Trump Impeachment Public Hearings [serious discussion]

[PrimeNumber7]

I think it is pretty clear that Vindman is the source to the person who filed the whistleblower complaint. He would not directly answer a question about if he knew if anyone who spoke to the press about the phone call. He also refused to answer questions about who he spoke to about the phone call, using a bogus claim that he didn’t have to answer. 

The more the hearings go on, the  more obvious it becomes that this is a partisan exercise. I would not be surprised if Democrats lose votes when they vote on articles of impeachment. I would put the chances of articles of impeachment failing to pass to be at least 40%.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that the guy Vindman told but wasn't allowed to name is the whistle blower.

The identity of the whistle blower is irrelevant though.  Even if Hillary Clinton were the whistle blower, it wouldn't change the fact that the report was deemed credible by the IG and that most of the claims have been corroborated by credible witnesses.  Harping on exposing the whistle blowers identity is just a distraction.

Hearing #2 of the day starts in a few minutes.

I would not use the term “not allowed” with regards to naming the person who filed the whistleblower complaint. A more accurate term might be “was allowed to not” name the person he spoke to about the phone call.

The identity of the person who filed the complaint could lead to evidence of political motivations in reporting the call and of other testimony given by others. This is exactly why Democrats don’t want his identity disclosed.

It was also determined that the complaint didn’t meet the threshold to be disclosed to congress, but it leaked anyway, which raises other issues.

[Spendulus]

I think it is pretty clear that Vindman is the source to the person who filed the whistleblower complaint. He would not directly answer a question about if he knew if anyone who spoke to the press about the phone call. He also refused to answer questions about who he spoke to about the phone call, using a bogus claim that he didn’t have to answer. 

The more the hearings go on, the  more obvious it becomes that this is a partisan exercise. I would not be surprised if Democrats lose votes when they vote on articles of impeachment. I would put the chances of articles of impeachment failing to pass to be at least 40%.

Yeah, it's pretty clear that the guy Vindman told but wasn't allowed to name is the whistle blower.

The identity of the whistle blower is irrelevant though.  Even if Hillary Clinton were the whistle blower, it wouldn't change the fact that the report was deemed credible by the IG and that most of the claims have been corroborated by credible witnesses.  Harping on exposing the whistle blowers identity is just a distraction.

Hearing #2 of the day starts in a few minutes.

I would not use the term “not allowed” with regards to naming the person who filed the whistleblower complaint. A more accurate term might be “was allowed to not” name the person he spoke to about the phone call.

The identity of the person who filed the complaint could lead to evidence of political motivations in reporting the call and of other testimony given by others. This is exactly why Democrats don’t want his identity disclosed.

It was also determined that the complaint didn’t meet the threshold to be disclosed to congress, but it leaked anyway, which raises other issues.

It's rather fascinating that no one can mention the name of the whistleblower BUT EVERYONE KNOWS HIS NAME. That is a charade with strong legal implications in a kangaroo court.

[OgNasty]

Trump seems might confident today.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1196958035127783427

[Gyfts]

The only defense that is going to work for Trump is that he was concerned about ongoing corruption issues within Ukraine spanning from present all the way back to the 2016 election. Vindman did not testify that there was a particular impeachable offense when discussing withholding aid from Ukraine and Soldman, who testified today, himself did not testify that there was an impeachable offense. Sondland is the only witness that has firsthand knowledge of the call and just about the only interesting thing he said today was that Trump claimed there was no quid pro quo. Democrats are going to claim that Trump was lying in that regard but there isn't any evidence to uncover that Trump had sought out investigations into Joe Biden following the phone call made to Zelensky.

[BADecker]

The second defense that will work for Trump is, it is the wealthy people and the good-sense middle class who will exonerate him by making their Congress people back down.

Almost everybody knows anyway, that Pro is to Con like Progress is to Congress.

[bluefirecorp_]

The house will impeach. Testimony today said "yes, there was quid pro quo". It's funny because no matter how much Trump denies it, people are testifying it happened.

It'd be interesting to see Trump commit perjury before Congress though. Make Trump testify.

--

Pro is to con as progressive is to conservative

[TwitchySeal]

Watched a bunch of that marathon hearing, the Republicans seem to be seizing on the facts that Trump said "there is no quid pro quo" and that Sondland testified that he wasn't explicitly told to Bribe or extort Ukraine.

The whole "first it was quid pro quo, then it was extortion, then bribery, now it's obstruction of justice omg!!!" line is just lame and not a real defense.

I really feel like they (the republicans) are making a mistake by playing that card and they would gain a lot more support if they would play the "it was wrong, but not impeachable wrong" card.  I also think Trump could make his life a lot easier if he just said "oops, sorry guys, I won't do that again".  Obviously that will never happen though.

Overall I think the first hearing (will there even be a second one?, it's so late) was bad news for the Republicans.  Sondland went from defending the president to defending himself.  There was absolutely a quid pro quo, and the orders came directly from Trump.  This much seems pretty obvious.

[bluefirecorp_]

I really feel like they (the republicans) are making a mistake by playing that card and they would gain a lot more support if they would play the "it was wrong, but not impeachable wrong" card.  I also think Trump could make his life a lot easier if he just said "oops, sorry guys, I won't do that again".  Obviously that will never happen though.

Overall I think the first hearing (will there even be a second one?, it's so late) was bad news for the Republicans.  There was absolutely a quid pro quo, and the orders came directly from Trump.  This much is obvious.

That didn't happen.

And if it did, it wasn't that bad.

And if it was, that's not a big deal.

And if it is, that's not my fault.

And if it was, I didn't mean it.

And if I did...

You deserved it.

---

They're doing it step by step. "It didn't happen". Next it wasn't that bad (not impeachable).

If it was "impeachment" it's really not that big of a deal (compared to other impeachable offenses). Besides, it's not even Trump's fault, he didn't know better. Someone should have told him it was wrong. Just because he tried to make the deal, doesn't mean it went through...

Besides, it's your fault, you elected him, duh!

---

Republican defense in a nutshell ladies and gentlemen.

[eddie13]

BOOM!!!!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-burisma/ukraine-widens-probe-against-burisma-founder-to-embezzlement-of-state-funds-idUSKBN1XU2N7



Twatter suspended some of the first account to break the news, lol..






Trump led them right into a trap and destroys them all once again!!!
Stupid lDs took the bait hook line and sinker..

Trump seems might confident today.

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/1196958035127783427

Heh.. He was right, as usual..


Does this not make the entire impeachment circus look like a democrat coverup to protect biden from investigation?

Trump let them dig themselves such a deep hole, wow.. They are finished..

[TwitchySeal]

Heh.. He was right, as usual..

Nobody has ever claimed that Burisma was not a corrupt company run by a corrupt man.

One of the reasons Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire their prosecutor was because the prosecutor closed the investigation into Burisma years earlier (before Hunter was ever on the board) after allegedly receiving a bribe.

~

Deleting this.  Don't want this to derail into name calling and trolling.

[bluefirecorp_]

~

Deleting this.  Don't want this to derail into name calling and trolling.

Sure, let the fake news stay tho. Seems legit. When someone makes a claim that's false, you should tell them they're retarded.

[TwitchySeal]

So the NBC/WaPost debate in Atlanta is scheduled to start at 9pm, and the second hearing hasn't even started yet (almost 5:30pm est).  Will be interesting to see how NBC navigates the inevitable schedule conflict. I assume most of the country will be more interested in the impeachment hearings than debate #5 with 10+ dem candidates...but they've invested a ton in promoting the debate...

When someone makes a claim that's false, you should tell them they're retarded.

Feel free to call them a retard in another thread.  But not this one please.  They're just gonna call you a retard and then off we go to the flame wars.

[PrimeNumber7]

BOOM!!!!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-burisma/ukraine-widens-probe-against-burisma-founder-to-embezzlement-of-state-funds-idUSKBN1XU2N7



Twatter suspended some of the first account to break the news, lol..

According to this article, that is fake news. If it had been true, this would have been very damaging to the Democrats.

[Spendulus]

BOOM!!!!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-burisma/ukraine-widens-probe-against-burisma-founder-to-embezzlement-of-state-funds-idUSKBN1XU2N7



Twatter suspended some of the first account to break the news, lol..

According to this article, that is fake news. If it had been true, this would have been very damaging to the Democrats.

Thw counter source calling the Zerohedge article as fake does not look too great either. But a day or two and I'm sure the facts, if any, will emerge.

If Zerohedge got it wrong, I'm sure we'll see a correction.

[TwitchySeal]

BOOM!!!!

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-impeachment-burisma/ukraine-widens-probe-against-burisma-founder-to-embezzlement-of-state-funds-idUSKBN1XU2N7



Twatter suspended some of the first account to break the news, lol..

According to this article, that is fake news. If it had been true, this would have been very damaging to the Democrats.

If true, it would definitely be used to attack the Democrats.  But not rightly so.  The Democrats aren't arguing that Burisma is not a fraudulently run company.  It's already well known that the CEO of Burisma is a criminal that has stolen millions from the Ukrainian government and should be prosecuted.  One of the reasons that Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor in 2016 was because he was not investigating companies like Burisma.  Last week one of the witnesses even testified that the fired prosecutor was bribed to shut down the investigation into Burisma.

The whole "Biden didn't want Burisma to be investigated" is a false narrative.

[Spendulus]

....

The whole "Biden didn't want Burisma to be investigated" is a false narrative.

Are you sure about that?

[Viper1]

So the original source of that Biden article is on Interfax-Ukraine... A news site owned by the Russian company Interfax. Interesting thing is that the story seems to have comes from MP Derkach. He seems to be tagged on that site for a variety of similar things about Biden that seemed to have started in, big surprise, October. Just a tad suspect given he's all of a sudden making these sorts of statements. As far as I can tell, his family has been part of the "power structure" there for a long time.

[Viper1]

This should be fun to go through.

https://www.americanoversight.org/state-department-releases-ukraine-documents-to-american-oversight

[Spendulus]

....

The whole "Biden didn't want Burisma to be investigated" is a false narrative.

Are you sure about that?

Yes. The Burisma investigation, which stems from incidents that occurred before Hunter Biden ever had anything to do with it, had been shelved by the time Shokin was removed as prosecutor. Just because Hunter Biden was on the board of a potentially corrupt company it doesn't mean he knew it was corrupt or played any role in furthering its corruption, despite whatever Quickseller or PrimeNumber7 has to say about it.

I have reason to NOT BE SURE.

https://johnsolomonreports.com/a-dozen-document-troves-that-could-change-the-ukraine-scandal-if-trump-released-them/

Remember, timing is everything.

[TwitchySeal]

Judiciary Committee just announced they will have a public hearing next Wednesday, Dec 4th.  (Jerry Nadler is chair of Judiciary committee, all of the previous hearings have been held by the Intelligence committee, chaired by Adam Schiff)

https://judiciary.house.gov/legislation/hearings/impeachment-inquiry-president-donald-j-trump-constitutional-grounds

Date: Wednesday, December 4, 2019 - 10:00am
Location: 1100 Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC 20515
The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump: Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment
Subcommittees:
Judiciary (116th Congress)

Trumps council will be able to participate, should be interesting.


I'll be less active for a few days.  Hope everyone has a Happy Thanksgiving.