Trump Impeachment Public Hearings [serious discussion]

[Spendulus]

...
There would never be any impeachment if you assumed the other side isn't going to change their mind. As I said previously, this impeachment was far too short. There wasn't enough time for the public to really get engaged (which is where the 2/3 could come from, if we still would like to think the Senate would listen to the voters as opposed to being on their knees worshiping their King) let along all the witness/document issues. But sure, there's always a variety of motives and if you view them as the enemy it's natural to attribute everything to ulterior motives. Doesn't make it true.

The bottom line is that the "base" of the Dems have wanted Trump impeached from day one. I was impressed that they held out so long frankly. So I see things a bit differently. The only "ulterior" motive I think that has any potential validity is that it was due to one of their own, i.e. Biden, being involved. Everything else is just politics as usual.

One of the "bases", yeah, we all heard that agiprop from the beginning. We all knew they didn't care about what he was impeached for, they just wanted him impeached.

But no rational person looking at all these would have thought the 2/3 was going to be achieved. None. So it's only rational to look for other reasons, such as what I have suggested, free publicity and getting their faces on the TV. Schiff likely things he's an important guy, someone who could go places ... now.

"Trump bad orange man" meme.

I'm curious. How is that any different than the years of "Obama, bad black man" that the right did for years (and many still do)? The right mocks the left for the whole orange man bad thing. But they had, and many still do, Clinton derangement syndrome. When it comes to climate change the amount of Gore derangement syndrome I see is staggering. And there was a whole lot of Obama derangement syndrome.. So how is the current climate any different.. it just flips back and forth now and has really become meaningless as some sort of attempt at mocking those people one deems of having that sort of syndrome.

You're asking the wrong guy, because I never considered Obama black. He was half black.

A great saying is "History doesn't repeat itself, it rhymes."

There were so many objectionable things to the Obama years, I don't know where to start there. How about his weaponizing the IRS? Gun running to Mexican gangs?  "Kinetic action" in Syria?

But now you have one false narrative after another for 3 1/2 years, all designed to get Trump out of office.

Those are NOT EXACTLY SIMILAR HISTORIES.

[TwitchySeal]

Schiff likely things he's an important guy, someone who could go places ... now.

He's been in congress for 20 years, chair of the intelligence committee and was lead prosecutor in two previous senate impeachment trials for federal judges.
It was probably a very easy decision for Pelosi to tap him to lead the house managers.

[Spendulus]

Schiff likely things he's an important guy, someone who could go places ... now.

He's been in congress for 20 years, chair of the intelligence committee and was lead prosecutor in two previous senate impeachment trials for federal judges.
It was probably a very easy decision for Pelosi to tap him to lead the house managers.

I did not see competence in his words or actions, or any strategy ... at all. It was all over in the "definitely weird" category. No clue why or what that means.

But I've seen a lot of comments as the guy's obvious incompetence.

[JollyGood]

Well here is the BBC writing about it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51335661

"Trump impeachment: Failed witnesses vote paves way for acquittal
US President Donald Trump is set to be acquitted in his impeachment trial after senators voted against calling witnesses or admitting new evidence."



What is the point of having an impeachment mechanism when it can be so easily flouted? I thought this process was going to go on for a few months at least throwing in lots of twists and turns but in the end it turned out to be nothing more than a major prelude to a major anticlimax.

[dupeddonk]

Schiff likely things he's an important guy, someone who could go places ... now.

He's been in congress for 20 years, chair of the intelligence committee and was lead prosecutor in two previous senate impeachment trials for federal judges.
It was probably a very easy decision for Pelosi to tap him to lead the house managers.

I did not see competence in his words or actions, or any strategy ... at all. It was all over in the "definitely weird" category. No clue why or what that means.

But I've seen a lot of comments as the guy's obvious incompetence.

try to look at it from both sides.  it seems like you can only say bad things about the party you oppose and its usually more insulting there intelligence than anything substance.                 

I lived in Schiffs district for 5 years voted against him both times i could, had a Rogan sign on my garage the last year that district was red.  hes done some messed up things like voted for iraq, dragged his feet on benghazi. but his court room game is on point.  he proved his case very well, i really don't think there is a single senator that doubts trump did exactly what hes been accused of, and there probably were some before.  more importantly i think he convinced a lot of americans also that this is not the same republican party that they may have thought it was.  hes going to force each senator to stand up to the president and condemn what he did or the country will know they think its ok for the president to abuse his power and then lie about it.  imagine if a democrat president does that some day.

[Spendulus]

....

try to look at it from both sides.  it seems like you can only say bad things about the party you oppose and its usually more insulting there intelligence than anything substance.                

I lived in Schiffs district for 5 years voted against him both times i could, had a Rogan sign on my garage the last year that district was red.  hes done some messed up things like voted for iraq, dragged his feet on benghazi. but his court room game is on point.  he proved his case very well, i really don't think there is a single senator that doubts trump did exactly what hes been accused of....

What is quite interesting here is that you(and Viper and Twitch) are obviously sincere about your assessment of Schiff, as am I.

And I'm not just repeating talking points, no need for that. I can evaluate his performance as a practicing lawyer and orator just fine.

Such dissonant points of view must be explainable based on cognitive dissonance and preconditioning. However, as for "who is right" I'll certainly place my bets on those people who simply said that the whole thing was a sham and 2/3 wasn't going to come.

But if you think as you think about Schiff and his powerful oratory and keen acumen, then yes those with similar preconditioning and similar cognitive dissonance if wavering could be positively moved into the True Believer category. Translated to the alternative party viewpoint, fewer losses in mainstream Dem voting group than otherwise.

I feel that's incomplete and imperfect, so consider it only a first crude cut at trying to reconcile this matter.

[KingScorpio]

Well here is the BBC writing about it: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-51335661

"Trump impeachment: Failed witnesses vote paves way for acquittal
US President Donald Trump is set to be acquitted in his impeachment trial after senators voted against calling witnesses or admitting new evidence."



What is the point of having an impeachment mechanism when it can be so easily flouted? I thought this process was going to go on for a few months at least throwing in lots of twists and turns but in the end it turned out to be nothing more than a major prelude to a major anticlimax.

if a president thinks shuting down a democratic opposition is in the nations interest and ensure his own reelection it is allowed to do so, its like declaring war.

without that a nation wouldnt be leadable

[lanos925]

I think Trump is simply not very convenient for the ruling elite. In fact, any president cannot do anything, because management comes from the backstage elite. The presidents are just puppets in the hands of puppeteers. Therefore, I don't think that something will change.

[dupeddonk]

....

try to look at it from both sides.  it seems like you can only say bad things about the party you oppose and its usually more insulting there intelligence than anything substance.                

I lived in Schiffs district for 5 years voted against him both times i could, had a Rogan sign on my garage the last year that district was red.  hes done some messed up things like voted for iraq, dragged his feet on benghazi. but his court room game is on point.  he proved his case very well, i really don't think there is a single senator that doubts trump did exactly what hes been accused of....

What is quite interesting here is that you(and Viper and Twitch) are obviously sincere about your assessment of Schiff, as am I.

And I'm not just repeating talking points, no need for that. I can evaluate his performance as a practicing lawyer and orator just fine.

Such dissonant points of view must be explainable based on cognitive dissonance and preconditioning. However, as for "who is right" I'll certainly place my bets on those people who simply said that the whole thing was a sham and 2/3 wasn't going to come.

But if you think as you think about Schiff and his powerful oratory and keen acumen, then yes those with similar preconditioning and similar cognitive dissonance if wavering could be positively moved into the True Believer category. Translated to the alternative party viewpoint, fewer losses in mainstream Dem voting group than otherwise.

I feel that's incomplete and imperfect, so consider it only a first crude cut at trying to reconcile this matter.

"Such dissonant points of view must be explainable based on cognitive dissonance and preconditioning."

i dont know if you mean looking at a situation from both sides, or being a conservative thats disgusted with the president, his supporters, and the republican party in general.

ill assume you mean being a conservative disgusted with the state of things right now since its something ive been thinking a lot about lately anyway and looking at things from both sides is just a good thing to do in life.

respectfully, there is no dissonance when it comes to my point of view. i think the federal government should have less power not more, decreasing our deficit is more important than hitting all time highs in the stock market, strong immigration policy and compassion for those less fortunate, and our leader should have integrity be transparent and be pragmatic.  

democrats historically have been far weaker on all of these things so my affiliation has been an easy decision.

but trump isnt just weaker, hes the opposite on many of them.

i watched his defense team argue this week that as long as a president believes hes doing what is right for the country it cant be worthy of impeachment.  this includes if hes doing something to win an election.  thats how dictators remain in power.
trump is adding to our deficit like crazy and manipulating the fed into cutting interest rates.  i believe hes doing this because a healthy stock market will make him more likely to be re elected not because its whats best for the country.
his stance and policies on immigration i agree with, but the chants and rhetoric are disrespectful to millions of people.  we are better than that.
and as far as integrity, this is the part that does make me a bit emotional, but just look at the way he treated on john mccain.  it started during the campaign but it got so much worse even after he died.  
if god appeared before trump and gave him 2 options, win the next election, or have the country collapse 15 years from now, hed take the election without a second though.  


so i guess ill give you the preconditioning since i come from a conservative family but there is no cognitive dissonance.  i have a higher loyalty than any party or president.  and i believe many republicans in washington do as well, and thats where youll find the real cognitive dissonance.

[TwitchySeal]

Such dissonant points of view must be explainable based on cognitive dissonance and preconditioning. However, as for "who is right" I'll certainly place my bets on those people who simply said that the whole thing was a sham and 2/3 wasn't going to come.

'whole thing was a sham' and '2/3 wasn't going to come' are not the same.

It was clear from the beginning that the the chances of getting 2/3 of the Senate was slim to none.

That doesn't make the whole thing a sham though.  The democrats shined a light on something Trump did, and forced the Republicans to go on the record with an up or down vote.

Remember back in September when all we had was the transcript?  The defense was 'it was a perfect phone call, there was no quid pro quo'.

"If you could show me that Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing"
-Lindsay Graham

So they opened up the inquiry and got a bunch of witnesses that were involved with the Ukes (i'm gonna use 'Ukes' from now on), including several appointed by Trump.

"I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a 'quid pro quo?' As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes."
-Sondland (Trump campaign donor and appointee)

After a whole bunch of credible witnesses testified that there was definitely a quid pro quo, the defense pivoted to 'oh but it's all hearsay and second hand information'.

So they went to a trial a John Bolton made a statement saying he would no longer fight a subpoena.

“I have concluded that, if the Senate issues a subpoena for my testimony, I am prepared to testify,”
-John Bolton

Perfect, right?  We'll finally get to have direct evidence on whether or not Trump has been lying or telling the truth this whole time!

Nope.  Now the argument is 'even if he did do it, it's not impeachable'

After all this though, something still happened.

Every Senator has been forced to on the record.  The historical kind of record.

Also, the country got to look in on wtf is actually going on in the senate.


If anyone is willing, I'm interested in which of these statements you consider true or false.  And if you consider 2 or 3 of them true, why do you think they even used any defense other than the last?

'it was a perfect phone call, there was no quid pro quo'

'it's all hearsay and second hand information' (this implies that direct evidence would be relevant)

'even if he did do it, it's not impeachable'

imo, that answer is False, False, False.

I think the democrats forced the republicans to go from True, True, True => False, True, True => False, False, True.  Which realllly looks like they don't care about the actual truth and are more concerned about protecting Trump.

They got lindsay graham to go from

"If you could show me that Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing"
-Lindsay Graham

To being the most vocal opponent of having Bolton come testify and explain exactly what happened in a matter of a couple months.

Why?

[Viper1]

What is quite interesting here is that you(and Viper

Do not take what I said and twist it to suit your agenda and then to twist it into some veiled personal attacks. I said he gave some good speeches, nothing more. I've made no comment on anything else regarding Schiff. If you want to have an actual discussion about the facts of this entire thing as opposed to conjecture and the like then fine. I'm perfectly willing to engage in that and a discussion of what this will probably all will mean to the country long term. But beyond that, the rest is just worthless.

[Spendulus]

What is quite interesting here is that you(and Viper

Do not take what I said and twist it to suit your agenda and then to twist it into some veiled personal attacks. I said he gave some good speeches, nothing more. I've made no comment on anything else regarding Schiff. ...

My misunderstanding, sorry.

.....

If anyone is willing, I'm interested in which of these statements you consider true or false.  And if you consider 2 or 3 of them true, why do you think they even used any defense other than the last?

'it was a perfect phone call, there was no quid pro quo'

'it's all hearsay and second hand information' (this implies that direct evidence would be relevant)

'even if he did do it, it's not impeachable'

imo, that answer is False, False, False.

I think the democrats forced the republicans to go from True, True, True => False, True, True => False, False, True.  Which realllly looks like they don't care about the actual truth and are more concerned about protecting Trump.
...

Your three arguments can easily coexist, they are not exclusive of one another. There is absolutely nothing wrong in presenting an argument in the following form:

By direct reading of the call, the call did not contain "B".

Hearsay evidence of "B" may exist, but is not admissible in a court of law.

In the alternative, if the call was determined to contain "B", "B" is not impeachable.

If people were convicted of a crime for which a direct reading of the document does not show a crime, or by way of hearsay, or or for activities that were not crimes, we would be in a Stalinist or Mao or Nazi type of environment, just picking a few examples historically in which reality was similar.

[TwitchySeal]

Your three arguments can easily coexist, they are not exclusive of one another.

Agree.  They could be all true, all false, or any combination.  What do you think about each of them?

1- 'it was a perfect phone call, there was no quid pro quo'

2 - 'it's all hearsay and second hand information' (this implies that direct evidence would be relevant)

3 - 'even if he did do it, it's not impeachable'

[Spendulus]

Your three arguments can easily coexist, they are not exclusive of one another.

Agree.  They could be all true, all false, or any combination.  What do you think about each of them?

1- 'it was a perfect phone call, there was no quid pro quo'

2 - 'it's all hearsay and second hand information' (this implies that direct evidence would be relevant)

3 - 'even if he did do it, it's not impeachable'

These are all strong legal arguments. You and I have had a couple discussions before about, IIRC, what constitutes, facts, evidence, "beyond a reasonable doubt" and now hearsay. You might put these definitions in a category named "Irrefutable rebuttals."

This is different than asking "did Trump do XYZ." I kind of get it, how those persecuting and harassing Trump wouldn't care about these realities of a legal case, IF their goal is just to parade anti-Trump memes before a public they think is gullible.

But this is exactly what those who criticize the whole thing as a total scam think.

So in my case, I'm forced to the conclusion the whole thing was a scam and a sham trial, because the weakness of the arguments presented is so laughable.

By the way, your statement above "it's all hearsay ---> implies" is curious. Nobody needs hearsay to imply that direct evidence would be relevant; the existence of hearsay is not a proof that direct evidence is relevant. There are standards for evidence.

The only one of the 1,2 and 3 that's even worth discussing is 3. What is the standard for impeachment? The other two are jokes. Here appears to be your case.

"We think the call in which he asks politely for help was strong-armed pressuring, and some people say they heard other people say other people said that was what it was, and we need to broaden the constitutional requirement of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' to include Trump's behavior as implied by letters that don't say it and as implied by hearsay not evidence."

That's pretty crazy and that's what you got.

[TwitchySeal]

The only one of the 1,2 and 3 that's even worth discussing is 3.

Will you answer anyway?

True or False: 1- 'it was a perfect phone call, there was no quid pro quo'

True or False: 2 - 'it's all hearsay and second hand information' (this implies that direct evidence would be relevant)

True 3 - 'if he did do it, it's not impeachable'

The other two are jokes.

Why do you think so much effort was put into making the arguments then?

"If you could show me that Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing"
-Lindsay Graham

Why would Graham say that, and then vote against having direct evidence in the trial?

And it wasn't just Graham.  The overall defense for weeks was 'there isn't enough evidence from just the transcript'.  Then after all the house testimony it was 'that's all just hearsay, none of the witnesses have first hand knowledge'.  And then when they found out someone was willing to provide direct evidence, they voted against hearing it. It's an overused saying, but why do you think they keep moving the goalpost when they could've just went with argument 3 from the beginning?

[Spendulus]

The only one of the 1,2 and 3 that's even worth discussing is 3.

Will you answer anyway?

Sure. My answer will be based on how these three things are considered in a court of law. T, T, T.

Now how about you answer how would they be considered in a court in Russia during the Stalinist era.

True or False: 1- 'it was a perfect phone call, there was no quid pro quo'

True or False: 2 - 'it's all hearsay and second hand information' (this implies that direct evidence would be relevant)

True 3 - 'if he did do it, it's not impeachable'

The other two are jokes.

Why do you think so much effort was put into making the arguments then?

"If you could show me that Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing"
-Lindsay Graham

Why would Graham say that, and then vote against having direct evidence in the trial?

And it wasn't just Graham.  The overall defense for weeks was 'there isn't enough evidence from just the transcript'.  Then after all the house testimony it was 'that's all just hearsay, none of the witnesses have first hand knowledge'.  And then when they found out someone was willing to provide direct evidence, they voted against hearing it. It's an overused saying, but why do you think they keep moving the goalpost when they could've just went with argument 3 from the beginning?

My opinion? They're all remembering the Kavanaugh fiasco, where there was time after time, "one more witness," "One more reason to keep it going." So if they shut it down quicker, it's the Dems past behavior as the cause. You got what you deserved.

[TwitchySeal]

The only one of the 1,2 and 3 that's even worth discussing is 3.

Will you answer anyway?

Sure. My answer will be based on how these three things are considered in a court of law. T, T, T.

Now how about you answer how would they be considered in a court in Russia during the Stalinist era.

True or False: 1- 'it was a perfect phone call, there was no quid pro quo'

True or False: 2 - 'it's all hearsay and second hand information' (this implies that direct evidence would be relevant)

True 3 - 'if he did do it, it's not impeachable'

The other two are jokes.

Why do you think so much effort was put into making the arguments then?

"If you could show me that Trump actually was engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call, that would be very disturbing"
-Lindsay Graham

Why would Graham say that, and then vote against having direct evidence in the trial?

And it wasn't just Graham.  The overall defense for weeks was 'there isn't enough evidence from just the transcript'.  Then after all the house testimony it was 'that's all just hearsay, none of the witnesses have first hand knowledge'.  And then when they found out someone was willing to provide direct evidence, they voted against hearing it. It's an overused saying, but why do you think they keep moving the goalpost when they could've just went with argument 3 from the beginning?

My opinion? They're all remembering the Kavanaugh fiasco, where there was time after time, "one more witness," "One more reason to keep it going." So if they shut it down quicker, it's the Dems past behavior as the cause. You got what you deserved.

Try considering just the evidence of the trial, not that it's Trump being investigated, or the democrats doing the investigation, and no 'us vs them' mentality.

True or False: 1- 'it was a perfect phone call, there was no quid pro quo'

True or False: 2 - 'it's all hearsay and second hand information' (this implies that direct evidence would be relevant)

True or False: 3 - 'if he did do it, it's not impeachable'

[Spendulus]

....

Try considering just the evidence of the trial, not that it's Trump being investigated, or the democrats doing the investigation...

Next.

[Viper1]

Hearsay evidence of "B" may exist, but is not admissible in a court of law.

That is a common fallacy but is not true at all. There is a pretty long list of exceptions to it such as some of these which could be applied in this case:

- The court recognizes that by law the declarant is not required to testify;
- The declarant refuses to testify;

Some other exceptions which may or may not apply:

- It has sound guarantees of trustworthiness
- It is offered to help prove a material fact
- It is more probative than other equivalent and reasonably obtainable evidence
- Its admission would forward the cause of justice
- The other parties have been notified that it will be offered into evidence

That's just a handful. So yes, hearsay can be admissible. In this case much of it was corroborated between a variety of witnesses which gives it much more weight.

[Spendulus]

Hearsay evidence of "B" may exist, but is not admissible in a court of law.

That is a common fallacy but is not true at all. There is a pretty long list of exceptions to it such as some of these which could be applied in this case:

- The court recognizes that by law the declarant is not required to testify;
- The declarant refuses to testify;

Some other exceptions which may or may not apply:

- It has sound guarantees of trustworthiness
- It is offered to help prove a material fact
- It is more probative than other equivalent and reasonably obtainable evidence
- Its admission would forward the cause of justice
- The other parties have been notified that it will be offered into evidence

That's just a handful. So yes, hearsay can be admissible. In this case much of it was corroborated between a variety of witnesses which gives it much more weight.

Well, the Democrats have pursued all such theories, and here they are.