Trump Impeachment Public Hearings [serious discussion]

[BADecker]

....
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.

Come on! Don't feel so rejected. The real question is, when is an impeachment an impeachment? Is it when a bunch of people think about it? When they talk about it? When they write it down? When they vote on it? When a vote on it passes? When it goes through the whole process (Senate)? When?

It hasn't officially made it to the Senate, yet, has it? But if it has, they haven't voted on it yet, have they? But if they have, the voting hasn't been made public yet, has it?

Until the Senate's vote on the matter is made public, the REAL effects of an impeachment aren't worth anything. And this is proven when Trump goads Pelosi by inviting her to impeach him, and she responds that they are going to force him to remain in office his full term.

The whole impeachment thing is smoke and mirrors, a dog and pony show... or at least a game.

For any really serious discussion, we need to wait for the Senate vote.

[kro55]

Bill clintion in 1998 bombed Afgnanistan and Sudan to avoid impeachment on Monica case.

The missiles were launched three days after Clinton testified on the Monica Lewinsky scandal,[131] and some countries, media outlets, protesters, and Republicans accused Clinton of ordering the attacks as a diversion.
Wikipedia

I am sure Trump will also get away from getting impeached because of recent Iranian general killing.

[TwitchySeal]

Come on! Don't feel so rejected. The real question is, when is an impeachment an impeachment?

As soon as a simple majority of the House Votes to impeach.

It's the same as an indictment.

If someone is indicted on murder charges and then found not guilty by a jury, or if a plea deal is reached for lesser charges, or if the charges are dropped completely, it doesn't mean they weren't indicted.

[BADecker]

Come on! Don't feel so rejected. The real question is, when is an impeachment an impeachment?

As soon as a simple majority of the House Votes to impeach.

It's the same as an indictment.

If someone is indicted on murder charges and then found not guilty by a jury, or if a plea deal is reached for lesser charges, or if the charges are dropped completely, it doesn't mean they weren't indicted.

But you ignored the rest of what I said.

An impeachment isn't important if it doesn't produce results. And in the case of Trump, the impeachment seems to be doing exactly the opposite of what was intended by the impeachers... impeaching Trump out of office.

[Viper1]

Come on! Don't feel so rejected. The real question is, when is an impeachment an impeachment?

As soon as a simple majority of the House Votes to impeach.

It's the same as an indictment.

If someone is indicted on murder charges and then found not guilty by a jury, or if a plea deal is reached for lesser charges, or if the charges are dropped completely, it doesn't mean they weren't indicted.

But you ignored the rest of what I said.

An impeachment isn't important if it doesn't produce results. And in the case of Trump, the impeachment seems to be doing exactly the opposite of what was intended by the impeachers... impeaching Trump out of office.

You're assuming you know what their real intent was. You don't. Besides, what does it matter. Clinton was impeached and despite the republicans wanting him out of office they didn't get their way. And yet he was still impeached. In this case everyone on both sides get to make it a big part of the next election as opposed to real issues. Yay. Maybe that was their intent.

[TwitchySeal]

Today Bolton said he would testify in a Senate trial if subpoenaed without going to court first.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/06/us/politics/bolton-testify-impeachment-trial.html

Lots of interesting questions now.

Keep in mind that other than Trump, and possibly Mulvaney, nobody knows more about the situation than Bolton and he can't be flagged as a 'never Trumper' or Democrat.  He's as conservative as it gets.  He also called the whole thing a 'drug deal' while it was going down and claims to have relative information that has not been made public.

- Does the Iran situation have anything to do with his announcement?
- Are there 4 Republicans willing to vote to subpoena him? ( They need 51 total, Romney seems to be a yes, Murkowski and Collins are wishywashy, but are in a tough spot politically, there are a couple other maybes)
- Would Mitch be willing to agree to allow a vote on whether or not to allow any witnesses before the trial begins?
- Would Mitch be able to find a way to not allow a vote after the trial starts?
- How long does Nancy sit on the articles if Mitch doesn't budge?

[BADecker]

Come on! Don't feel so rejected. The real question is, when is an impeachment an impeachment?

As soon as a simple majority of the House Votes to impeach.

It's the same as an indictment.

If someone is indicted on murder charges and then found not guilty by a jury, or if a plea deal is reached for lesser charges, or if the charges are dropped completely, it doesn't mean they weren't indicted.

But you ignored the rest of what I said.

An impeachment isn't important if it doesn't produce results. And in the case of Trump, the impeachment seems to be doing exactly the opposite of what was intended by the impeachers... impeaching Trump out of office.

You're assuming you know what their real intent was. You don't. Besides, what does it matter. Clinton was impeached and despite the republicans wanting him out of office they didn't get their way. And yet he was still impeached. In this case everyone on both sides get to make it a big part of the next election as opposed to real issues. Yay. Maybe that was their intent.

Thank you.

In other words, impeachment that doesn't go through all the way and oust the President, is only a distraction.

[TwitchySeal]

Pelosi is sending the articles of impeachment next week.  Senate trial will probably begin within 1-2 weeks from now.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/10/pelosi-to-send-impeachment-articles-to-senate-after-weeks-long-delay-097185

[inlovewith]

I always wondered what it meant to be impeached. Clinton was impeached yet he was still President and fulfilled his full termed. It's pretty much a waste of time what they are doing.

[Spendulus]

Pelosi is sending the articles of impeachment next week.  Senate trial will probably begin within 1-2 weeks from now.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/10/pelosi-to-send-impeachment-articles-to-senate-after-weeks-long-delay-097185

My reading on it will be the Senate trial will be timed so as to maximize the advantage to Biden being out campaigning, and maximize the confinement of Sanders into DC for six days a week.

So those who were for Sanders get screwed a second time around by their own party!

[TwitchySeal]

I always wondered what it meant to be impeached. Clinton was impeached yet he was still President and fulfilled his full termed. It's pretty much a waste of time what they are doing.

Impeachment preserves democracy.  Just because only 3 presidents have been impeached, and most likely all 3 will be acquitted doesn't mean it hasn't had any affect on the decisions of the other 42.  Without the possibility of being impeached, there wouldn't be much standing in the way of the guy who's in charge of the military, Department of Justice and all the intelligence agencies to be an authoritarian.

Impeachment affects every presidency.  

Pelosi is sending the articles of impeachment next week.  Senate trial will probably begin within 1-2 weeks from now.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/10/pelosi-to-send-impeachment-articles-to-senate-after-weeks-long-delay-097185

My reading on it will be the Senate trial will be timed so as to maximize the advantage to Biden being out campaigning, and maximize the confinement of Sanders into DC for six days a week.

So those who were for Sanders get screwed a second time around by their own party!

I don't think keeping Bernie/Warren not physically being in Iowa/NH will benefit Biden that much, if at all.  Bernie/Warren have thousands of people who have been canvasing for months, which is more valuable than any rally, especially in Iowa.  The fact that they are too busy trying the President might actually them a little bump.

We can pretty much call SC for Biden already.

Not really sure how NV works though, but that's the third or fourth week of Feb and I feel like there's a very slim chance the trial hasn't concluded by then. 

[iluvbitcoins]

The most Orwellian thing I've seen recently are these Fact-checkers even Facebook uses to warn the users about "false" information.
So, you see a statement on facebook saying 'Democrats tried to impeach every Republican president since Eisenhower' and a notification pops up saying this is false. I'm extremely suspicious on how unbiased these are and what sorts of information they're used for.
For example, if you take the time to click the article and read through it without just taking it as false, it will say Democrats tried to impeach 5 out of 6 Republican presidents.
They know most people won't click&read.

[iluvbitcoins]

But if you take more time to read about the subject which even more people won't do, you'll ask yourself who's the only president that they didn't try to impeach?
It's fucking Nixon.

Uh, speaking of fake news, where did you hear that?

The Judiciary Committee voted on October 30, to begin consideration of possible impeachment of President Nixon by a 21–17 party-line vote, with all the committee's Democrats voting yes and all Republicans voting no,[42] and took up the matter in earnest that December, upon completing the Ford confirmation hearings.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_process_against_Richard_Nixon#Preparation_for_impeachment_proceedings

The chairman of the Judiciary Committee was Peter Rodino, who was a Democrat, obviously.

EDIT: Yeah, I fucked up. It was Ford, not Nixon.

Anyways.

First, the House of Representatives’ members (Article I, Section 2) can introduce an impeachment resolution - or the entire House can vote to open an investigation into the possible reasons for impeachment.

Second, a special committee or, more commonly, the Judiciary Committee will then investigate. After the investigation is done, the committee can vote on sending the impeachment articles to the full House.

Third, the Judiciary Committee and the House can approve or disapprove of the impeachment. Both the investigating committee and afterwards the House of Representatives vote with a simple majority on whether or not to impeach the president.

Fourth, if a president is impeached, then they become subject to trial in the Senate (Article I, Section 3). When the Senate has to decide whether or not an official is guilty of the charges, a two-thirds majority is needed.

So, basically you need 75% support in order to impeach a president.
It's pretty obvious they won't get 75% support in the Senate.
So what's the point? It's a propaganda tool.

I still find it pretty misleading to be labeled as mostly false.

[Spendulus]

....

So, basically you need 75% support in order to impeach a president.
It's pretty obvious they won't get 75% support in the Senate.
So what's the point? It's a propaganda tool.

I still find it pretty misleading to be labeled as mostly false.

2/3 = 66.67%

But they won't get the 2/3.

Also, it would be correct to say "every ELECTED president" since Ford wasn't elected.

[iluvbitcoins]

2/3 = 66.67%

But they won't get the 2/3.

Also, it would be correct to say "every ELECTED president" since Ford wasn't elected.

I need to stop posting when I'm hangover.

[TwitchySeal]

Articles were delivered to the Senate yesterday, today John Roberts (chief justice of the supreme court, who will act as 'judge' over the trial) swore in all 100 senators.

The Trial starts next Tuesday - I think they are just going to set the rules of the trial then, which could take a day or two?

Some rules we know so far:

- It's going to be 6 days a week
- Senators must be at their desk the whole time
- Senators can't speak to each other, use cell phone or read anything non-trial related while in session (same rules a jury for a criminal trial have to follow).

The big question right now is will Witnesses be called and if so, who?

Dems will surely call for Bolton and Mulvaney and maybe Rudy?
Republicans will surely call for Joe Biden, Hunter Biden and Whistle Blower.

From what I understand, the judge will make the call like normal civil/criminal trials.  However, in this case, the Senate (jury) has the power to overule the judge with a simple majority of 51 votes.  The republicans have 53 members.  Tie goes to the republicans (Pence is tie breaker) Mitt Romney has already made it clear he wants witnesses, and confirmed explicitly he'd like to hear from Bolton.  There are a couple other Republicans in purple states up for election in Nov that all eyes will be on.

[PrimeNumber7]

The big question right now is will Witnesses be called and if so, who?

I have heard multiple, not-swing Republican Senators say on various cable TV shows that if witnesses are called, that witness rules would be balanced for both sides, meaning each side would get to call the same number of witnesses. If House Democrat managers call two witnesses, Trump's defense team would get to call two witnesses of their choice.

This is important because witnesses Democrats may call would largely be prohibited from giving information due to executive privilege, and even if privilege is waived/defeated, IMO it is a crapshoot that new information damaging to Trump will come to light. To date, the left wing MSM has done a good job of covering for Biden. If Joe and/or Hunter Biden is forced to testify, it could highlight corruption by the Bidens. It may be the case that the Bidens did nothing illegal, but I think Hunter Biden's business relationships would be very strongly frowned upon by mainstream voters. If these business relationships are highlighted, calling witnesses may be more damaging to Democrats than to Trump.   

[TwitchySeal]

the Senate (jury) has the power to overule the judge with a simple majority of 51 votes.  The republicans have 53 members.  Tie goes to the republicans (Pence is tie breaker)

Turns out this is actually debatable.  Apparently there's precedent from Johnsons Senate Trial (from 1868) where the Chief Justice was tie breaker, not the VP....if it comes down to a 50/50 split (not a crazy long shot) there could be a giant fight...and the chief justice would be at the center of it...what a mess that would be. 

The big question right now is will Witnesses be called and if so, who?

I have heard multiple, not-swing Republican Senators say on various cable TV shows that if witnesses are called, that witness rules would be balanced for both sides, meaning each side would get to call the same number of witnesses. If House Democrat managers call two witnesses, Trump's defense team would get to call two witnesses of their choice.

This is important because witnesses Democrats may call would largely be prohibited from giving information due to executive privilege, and even if privilege is waived/defeated, IMO it is a crapshoot that new information damaging to Trump will come to light. To date, the left wing MSM has done a good job of covering for Biden. If Joe and/or Hunter Biden is forced to testify, it could highlight corruption by the Bidens. It may be the case that the Bidens did nothing illegal, but I think Hunter Biden's business relationships would be very strongly frowned upon by mainstream voters. If these business relationships are highlighted, calling witnesses may be more damaging to Democrats than to Trump.   

At this point I think every decision is a relative 'crap shoot'.  Anything could backfire.

I don't see many scenarios where trashing the Bidens would be a net gain at this point in the game though.  Any dirt they've been collecting on Biden would be worth much less before he becomes the actual nominee.

I don't see why the RNC shouldn't be pumping the breaks hard on Biden dirt until he wins the nomination, or even better, October.

[PrimeNumber7]

At this point I think every decision is a relative 'crap shoot'.  Anything could backfire.

I don't see many scenarios where trashing the Bidens would be a net gain at this point in the game though.  Any dirt they've been collecting on Biden would be worth much less before he becomes the actual nominee.

I don't see why the RNC shouldn't be pumping the breaks hard on Biden dirt until he wins the nomination, or even better, October.

I don't think the RNC will have the opportunity to have either of the Bidens under oath after Joe wins the nomination. Also, harming Biden during the primaries may result in the DNC not nominating Biden, and instead nominating someone much less electable.

Keep in mind that Democrats are impeaching Trump to in effect protect Biden from being investigated. The RNC could argue that democrats were trying to protect the lucrative arrangement, that reasonably does not serve US interests, even if not illegal the Bidens have. It may also sway some Democrat Senators who are on the fence to vote to acquit, which would allow Trump to claim he received a bi-partisan vote in his favor in both chambers of congress.   

[Spendulus]

At this point I think every decision is a relative 'crap shoot'.  Anything could backfire.

I don't see many scenarios where trashing the Bidens would be a net gain at this point in the game though.  Any dirt they've been collecting on Biden would be worth much less before he becomes the actual nominee.

I don't see why the RNC shouldn't be pumping the breaks hard on Biden dirt until he wins the nomination, or even better, October.

I don't think the RNC will have the opportunity to have either of the Bidens under oath after Joe wins the nomination. Also, harming Biden during the primaries may result in the DNC not nominating Biden, and instead nominating someone much less electable.

Keep in mind that Democrats are impeaching Trump to in effect protect Biden from being investigated.....

That does not seem possible, quite the reverse is occurring. It brings Biden's problems all the more to the front of the issues.