Membership Card. This card will mark your status as one of my TOP DEFENDERS, and with it, you will be at the forefront of this impeachment war. Please contribute $35 TODAY to get your Official Impeachment Defense Membership Card that will be PERSONALIZED with your name and Defense Member ID number. >> - Contribute $250 - Contribute $100 - Contribute $70 - Contribute $35 - Contribute Other (above are links)  I’m counting on you. The only message these Radical Democrats will understand is a CRUSHING defeat in 2020. The deadline to get your membership card is at 11:59 PM TONIGHT, so don’t wait to get yours. Please contribute $35 by 11:59 PM TONIGHT to get your PERSONALIZED Impeachment Defense Membership Card. Thank you, Donald J. Trump |
|
|
|
I've seen this all over twitter, and now on the Daily Wire. BUT NO OTHER NEWS SOURCE HAS WENT AFTER THIS.
No one, not a fucking news source in the world. Not the Conservatives at the WSJ, or the Liberals at CNN/NY Times/etc. While I know that Project Veritas is KNOWN to be a group that edits a large amount of their content, even if this is edited this isn't something you just say.
I have been trying to tell you with much difficulty for some time that you are making a mistake hoping to get accurate and timely information from the very same cartels responsible for these issues, that end up being reported elsewhere. It definitely didn't make major headlines, but it also definitely made the news, and, to be fair, there are some pretty big things going on. I think that if the media thought the Epstein/Robach story would attract the most eyes, it would've gotten the most attention...well, maybe not from ABC.      |
|
|
|
^^^ Whatever you need them to be, the scientific method isn't biased. The earth is observably flat as far as the eye can see and the P900 has 83x optical zoom. A. the earth is 83x times bigger B. the earth is flat Choose one and only one!  hint: "...but it's, it's has to be"I guess I have to choose A since it's an incomplete statement and B is false. How do you know that the Nikon has an 83x zoom? Now your turn: A. The Earth is round B. The Earth is not flat Choose one and only one! |
|
|
|
Those of us who know the earth is flat.  Na, not everyone that 'knows' the earth is flat has actually done any experiments. But those that did, what are their qualifications? |
|
|
|
We've measured the distance to the horizon with a P900 and it's not consistent with the globe model.
Who is 'we'. |
|
|
|
...
This inquiry is a big sham by the Democrats as they’re using pressure techniques to remove Trump from the White House....
So now the "Whistleblower" isn't going to be called to the stand? Guess he had a lot to hide. I don't think he's relevant anymore. He didn't listen to phone call first hand, someone else told him about it so he reported it. We have the "transcript" that confirms his claim and several witnesses who actually listened to the phone call. What could he possibly add? Even if he was totally discredited, it wouldn't change the facts that have been established since his report was filed. Identifying him would only discourage federal employees from reporting something they think is wrong. He'd be instantly hated by half the country, his entire life would be put under a national microscope, there would be death threats and harassment for him and his family. Unlike public officials and politicians, that's not what he signed up for. It's important for federal employees to feel they can report something they think is wrong without worrying about being dragged into the political arena. |
|
|
|
Minority leader Kevin McCarthy announced that Jim Jordan is taking Devin Nunez' seat as ranking member of the intelligence committee. That means it will be Jim Jordan that gets the 45 minutes to question each witness at the beginning of each hearing. Jordan has definitely been one of the most aggressive/confrontational members of the intelligence committee during past hearings, and Nunez not so much, so it seems likely that the Republicans are probably planning on him actually questioning the witnesses. The Democrats will most likely be using a staff member with a lot of court room experience. This is a massive power move right here. Putting Jim Jordan (a massive Trump ally) in the hearings who has been proven to ask very intense questions is something that I support. This does come from the fact that he is on the oversight committee though, and has been able to see a lot of this play out. We'll see! I totally misread that article about Jim Jordan. He's being swapped with another congressman (Rick Crawford from Arkansas) for a regular seat on the Intelligence committee, not the chairmans seat. I thought Jordan was already on the intelligence committee for some reason, oops. This means Jordan will get 5 minutes to question each witness. In past hearings several other congressmen have yielded their 5 minutes to Jordan, so I'm guessing that will happen a couple times also. Most likely staff council will be doing the questioning for the first 45 minutes for each party. I agree it was definitely a smart move to put Jordan on the council. He is good at creating sound clips for conservative media to focus on and if there are any holes in a witnesses testimony he'll be very effective in pointing them out. This inquiry is a big sham by the Democrats as they’re using pressure techniques to remove Trump from the White House, because they’re well aware that they cannot beat him during next years elections.
I don't think anyone really 'knows' what is going to happen in 2020, but yeah the 2020 election is definitely motivation for having these hearings. If what they are alleging is true, and I believe at least some of them really do believe it's true, then I don't really see any other option than to hold the hearings. Just letting it go because the election is in less than a year doesn't make sense when the allegations are that Trump is willing to abuse his power as president to influence the election. It would be like thinking someones cheating at a game, and deciding to just keep playing instead of trying to have them disqualified because the championship was just around the corner @TwitchySeal I’ll be following this thread rigorously, while I liked the idea of strict discussions I hope you’ll allow some dramatic posts too.
Drama is fine. The hearings are shaping up to be pretty dramatic. Just want to keep the thread clear of trolls and derails and hopefully attract some users who normally avoid threads like this that usually devolve into an unreadable mess. |
|
|
|
|
Show Posts
