|
Post by majorminor on Oct 29, 2019 10:00:24 GMT -5
Did they get him yet?
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 29, 2019 10:16:35 GMT -5
Some folks were claiming that this impeachment didn’t count because... Whatever. Looks like it’s the real deal now, by any definition: Of course, this argument has no merit. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Multiple past impeachments have gone forward without any authorizing resolutions. Just last week, a federal court confirmed that the House is not required to hold a vote and that imposing such a requirement would be "an impermissible intrusion on the House's constitutional authority." More than 300 legal scholars have also refuted this argument, concluding that "the Constitution does not mandate the process for impeachment and there is no constitutional requirement that the House of Representatives authorize an impeachment inquiry before one begins." The Trump Administration has made up this argument -- apparently out of whole cloth -- in order to justify its unprecedented cover-up, withhold key documents from multiple federal agencies, prevent critical witnesses from cooperating, and defy duly authorized subpoenas. talkingpointsmemo.com/news/house-vote-impeachment-inquiry-resolutionThe testimony we've heard from state department officials isn't damning if one considers the Biden angle. Trump made a White House meeting with the President of Ukraine contingent on said President making a public announcement that the Ukrainian government was investigating Biden. The evidence for this is substantial and about to become more so. (Colonel Vindman's opening statement is not pretty.) I am not sure how in the world this can be anything other than damning.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Oct 29, 2019 11:06:32 GMT -5
The testimony we've heard from state department officials isn't damning if one considers the Biden angle. Trump made a White House meeting with the President of Ukraine contingent on said President making a public announcement that the Ukrainian government was investigating Biden. The evidence for this is substantial and about to become more so. (Colonel Vindman's opening statement is not pretty.) I am not sure how in the world this can be anything other than damning. I can't disagree with the facts as you've presented them. Would it be possible for you to acknowledge that there are additional facts that may have some bearing on what happened? By all accounts, corruption in Ukraine is a major issue. The Burisma investigation was quashed under circumstances that can only be interpreted as odd. Joe Biden played a part in having the prosecutor fired. And in doing so he threatened to withhold U.S. aid unless the firing took place. Trump says that the pressure he was putting on Zelensky was for the purposes of rooting out corruption. Whether Trump is being entirely honest in his description, or not, if one considers the larger context the testimony of various state department officials confirms what the administration was trying to accomplish and how. I must confess that I find the Giuliani involvement messy and sleazy at best. Regardless of whether previous administrations have used private citizens to help achieve diplomatic goals, it just looks bad. Am I dumb enough to believe that Trump had no political motives here? No. I do believe that regardless of Biden's position as a political opponent, there is enough to at least look at his role in Ukraine. And I'm certainly not dumb enough to think that the impeachment proceeding is entirely involved with the Democrats concerns about the presidents ethics. In an earlier post in this thread I believe I referred to the version of justice often used in the "old west"; "give him a fair trial then hang him". In this case I don't believe the term fair trial fits. Holding secret confidential hearings behind closed doors and then leaking selected testimony positively smells of a put-up job.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 29, 2019 11:07:18 GMT -5
Given that Donald's mentor was Roy Cohn, his sleaziness should never be a surprise.
However, for those keeping track, here is a partial list of the witnesses that Team Trump has fanned out across the landscape to smear as untrustworthy:
Lt. Col. Vindman – war hero, WH aide
Bill Taylor – Vietnam vet, 50 year public servant
Marie Yovanovitch – FSO since 1986, MS from Nat'l War College
Fiona Hill – Trump appointee, served Bush + Obama
Kurt Volker – Trump appointee, Ambassador to NATO under Bush
Laura Cooper – 2 decades at Pentagon
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 29, 2019 11:15:09 GMT -5
Trump made a White House meeting with the President of Ukraine contingent on said President making a public announcement that the Ukrainian government was investigating Biden. The evidence for this is substantial and about to become more so. (Colonel Vindman's opening statement is not pretty.) I am not sure how in the world this can be anything other than damning. I can't disagree with the facts as you've presented them. Would it be possible for you to acknowledge that there are additional facts that may have some bearing on what happened? By all accounts, corruption in Ukraine is a major issue. The Burisma investigation was quashed under circumstances that can only be interpreted as odd. Joe Biden played a part in having the prosecutor fired. And in doing so he threatened to withhold U.S. aid unless the firing took place. Trump says that the pressure he was putting on Zelensky was for the purposes of rooting out corruption. Whether Trump is being entirely honest in his description, or not, if one considers the larger context the testimony of various state department officials confirms what the administration was trying to accomplish and how. I must confess that I find the Giuliani involvement messy and sleazy at best. Regardless of whether previous administrations have used private citizens to help achieve diplomatic goals, it just looks bad. Am I dumb enough to believe that Trump had no political motives here? No. I do believe that regardless of Biden's position as a political opponent, there is enough to at least look at his role in Ukraine. And I'm certainly not dumb enough to think that the impeachment proceeding is entirely involved with the Democrats concerns about the presidents ethics. In an earlier post in this thread I believe I referred to the version of justice often used in the "old west"; "give him a fair trial then hang him". In this case I don't believe the term fair trial fits. Holding secret confidential hearings behind closed doors and then leaking selected testimony positively smells of a put-up job. If there were additional facts that may have some bearing on what happened, I would think Team Trump would want them aired. As far as secret confidential hearings? Closed door meetings on sensitive topics, especially early in an investigation, are , for obvious reasons, routine. Republicans are fully represented in these closed-door committee meetings, and the meetings are being conducted according to House rules approved by the GOP in 2016.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 29, 2019 11:55:05 GMT -5
Wow. The Democrats have suddenly grown a set of gonads (or maybe they just rented them) (or maybe just priced them out) and they're going to move on courageously (or not so courageously) to vote to do something they've vowed not to do for several weeks but no ones really sure what it is or what it means.
Congrats idiots. Hope it all proves worth it (or likely not).
|
|
|
Post by TKennedy on Oct 29, 2019 12:06:02 GMT -5
The Colonel’s testimony is obviously irrelevant as he is a Ukrainian double agent.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 29, 2019 12:16:44 GMT -5
Wow. The Democrats have suddenly grown a set of gonads (or maybe they just rented them) (or maybe just priced them out) and they're going to move on courageously (or not so courageously) to vote to do something they've vowed not to do for several weeks but no ones really sure what it is or what it means. Congrats idiots. Hope it all proves worth it (or likely not). Generally it’s not a great sign when one is arguing about the process rather than the facts.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Oct 29, 2019 12:18:12 GMT -5
He killed off my favorite character in Constable I. I think that was a mistake. (unless Don is planning on bringing him back as friendly ghost or talking bush, kind of a broaden the audience deal or something) I too have come to suspect it was a mistake. The character would have made a good recurring presence. There's a problem with bringing the character back now. It would be a plot spoiler for anyone who hadn't read the first book. This would include countless Americans. I have thought of one way that would skirt that problem. Would involve sorcery. Meantime, I'm hoping to have the first sequel finished by around the first of the year. Might be too late for the spring lists, but we'll see.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 29, 2019 12:20:36 GMT -5
Wow. The Democrats have suddenly grown a set of gonads (or maybe they just rented them) (or maybe just priced them out) and they're going to move on courageously (or not so courageously) to vote to do something they've vowed not to do for several weeks but no ones really sure what it is or what it means. Congrats idiots. Hope it all proves worth it (or likely not). Generally it’s not a great sign when one is arguing about the process rather than the facts. What in here is not a fact?
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 29, 2019 12:50:49 GMT -5
Generally it’s not a great sign when one is arguing about the process rather than the facts. What in here is not a fact? The Democrats never "vowed" that they were not going to hold open impeachment hearings. They said they were taking it one step at a time. Which they are. How many or specifically what articles of impeachment there will be is, unsurprisingly, not known at this stage. This is the way it works.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Oct 29, 2019 13:20:28 GMT -5
He killed off my favorite character in Constable I. I think that was a mistake. (unless Don is planning on bringing him back as friendly ghost or talking bush, kind of a broaden the audience deal or something) I too have come to suspect it was a mistake. The character would have made a good recurring presence. There's a problem with bringing the character back now. It would be a plot spoiler for anyone who hadn't read the first book. This would include countless Americans. I have thought of one way that would skirt that problem. Would involve sorcery. Meantime, I'm hoping to have the first sequel finished by around the first of the year. Might be too late for the spring lists, but we'll see. How do you expect to keep up with John Grisham unless you become way more prolific? You have an army of enthusiastic readers out here waiting for the next book. If it takes much longer there is real danger that by the time I login to Amazon to place my order I will have forgotten why.
|
|
|
Post by aquaduct on Oct 29, 2019 13:21:25 GMT -5
What in here is not a fact? The Democrats never "vowed" that they were not going to hold open impeachment hearings. They said they were taking it one step at a time. Which they are. How many or specifically what articles of impeachment there will be is, unsurprisingly, not known at this stage. This is the way it works. So it's not an actual lock that Trump will be impeached? Then why do you keep saying he will?
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 29, 2019 13:36:32 GMT -5
The Democrats never "vowed" that they were not going to hold open impeachment hearings. They said they were taking it one step at a time. Which they are. How many or specifically what articles of impeachment there will be is, unsurprisingly, not known at this stage. This is the way it works. So it's not an actual lock that Trump will be impeached? Then why do you keep saying he will? The word impeachment gets tossed around a lot. Sometimes carelessly. Impeachment inquiries have only happened three times in our history. Actual impeachment, twice. (Articles were written up that the Senate never got to in Nixon's case, due to his resignation. Trump, also might escape impeachment by resigning if the kitchen get too hot. Doubtful, but possible.) Andrew Johnson faced twelve articles. Bill Clinton, two. Nixon dodged three. Pelosi would not be moving forward if she did not have the votes to get at least one moved on to the Senate. I'll let Madame Speaker explain what exactly is happening: "For weeks, the President, his Counsel in the White House, and his allies in Congress have made the baseless claim that the House of Representatives' impeachment inquiry "lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding." They argue that, because the House has not taken a vote, they may simply pretend the impeachment inquiry does not exist. Of course, this argument has no merit. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Multiple past impeachments have gone forward without any authorizing resolutions. Just last week, a federal court confirmed that the House is not required to hold a vote and that imposing such a requirement would be "an impermissible intrusion on the House's constitutional authority." More than 300 legal scholars have also refuted this argument, concluding that "the Constitution does not mandate the process for impeachment and there is no constitutional requirement that the House of Representatives authorize an impeachment inquiry before one begins." The Trump Administration has made up this argument -- apparently out of whole cloth -- in order to justify its unprecedented cover-up, withhold key documents from multiple federal agencies, prevent critical witnesses from cooperating, and defy duly authorized subpoenas. This week, we will bring a resolution to the Floor that affirms the ongoing, existing investigation that is currently being conducted by our committees as part of this impeachment inquiry, including all requests for documents, subpoenas for records and testimony, and any other investigative steps previously taken or to be taken as part of this investigation. This resolution establishes the procedure for hearings that are open to the American people, authorizes the disclosure of deposition transcripts, outlines procedures to transfer evidence to the Judiciary Committee as it considers potential articles of impeachment, and sets forth due process rights for the President and his Counsel. We are taking this step to eliminate any doubt as to whether the Trump Administration may withhold documents, prevent witness testimony, disregard duly authorized subpoenas, or continue obstructing the House of Representatives. Nobody is above the law. best regards, Nancy"
|
|
|
Post by lar on Oct 29, 2019 13:47:38 GMT -5
In an earlier post in this thread I believe I referred to the version of justice often used in the "old west"; "give him a fair trial then hang him". In this case I don't believe the term fair trial fits. Holding secret confidential hearings behind closed doors and then leaking selected testimony positively smells of a put-up job. If there were additional facts that may have some bearing on what happened, I would think Team Trump would want them aired. As far as secret confidential hearings? Closed door meetings on sensitive topics, especially early in an investigation, are , for obvious reasons, routine. Republicans are fully represented in these closed-door committee meetings, and the meetings are being conducted according to House rules approved by the GOP in 2016. [/quote] All I really want is for both sides to climb the hell down from their respective high horses and admit to what's really going on. Are the Democrats ashamed to admit that they've been after Trump's scalp since the beginning? What's wrong with acknowledging that they are out to get him come hell or high water and if they don't want all of the information to come out so be it? There are additional facts. The Democrats are aware of them. Trump may have put the kibosh on administration staff subscribing to The Washington Post but I'm sure the Democrats read it. If I recall correctly, TWP recently reported on the odd circumstances surrounding the quashing of the Burisma investigation. In my view that may be of some importance. It's not certain that there was something wrong there but it is certain that we'll never know unless someone takes a close look than has been allowed thus far. If the Democrats are going to investigate it's of some importance that they investigate everything not just what fits their narrative. That's just common sense. It may be a long shot but there is something of a case to be made that Trump's phone call to Zelensky really was about corruption. It seems weird that the Democrats would on one hand complain about Trump's lack of transparency and then schedule closed door meetings. I'm not arguing that they didn't have the right to do it. They did. I'm simply questioning why they found it necessary. So far as I've been able to determine the testimony at those sessions has only confirmed what was already known. I think that's important. But it's not closed door stuff. Yes, as I understand it the Republicans are fully represented at the closed door meetings. And as I understand it they've been given the opportunity to ask questions of the witnesses. If they aren't taking advantage of that they are damned fools (Hmmm. That may have been redundant). I heard one of the Republicans complain this morning that they hadn't been given an opportunity to call witnesses. If that's true, the Democrats are damned fools (How about that, another redundancy). Aside from that he claimed that he's been put on notice by the committee that if he repeats anything said in the room he'll be given a timeout, or whatever it is they do to rule breakers. At the same time, Schiff, or someone, has been leaking selected information to the press. Maybe he'll get a timeout too. Now the Republicans have compounded their own stupidity by saying that the resolution to authorize the impeachment inquiry is too little too late. And the Democrats, who should have stuck by their guns if they thought they were right (and they were) have compounded their stupidity by saying they are going to hold a vote on the resolution. In the meantime the federal deficit keeps ticking upwards, and the morons in DC (not you, Don) continue to play their childish games instead of working on stuff that matters. I cannot fathom why the rest of us haven't risen up en masse and demanded that our elected representatives stop all of this crap and start doing their jobs.
|
|
|
Post by Chesapeake on Oct 29, 2019 14:10:11 GMT -5
I too have come to suspect it was a mistake. The character would have made a good recurring presence. There's a problem with bringing the character back now. It would be a plot spoiler for anyone who hadn't read the first book. This would include countless Americans. I have thought of one way that would skirt that problem. Would involve sorcery. Meantime, I'm hoping to have the first sequel finished by around the first of the year. Might be too late for the spring lists, but we'll see. How do you expect to keep up with John Grisham unless you become way more prolific? You have an army of enthusiastic readers out here waiting for the next book. If it takes much longer there is real danger that by the time I login to Amazon to place my order I will have forgotten why. I still have time to beat J.D. Salinger in the prolificry department. (Btw, I've been meaning to thank you for your online review, and in general for your superior taste in literature.)
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 29, 2019 14:14:31 GMT -5
Lar-
We disagree, I guess.
The Democrats are doing their jobs. It's messy. The likely crimes are messy and numerous.
Other facts? The Democrats, at this point, are not even going after the things in the Mueller report which Mueller, rather coyly, said he could not indict Trump for but (hint-hint) there were other avenues for that (i.e.,) impeachment.
Impeachment is a political process and the Dems are going to have to pick and choose what is the best case to make.
Prosecutors routinely go after the easier to prove crimes, even if they are lesser offenses.
Some of Trump's shenanigans will likely not be exposed until he is out of office and CAN be indicted as a regular old citizen.
The Democrats NEVER said they were not going to hold a vote so they have no guns to stick to.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Oct 29, 2019 14:31:25 GMT -5
Lar- We disagree, I guess. The Democrats are doing their jobs. It's messy. The likely crimes are messy and numerous. Other facts? The Democrats, at this point, are not even going after the things in the Mueller report which Mueller, rather coyly, said he could not indict Trump for but (hint-hint) there were other avenues for that (i.e.,) impeachment. Impeachment is a political process and the Dems are going to have to pick and choose what is the best case to make. Prosecutors routinely go after the easier to prove crimes, even if they are lesser offenses. Some of Trump's shenanigans will likely not be exposed until he is out of office and CAN be indicted as a regular old citizen. The Democrats NEVER said they were not going to hold a vote so they have no guns to stick to. Yup, we do disagree but it's not a big deal since it's doubtful that either of our opinions is going to sway the final outcome of this. I understand a lot of what you've said above. But I gotta admit that the Burisma thing still sticks in my craw a bit. The first reports I saw said that the investigation in Ukraine had been debunked and I accepted that as fact. Since then more facts have come to light and I believe they do impact the investigation the Democrats are running. I took Schiff at his word when he said they were searching for the truth. He never said they were searching for the whole story so I guess I can't fault him. It does offend my sense of fair play, though. If Trump really has done something wrong, whether it's the Ukraine scandal or something else, I hope they hang him high. I find him to be a loathsome figure. But even someone as cynical as I am can't condone going after him just because he's a despicable human being. That ain't our style. One point of clarification: When I spoke of the Democrats sticking to their guns I was referring to their assertion that a resolution wasn't necessary. I agree with them. I think the Constitution is clear that the house can make up whatever rules they decide on. Going back and taking a vote on a resolution they don't think is necessary looks wishy-washy and makes the whole thing look amateurish.
|
|
|
Post by lar on Oct 29, 2019 14:33:02 GMT -5
How do you expect to keep up with John Grisham unless you become way more prolific? You have an army of enthusiastic readers out here waiting for the next book. If it takes much longer there is real danger that by the time I login to Amazon to place my order I will have forgotten why. I still have time to beat J.D. Salinger in the prolificry department. (Btw, I've been meaning to thank you for your online review, and in general for your superior taste in literature.) You are welcome. It remains one of my favorite books and I've been looking forward to the next one since I turned the last page.
|
|
|
Post by casualplayerpaul on Oct 29, 2019 14:44:59 GMT -5
Army Lt. Col. Vindman, who is testifying before Congress today has been smeared as unpatriotic and untrustworthy by Team Trump (Trump, Rudy Hannity/several other FOX Talking heads AND CNN's latest hire, Sean Duffy). The Purple Heart recipient was featured as a young boy in the Academy Award-nominated doc "The Statue of Liberty" in 1985. to.pbs.org/2Ns6HJQ
|
|