Trump Impeachment Public Hearings [serious discussion]

[PrimeNumber7]

The house is debating the articles of impeachment today. They have 6 hours of debate, half for democrats and half for Republicans. They started around noon today, so time for debate should end around 6-630 this afternoon.

There is a lot of hyperbole and a lot of hysteria.

[guigui371]

If I am not mistaken, with 220+ votes for Yay, the 1st article is passed and Trump is impeached by the house.
Now the Senate will put him on a trial early January to see if he is removed as a president.

This is very very fresh, no source to quote, just the live video on twitter.

Can anyone confirm  ?

[suchmoon]

Can anyone confirm  ?

Yes.

https://live.house.gov/

8:52:36 PM   H. Res. 755   Motion to reconsider laid Article II on the table Agreed to without objection.
8:52:29 PM   H. Res. 755   Motion to reconsider Article I laid on the table Agreed to without objection.
8:52:04 PM   H. Res. 755   On agreeing to Article II of the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: (Roll no. 696).
8:34:22 PM   H. Res. 755   On agreeing to Article I of the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (Roll no. 695).

Vote results will be available here at some point:

http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2019&rollnumber=695
http://clerk.house.gov/cgi-bin/vote.asp?year=2019&rollnumber=696

[nutildah]

Well, the inevitable has finally happened.

House voted Yea on both articles of impeachment.

Interestingly, Rep Jared Golden of Maine (D) was the only member to split his vote, voting Yea for article one and Nay for article two.

Non-interestingly, the vote was split right across party lines, with 2 Dems voting Nay for both articles.

Tulsi Gabbard gave the weird answer of "Present" for both articles.

[PrimeNumber7]

Well, the inevitable has finally happened.

I am surprised it took this long. I had figured they would have impeached Trump within the first day of getting the majority.

Non-interestingly, the vote was split right across party lines, with 2 Dems voting Nay for both articles.

This just shows this was a partisan exercise. There is bipartisan opposition to impeaching Trump.

Tulsi Gabbard gave the weird answer of "Present" for both articles.

This was her not voting to further divide America, while not giving Trump further political ammunition.

Pelosi reportedly has not committed to even sending the articles of Impeachment to the Senate, so there may never even be a trial. I guess the argument that Trump did something so bad that he needed to be removed from office a year from an election was bogus.

[Viper1]

Tulsi Gabbard gave the weird answer of "Present" for both articles.

What do you find weird about it? It's common in controversial votes for some to vote "present" as opposed to committing to either side when, for example, you agree with part of it and not others and you just can't bring yourself to vote in favor. Of course some also use it as a way to weasel out of a vote.

[Viper1]

Tulsi Gabbard gave the weird answer of "Present" for both articles.

What do you find weird about it? It's common in controversial votes for some to vote "present" as opposed to committing to either side when, for example, you agree with part of it and not others and you just can't bring yourself to vote in favor. Of course some also use it as a way to weasel out of a vote.

Well, yesterday it wasn't that common, as she was the only one who did it. I think its probably a marketing gimmick for her campaign. At best, she'll make a good VP, I think. For the longest time I've been saying Bernie/Tulsi would be a winning combination. Biden will probably pick Warren.

I was liking Tulsi a bit until she started on the Regime Change war mantra and I just started to feel she was more interested in protecting those in the military than the actual country itself. The whole "talking" thing is just great in theory but history shows it doesn't work out well usually when you're dealing with people who think differently than you and who have ambitions and desires that do not include peace. I see her as folding when it comes to things like the cuban missile crissis for example.

[TwitchySeal]

Tulsi Gabbard gave the weird answer of "Present" for both articles.

What do you find weird about it? It's common in controversial votes for some to vote "present" as opposed to committing to either side when, for example, you agree with part of it and not others and you just can't bring yourself to vote in favor. Of course some also use it as a way to weasel out of a vote.

Well, yesterday it wasn't that common, as she was the only one who did it. I think its probably a marketing gimmick for her campaign. At best, she'll make a good VP, I think. For the longest time I've been saying Bernie/Tulsi would be a winning combination. Biden will probably pick Warren.

She posted a statement on why she voted present on her campaign site:  https://www.tulsi2020.com/press/2019-12-19-tulsi-gabbard-releases-statement-impeachment-president-trump

And on her official House.gov site she called for Trump to be censured: https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-tulsi-gabbard-calls-house-censure-president-putting-personal-political-gain

She's basically saying "He obviously abused his power as president to gain an advantage in upcoming election, but it 'breaks her heart we are so divided' so lets just censure him instead".   <==that's me paraphrasing.  

Her arguments just don't make sense to me though.  It seems pretty clear she's doing it for attention/political reasons.  Voting present != Being brave, and putting Country before Party.  So she must still be trying really hard to be the next president, and she pretty much torched any shot at the Dem nomination....which means third party it is, which will help the Republicans BIG TIME come November.


Unrelated: Basically ignored anything politics for past couple weeks on vacation and just read books and basically avoided any political discussion with family and friends.  Detoxing from constant news and reading a couple books without keeping up with the rest of the world is quite nice.  Especially if you're forced to consume it at work every day.

[Spendulus]

....

And on her official House.gov site she called for Trump to be censured: https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-tulsi-gabbard-calls-house-censure-president-putting-personal-political-gain

She's basically saying "He obviously abused his power as president to gain an advantage in upcoming election, but it 'breaks her heart we are so divided' so lets just censure him instead".   <==that's me paraphrasing.  

Her arguments just don't make sense to me though.  ...

They make perfect sense to me. The House voting to censure would be a completed action with some political impact. (Based on lies by lying liars but that's beside the point.)

The House as-is voting to impeach makes them look totally like fools plus incompetent.

[TwitchySeal]

....

And on her official House.gov site she called for Trump to be censured: https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-tulsi-gabbard-calls-house-censure-president-putting-personal-political-gain

She's basically saying "He obviously abused his power as president to gain an advantage in upcoming election, but it 'breaks her heart we are so divided' so lets just censure him instead".   <==that's me paraphrasing.  

Her arguments just don't make sense to me though.  ...

They make perfect sense to me. The House voting to censure would be a completed action with some political impact. (Based on lies by lying liars but that's beside the point.)

The House as-is voting to impeach makes them look totally like fools plus incompetent.

So why not just vote no? 

[Spendulus]

....

And on her official House.gov site she called for Trump to be censured: https://gabbard.house.gov/news/press-releases/rep-tulsi-gabbard-calls-house-censure-president-putting-personal-political-gain

She's basically saying "He obviously abused his power as president to gain an advantage in upcoming election, but it 'breaks her heart we are so divided' so lets just censure him instead".   <==that's me paraphrasing.  

Her arguments just don't make sense to me though.  ...

They make perfect sense to me. The House voting to censure would be a completed action with some political impact. (Based on lies by lying liars but that's beside the point.)

The House as-is voting to impeach makes them look totally like fools plus incompetent.

So why not just vote no? 

I agree with your opinion on that.

It seems pretty clear she's doing it for attention/political reasons.

In the midst of an ocean of baboons, she comes across as sane.

[KingScorpio]

trying to impeach trump on basis of biden corruption is complete nonsense, usa, accused soviet union of corruption, if usa wouldnt have fought corruption globally like trump did, they would reveal themselves even earlier as hypocrits,

[TwitchySeal]

trying to impeach trump on basis of biden corruption is complete nonsense

There is tons of evidence that suggests the main reason he withheld the funds and WH meeting was to gain a political advantage in the next election.  For example, why would he make a public statement from Ukraine about opening the investigation a requirement before giving Ukraine a meeting in the White House?

What would an investigation led by a corrupt country even prove?  

If it really was just a coincidence that his most likely 2020 opponent was involved, and Trumps actions were driven purely by a desire to stop corruption, then I agree with you. It's clear that was not the case though.

[KingScorpio]

trying to impeach trump on basis of biden corruption is complete nonsense

There is tons of evidence that suggests the main reason he withheld the funds and WH meeting was to gain a political advantage in the next election.  For example, why would he make a public statement from Ukraine about opening the investigation a requirement before giving Ukraine a meeting in the White House?

What would an investigation led by a corrupt country even prove?  

If it really was just a coincidence that his most likely 2020 opponent was involved, and Trumps actions were driven purely by a desire to stop corruption, then I agree with you. It's clear that was not the case though.

jes there are reasons for that, but he is a businessman, he would have risked american trustworthiness as a global partner if he wouldn't have reacted aggressive on corruption especially if its american corruption.

so holding funds back was a tool of trump to force an american partner to fight corrupt people even if they are americans.

corrupt democrats and corrupt liberals can't accept that they are corrupt and hoped they would be able to stay corrupt because they where americans.

[Spendulus]

trying to impeach trump on basis of biden corruption is complete nonsense

There is tons of evidence that suggests the main reason he withheld the funds and WH meeting was to gain a political advantage in the next election.  For example, why would he make a public statement from Ukraine about opening the investigation a requirement before giving Ukraine a meeting in the White House?....

"Evidence that suggests" is not evidence.

You are trying to make inferences as to motive.

[TwitchySeal]

"Evidence that suggests" is not evidence.

Yeah.  It literally is.

[KingScorpio]

trying to impeach trump on basis of biden corruption is complete nonsense

There is tons of evidence that suggests the main reason he withheld the funds and WH meeting was to gain a political advantage in the next election.  For example, why would he make a public statement from Ukraine about opening the investigation a requirement before giving Ukraine a meeting in the White House?....

"Evidence that suggests" is not evidence.

You are trying to make inferences as to motive.

reacting aggressive on corruption no mattter and even especially if its caused by your own citizen is an important and valuable mindset of american imperialism, you can't be weak on corruption especially if its your own, america would lose only trustworthyness with its allies, trump did everything wrong stupid demorats, can't admit it, because they don't get a black president's cock to suck.

[TwitchySeal]

trying to impeach trump on basis of biden corruption is complete nonsense

There is tons of evidence that suggests the main reason he withheld the funds and WH meeting was to gain a political advantage in the next election.  For example, why would he make a public statement from Ukraine about opening the investigation a requirement before giving Ukraine a meeting in the White House?....

"Evidence that suggests" is not evidence.

You are trying to make inferences as to motive.

reacting aggressive on corruption no mattter and even especially if its caused by your own citizen is an important and valuable mindset of american imperialism, you can't be weak on corruption especially if its your own, america would lose only trustworthyness with its allies, trump did everything wrong stupid demorats, can't admit it, because they don't get a black president's cock to suck.

The funds were released in 2017 and 2018, no problem.

Biden announced he was running in late April 2019.
Biden had a huge lead by June, which was when Trump made his requests and froze ~$400m in military aid that was ordered by congress and approved by the DOD.

He wanted the president of Ukraine, a corrupt country, to make a public announcement (on CNN was the plan) that Ukraine was opening an investigation into the DNC and Biden/Burissma in exchange for the $400 million and a White House Meeting.

No other investigation requests.  Just the DNC and the Bidens.

This was all confirmed by career, non partisan officials and officials appointed by Trump under oath.  There are also transcripts and emails that support all of the above.

In Trumps defense, there's no evidence of him explicitly saying he was doing it because of the election.  Also, after he found out he was being investigated by congress he did explicitly say 'I want nothing, no quid quo pro' to the EU ambassador and then released the funds.

In my opinion it's painfully obvious that his primary motivation was to make his political opponent look bad.  I think it's just second nature for him to do whatever he can to trash the reputation of anyone who stands in his way by any means necessary.

[Spendulus]

....
In Trumps defense, there's no evidence of him explicitly saying he was doing it because of the election.  

Also, after he found out he was being investigated by congress he did explicitly say 'I want nothing, no quid quo pro' to the EU ambassador and then released the funds.

In my opinion it's painfully obvious that his primary motivation was to make his political opponent look bad.  ....

Earlier you said ...

There is tons of evidence that suggests the main reason he withheld the funds and WH meeting was to gain a political advantage in the next election.  For example, why would he make a public statement from Ukraine about opening the investigation a requirement before giving Ukraine a meeting in the White House?....


I replied ...

"Evidence that suggests" is not evidence.

You are trying to make inferences as to motive.


Now you are saying

In my opinion it's painfully obvious that his primary motivation was to make his political opponent look bad.  ....

It would appear you agree with me? Please clarify. Is there actually evidence, or do we just get to hear your opinion? This may seem trivial but the "witnesses" brought by Adam Schiff also seemed to just have a bunch of Orange Man Bad "opinions", and everyone's really sick of hearing that sort of tripe.

There's also a fundamental legal problem with your position, which is that the alleged actions did not occur, so you have no person damaged by the alleged "motivations." It's as if you have some guys talking about burglarizing Democrat HQ (Watergate) but not doing it. The correct charge for this would be a form of conspiracy, would it not?

Or do you just want to impeach for your opinion of primary motivation?

[TwitchySeal]

....
In Trumps defense, there's no evidence of him explicitly saying he was doing it because of the election.  

Also, after he found out he was being investigated by congress he did explicitly say 'I want nothing, no quid quo pro' to the EU ambassador and then released the funds.

In my opinion it's painfully obvious that his primary motivation was to make his political opponent look bad.  ....

Earlier you said ...

There is tons of evidence that suggests the main reason he withheld the funds and WH meeting was to gain a political advantage in the next election.  For example, why would he make a public statement from Ukraine about opening the investigation a requirement before giving Ukraine a meeting in the White House?....


I replied ...

"Evidence that suggests" is not evidence.

You are trying to make inferences as to motive.


Now you are saying

In my opinion it's painfully obvious that his primary motivation was to make his political opponent look bad.  ....

It would appear you agree with me? Please clarify. Is there actually evidence, or do we just get to hear your opinion? This may seem trivial but the "witnesses" brought by Adam Schiff also seemed to just have a bunch of Orange Man Bad "opinions", and everyone's really sick of hearing that sort of tripe.

There's also a fundamental legal problem with your position, which is that the alleged actions did not occur, so you have no person damaged by the alleged "motivations." It's as if you have some guys talking about burglarizing Democrat HQ (Watergate) but not doing it. The correct charge for this would be a form of conspiracy, would it not?

Or do you just want to impeach for your opinion of primary motivation?

There is evidence and I have an opinion.  I don't see any reason to explain it all again.

I understand you disagree with me, think very little of my opinions, believe I'm not capable of looking at the situation rationally due to an extreme hatred of Trump and am a fool for supporting any Democrat.  So there's no need to keep pointing it out over and over again.  I've also made it clear I disagree with most of your opinions and believe many things you've stated as facts are untrue.  There's no need to keep going in circles.