Open Impeachment Inquiry Hearing Starts 11/13

[Grim Reaper 6]

37 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

When this impeachment officially falls apart, I wonder if we need to start a pool as to when and what the next thing will be that the President is guilty of?

It's hard to say, but the impeachment trial isn't over yet. President Trump brings most of this on himself. He walks a very thin line, between illegal and immoral, and when you do this on a regular basis there is no way not to cross that line at times. But the worst thing about all this is he knows he is wrong, and he does it anyway, because he thinks the office of the President will protect him no matter what. That will be his eventual down fall, unless he stops doing the things he does.

JIMO

[RavenHawk]

6 minutes ago, Manwon Lender said:

It's hard to say, but the impeachment trial isn't over yet. President Trump brings most of this on himself. He walks a very thin line, between illegal and immoral, and when you do this on a regular basis there is no way not to cross that line at times. But the worst thing about all this is he knows he is wrong, and he does it anyway, because he thinks the office of the President will protect him no matter what. That will be his eventual down fall, unless he stops doing the things he does.

JIMO

There is nothing correct in anything you said.  Trump has done nothing wrong.  There is nothing illegal or immoral except for the Left's hatred of the President and that threatens our Republic.

[Grim Reaper 6]

14 minutes ago, RavenHawk said:

There is nothing correct in anything you said.  Trump has done nothing wrong.  There is nothing illegal or immoral except for the Left's hatred of the President and that threatens our Republic.

Yes that is the party line, that some forum members use  far to often. I am neither a Democrates or Republican, I don't preach either party line but I am also not blind, if you beleive our President can never do anything wrong you must be delusional. Because he is human and humans make mistakes, there are far to many things both in his past and present that have convinced not only me but many Americans of his tactics and his actions. 

I am not perfect, neither are you and neither is the President. His biggest problem is he still thinks that he is running business where you can get away with illegal action, its amazing he doesn't realize that those tactics will be exposed in his present position. Things are beginning to come out, and once the wall of silence is broken there is no stopping its collapse. Well that wall has cracked and it's only a matter of time before it splits wide open.

 

[ExpandMyMind]

3 hours ago, OverSword said:

Well Nikki does have a point. There was no investigation and yet the aid money flowed as it was supposed to flow. Although it is wrong for trump to have encouraged an investigation into Biden because of Biden’s status as a presidential candidate there was absolutely no QPQ and that is established fact. That really pulls much of the guts out of the argument to impeach.

The aid was only released a day after the whistleblower reported what was going on. Let's not pretend that it was released naturally of Trump's own volition. 

In fact, read the Pentagon official's testimony that was released on Monday. Not only was Trump trying to get them to say there was an investigation into Biden, but he also wanted Ukraine to undermine the entire US government's position on Russian election interference. Trump held back aid until Ukraine absolved Russia of any wrongdoing. Until he was caught, that is.

That's another level of messed up.

[ExpandMyMind]

3 hours ago, spartan max2 said:

It's highly undemocratic to me to allow a secret ballot of elected officials.

Obviously, we should know how the people we elect vote...

Imagine if all votes were that way. Would we even be a democracy.

But some people will want anything if it helps get rid of Trump it seems. 

I agree, but think about what Impeachment is. It's a trial and the politicians are the jury. What jury do you know that votes in public? 

I think it's different for policy, but something as important as Impeachment needs to be separate from political influence and pressure. People should vote the facts and their conscience in a trial, not what they're being pressured to vote for at the expense of those things.

[ExpandMyMind]

3 hours ago, RavenHawk said:

When this impeachment officially falls apart, I wonder if we need to start a pool as to when and what the next thing will be that the President is guilty of?

I think that it's incredible that you say that without any sense of irony.

[BrooklynGuy]

Ok Folks the day is upon us. The festivities begin at 9:00am EDT. 

More on the story:

Trickster Adam Schiff conjuring ‘guilt’ out of thin air

The dictionary defines a conjurer as someone who “practices magic arts” and “performs feats of sleight of hand and illusion.” Someone like Adam Schiff. The California Democrat takes his magic act public Wednesday as the impeachment hearings burst out of a Capitol Hill dungeon and onto television. Donald Trump’s presidency and the 2020 election likely hang on whether Schiff’s sleight of hand can survive the bright lights of public exposure and cross-examination. Operating in darkness, where he controlled the witness list and leaked snippets of testimony that the Dems’ media echo chamber turned into proof of Trump’s guilt, Schiff has been a first-rate illusionist.

Read more: https://nypost.com/2019/11/12/goodwin-trickster-adam-schiff-conjuring-guilt-out-of-thin-air/

 

Trump impeachment hearings will echo through the ages

The gravity and drama of the first televised impeachment hearings into Donald Trump's presidency on Wednesday will imprint themselves on history and reverberate far from Washington. The most crucial stage of the Ukraine investigation so far has profound implications beyond the political and personal reputation of Trump and the question of whether he abused his power by seeking political favors from a foreign power. His fate will have sweeping consequences for the future understanding of powers vested within the presidency itself. The hearings will test whether the ancient machinery of US governance can effectively investigate a President who ignores the charges against him and fogs fact in defining a new post-truth political era.

Read more: https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/13/politics/trump-impeachment-hearing-today/index.html

 

WATCH LIVE: The Trump Impeachment Hearings – Day 1

The House of Representatives kick off public impeachment hearings against President Donald Trump on Wednesday.  The impeachment hearing begins at 10 a.m. ET. The PBS NewsHour will stream analysis coverage beforehand starting at about 9 a.m. ET. Watch live in the video player above. The first witnesses before the House Intelligence Committee will be Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat for Ukraine and George Kent, the deputy assistant secretary of state for European and Eurasian affairs.

Read more: https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/watch-live-the-trump-impeachment-hearings-day-1

[RoofGardener]

1 hour ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I agree, but think about what Impeachment is. It's a trial and the politicians are the jury. What jury do you know that votes in public? 

I think it's different for policy, but something as important as Impeachment needs to be separate from political influence and pressure. People should vote the facts and their conscience in a trial, not what they're being pressured to vote for at the expense of those things.

Hmm.. that's not an unreasonable point. However, I would point out that the comparison with a jury may not be valid. This is a POLITICAL trial, not a CRIMINAL one. The 'jury' is one of elected politicians, and - accordingly - I think the vote should be public (just like every OTHER vote in the Senate), and the politician's votes exposed to the scrutiny of voters.

[Farmer77]

5 hours ago, OverSword said:

Well Nikki does have a point. There was no investigation and yet the aid money flowed as it was supposed to flow. Although it is wrong for trump to have encouraged an investigation into Biden because of Biden’s status as a presidential candidate there was absolutely no QPQ and that is established fact. That really pulls much of the guts out of the argument to impeach.

There absolutely was two quid quo pro . One for the aid and one for the appearance with Trump /Pence. 

Hell Trump didn't even release the aide , honestly we have to question if he even knew it had been released while we now know the Ukraine knew it was being held. 

New transcripts refute Trump's claim that Ukraine didn't know about aid freeze

State Department Freed Ukraine Money Before Trump Says He Did

 

[RAyMO]

2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

What jury do you know that votes in public?

Informing everybody that a result was unanimous slightly defeats the purpose of secret voting in juries - but that's an aside.

[RAyMO]

2 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

The aid was only released a day after the whistleblower reported what was going on. Let's not pretend that it was released naturally of Trump's own volition

YES - this^

[BrooklynGuy]

Here is a good piece on how our Representatives in Washington have worked together over the years, much of it behind the scenes, to get the People's business done despite the public bickering we see. 

These 9 political friendships proved party lines don't have to divide Americans

This week, newly-elected members of the 116th Congress are gathering in Washington, DC for freshman orientation after years of historically pernicious partisan gridlock, which has led to two government shutdowns in the past five years. In recent decades, however, many politicians and political figures of opposite parties have put been able to put aside their ideological differences to forge working partnerships and friendships. At Republican Senator John McCain's August memorial services, for example, several Democratic politicians including President Barack Obama, former Senator John Kerry, and former Vice President Joe Biden gave eulogies reflecting on their close professional and personal relationships with McCain. 

Read more: https://www.businessinsider.com/nine-famous-political-friendships-transcend-party-lines-2018-11

[BrooklynGuy]

House Democrats announce 8 witnesses for next week's public impeachment hearings

Next week, eight witnesses are expected to testify publicly in the House impeachment inquiry, including Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman and U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, House Democrats announced Tuesday. The witnesses will appear before the House Intelligence Committee. Two hearings are set for Nov. 19, two more on Nov. 20, and one on Nov. 21. Jennifer Williams, an aide in Vice President Mike Pence's office, and Vindman, the top Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, will testify Tuesday morning, followed by Kurt Volker, the former U.S. special representative for Ukraine, and Tim Morrison, a Russia adviser on the NSC, on Tuesday afternoon. Sondland will appear Wednesday morning, with Pentagon official Laura Cooper and top State Department diplomat David Hale scheduled for the afternoon. 

Read more: https://theweek.com/speedreads/878056/house-democrats-announce-8-witnesses-next-weeks-public-impeachment-hearings

 

Trump public impeachment hearings Schedule and what to expect

The first public hearings in the Democrats’ ongoing impeachment inquiry into President Trump begin Wednesday, when Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, and Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent are scheduled to testify before the House Intelligence Committee in an open session. Marie Yovanovitch, the ousted U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, will testify Friday. (There are no hearings Thursday.) The three career public servants, who testified behind closed doors last month, are expected to detail in public the Trump administration’s alleged pressure campaign on Ukraine to investigate Trump’s political rivals.

Read more: https://www.yahoo.com/news/trump-impeachment-hearings-what-to-expect-194144848.html

Edited November 13, 2019 by BrooklynGuy

[Gromdor]

1 hour ago, Farmer77 said:

There absolutely was two quid quo pro . One for the aid and one for the appearance with Trump /Pence. 

Hell Trump didn't even release the aide , honestly we have to question if he even knew it had been released while we now know the Ukraine knew it was being held. 

New transcripts refute Trump's claim that Ukraine didn't know about aid freeze

State Department Freed Ukraine Money Before Trump Says He Did

 

It's looking like one of the charges is that Trump fired the Ukrainian ambassador at the behest of Yuriy Lutsenko and his claims against the Bidens- which he afterwards walked back.

So basically, Trump was bribed by Lutsenko to fire someone in exchange for information that would personally help his election chances and got stiffed. 

[spartan max2]

5 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

I agree, but think about what Impeachment is. It's a trial and the politicians are the jury. What jury do you know that votes in public? 

I think it's different for policy, but something as important as Impeachment needs to be separate from political influence and pressure. People should vote the facts and their conscience in a trial, not what they're being pressured to vote for at the expense of those things.

Impeachment is different then a regular criminal trial, for self-evident reasons. 

That public pressure you want to seperate the vote from is called democracy. That's how democratic nation's work.

1. Secrecy breeds corruption.

If a vote is secret, with politicians,  you go off favors, bribes, politics. Even less reason to vote "based on facts".  

2. Elected officials have to be accountable to the public. It's a democracy. If the public does not have enough support to impeach their leader then their leader shouldn't be impeached. Making the vote secert takes that choice away from the people. It's undemocratic. The people elect their leader, and remove their leader. 

 

3.The only reason the idea is even being brought up is because people think it will increase the chances of Trump being impeached.

If people felt like it would have the reverse effect then I doubt we would be hearing of the idea. 

Our country managed having every other impeachment vote public. 

Edited November 13, 2019 by spartan max2

[+OverSword]

5 hours ago, Farmer77 said:

There absolutely was two quid quo pro . One for the aid and one for the appearance with Trump /Pence. 

Hell Trump didn't even release the aide , honestly we have to question if he even knew it had been released while we now know the Ukraine knew it was being held. 

New transcripts refute Trump's claim that Ukraine didn't know about aid freeze

State Department Freed Ukraine Money Before Trump Says He Did

 

Legally here is what matters. Did the Ukrainian government reopen the investigation? Was the aid given? 

It really is beginning to look like this does not meet the level of high crime necessary to remove a president . I thought trump would be impeached for this but the more I hear the less likely it seems. There are some people here that think this is the smoking gun but these same people have seen a different smoking gun To end trump every three months. 

Edited November 13, 2019 by OverSword

[+OverSword]

7 hours ago, ExpandMyMind said:

The aid was only released a day after the whistleblower reported what was going on. Let's not pretend that it was released naturally of Trump's own volition. 

In fact, read the Pentagon official's testimony that was released on Monday. Not only was Trump trying to get them to say there was an investigation into Biden, but he also wanted Ukraine to undermine the entire US government's position on Russian election interference. Trump held back aid until Ukraine absolved Russia of any wrongdoing. Until he was caught, that is.

That's another level of messed up.

We need one more emoji to rate posts with. That emoji would be meh.

[skliss]

10 minutes ago, OverSword said:

We need one more emoji to rate posts with. That emoji would be meh.

And an eyeroll...I find myself doing that a lot....heh

[+and-then]

On 11/11/2019 at 9:06 PM, Robotic Jew said:

The optics alone are damaging and they know that.

I'd say you are correct.  I think when the offspring of a U.S. vice president gets a job that pays as much per month as an annual salary for many Americans, in a field of expertise for which he has NO background, let alone experience, the "optics" are indeed wanting.  If this was a stand alone instance I might even be able to agree with you that maybe it isn't corruption.  It ISN'T a one off.  Hunter has made money in practically every nation Joe has dealt with.  Is it that you aren't exposed to this info or that you simply don't accept it?  

https://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/06/10/peter_schweizer_on_hunter_biden_foreign_governments_recruiting_family_members_of_american_politicians.html#! 

https://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/378629-breitbart-editor-biden-and-kerrys-sons-inked-deal-with-chinese

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/14/hunter-bidens-ukraine-china-deals-were-probably-legal-and-thats-the-problem.html

If you want to say it isn't illegal, you'd probably be correct.  The biggest reason it's making news is the breathtaking hypocrisy coming from the Progressives in their treatment of Trump for doing FAR less.  The worst thing about Biden's situation is that he's only  a marginal candidate and Trump is going to be able to point to Hunter for the next year as a symptom of what's wrong with the Swamp and...his dad.

[+and-then]

On 11/8/2019 at 5:16 PM, spartan max2 said:

NPR claimed it's technically legal to reveal the whistleblower. 

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/06/776481504/can-trump-legally-out-the-whistleblower-experts-say-it-would-not-violate-any-law

Of COURSE it's legal.  Nothing in the law restricts ANYONE except the IG from doing it.  It's ridiculous on its face to expect the word of a single citizen to be used to remove the choice of 63 million voters yet not hear from and cross examine that person.  Only in D world does that seem plausible.  He's already being investigated for finance issues related to his growing legal fund.  He IS an active intel employee, after all.  Hope he has good lawyers.  EXPENSIVE lawyers.

[+and-then]

6 hours ago, RoofGardener said:

Hmm.. that's not an unreasonable point. However, I would point out that the comparison with a jury may not be valid. This is a POLITICAL trial, not a CRIMINAL one. The 'jury' is one of elected politicians, and - accordingly - I think the vote should be public (just like every OTHER vote in the Senate), and the politician's votes exposed to the scrutiny of voters.

Oh, it WILL be and that's why there is zero chance he'll be removed.  The Ds know this and at first I struggled with their logic.  Why put themselves and the nation through this?  Then I looked at their list of candidates and it all came clear.  They know they have no one who can beat him and they're desperate.  It's really as simple as that.  McConnel can even refuse to have a trial and half the country would support him.  I hope he won't do that.  I hope that if Nancy walks those articles over to the Senate that a trial is held and every witness from these sham hearings is sworn and deposed at legal risk.  I want to see them put to the same financial pressures and legal jeopardies that Trump's associates and family have had to endure.  After all, if their cause is just they should come out okay.

[+and-then]

On 11/12/2019 at 6:41 AM, RoofGardener said:

if you REALLY believe in what you have just said, then you have crossed the line and are now a fascist.

Yet he doesn't even recognize his hypocrisy.  He and the rest truly don't grasp the enormous contortions of their values that they're engaging in.  Reverse this situation and let it happen, even a small degree of it, to one of their party members, heros and they'd be screaming injustice so loudly and constantly that their eyes would bleed.  Add to this the bizarre fact that he isn't a citizen here and it makes him even more ridiculous.  It would be like me having malignant hypertension over Boris Johnson's words or actions.

[Doug1029]

As of last night, tRUMP's disapproval rating was 49-47.  That's impeachment territory, but not removal-from-office territory.  Pelosi is holding off on calling the question in hopes that tRUMP's disapproval ratings will go higher.  McConnell is as quiet as the tomb, thinking that he may have to toss tRUMP to save the party, if that's possible.  Stay tuned.

 

 

I'm still predicting that tRUMP will be impeached, but removal-from-office is, at this time, too close to call.  At any rate, we're going to be involved with this mess well into January or later.

 

 

The current hearings are a fact-finding process.  Any votes will be public and will address the issue of whether to include a particular item in the Articles of Impeachment.  After that, there will be a vote on whether to submit Articles of Impeachment to the Senate.  That the Articles will be submitted is a foregone conclusion based on the Democratic majority.

What counts will be the trial in the Senate.  I'm sure the Dems would prefer a secret vote to let everybody vote his conscience (assuming that most Senators have one).  The Rubs want an open vote so that politics can be brought to bear on recalcitrant Senators.  As I understand it, this will be an open vote.

So the real question boils down to:  are there 67 Senators who will be persuaded by facts and not political pressure?

Doug

Edited November 13, 2019 by Doug1029

[BrooklynGuy]

My Congrats to Representative Elise Stefanik from NY, we are only 30 minutes into this charade and she's already got Schifty stammering and on the run 

[ian hacktorp]

So far, the "impeachment hearing" doesn't appear to be going along as Adam Schiff had hoped:

Quote

George Kent admits he raised concerns about Hunter Biden working for a Ukrainian gas company in 2015: "In a briefing call with...the office of the Vice President...I raised my concern that Hunter Biden's status...could create the perception of a conflict of interest."

https://twitter.com/TrumpWarRoom/status/1194649578932514816

As I had said earlier, it's going to be pretty much impossible to argue that Trump had no legitimate reason to ask the Ukraine president to look into corruption by US officials.

This entire farce is a coverup attempt but the delicious irony is that it will only serve to push the criminals behind it out into the open.