Impeachment Inquiry What do y'all think?

[Grumps 3,704]

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/22/781722978/democrats-have-wrapped-their-public-case-on-impeachment-what-comes-next

Democrats Have Wrapped Their Public Case On Impeachment. What Comes Next?

• Facebook
• Twitter
• Flipboard
• Email

November 22, 20195:01 AM ET

PHILIP EWING

 

Fiona Hill, the National Security Council's former senior director for Europe and Russia, and David Holmes, an official from the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, testified in the House impeachment inquiry Thursday.

Matt McClain/Pool/Getty Images

The marathon of testimony in Democrats' impeachment inquiry this week confirmed that the Ukraine affair, like so many earlier subplots in the era of President Trump, boils down to two big questions:

What do the president's words mean? Can the president do what he did?

The answers to those questions have been a partisan inkblot test since Trump exploded onto the political scene, and now they are burning again as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Democrats decide how they'll move ahead in a showdown over impeachment.

The overall facts of the case now are well established: Trump sought concessions this year from Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

In exchange for engagement and about $391 million in military assistance, Zelenskiy — and not an aide such as his prosecutor-general — had to announce investigations that Trump thought might help him in the 2020 election, witnesses said.

The White House froze aid for a period of weeks this year and ultimately released it. Zelenskiy never made a public statement about investigations.

Findings of the inquiry

Members of Congress and the witnesses did not agree about whether they heard Trump make a request of Zelenskiy politely — or whether Trump twisted the arm of a weaker counterpart with the expectation that his words would be taken as a demand.

Sign Up For The NPR Politics Newsletter

From the White House to your home — political news and analysis that matter, sent weekly.

E-mail address

 

 

By subscribing, you agree to NPR's terms of use and privacy policy.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Witnesses and investigators also did not agree whether Trump had explicitly directed the aides — since dubbed "the three amigos" for Ukraine — that they were required to submit to the tasking of his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani.

Or whether what Trump did was, in so many words, shrug and say — Ukraine? If you guys wanna do some stuff, you can talk to Rudy.

TRUMP IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

Impeachment Hearings Wrap As Fiona Hill Slams GOP's 'Fictional' Ukraine Account

TRUMP IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY

READ: Fiona Hill, David Holmes Opening Statements For Thursday's Impeachment Hearing

Likewise, neither lawmakers nor the witnesses agreed whether Trump should have pursued this policy in the first place.

The United States has paused or stopped assistance for foreign countries before to exact concessions, as witnesses detailed on Wednesday evening.

Interpretations

Even so, Democrats led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., say the story amounts to "bribery," because he said Trump conditioned official acts on reciprocal actions that would benefit him politically.

"My colleagues seem to think unless the president says the magic words, 'I hereby bribed the Ukrainians,' that there's no evidence of bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors," Schiff said.

"But let's look to the best evidence of what is in the president's head. What is his intent? What is the reason behind the hold on the meeting and on the aid?"

Republicans said the case was hearsay, argued Democrats have no credibility after the Russia investigation, and emphasized that "corruption" in Ukraine is very real.

Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, said Trump was being a careful steward of taxpayer dollars, keeping them out of the hands of a new regime in Ukraine until he and aides could take its measure — and releasing the money only when satisfied that doing so would further U.S. long-term strategic interests.

"President Trump wants to see — with all of these other things that are of concern to him — he wants to see if this new guy is actually, as I like to say, the real deal — a real reformer and actually going to deal with the corruption problem," Jordan said of Zelenskiy.

Code words and "corruption"

Fighting corruption has been a longstanding American priority for Ukraine — but the Defense Department and other agencies certified earlier in the year, before the White House froze the aid, that Kyiv had done sufficient work to merit it.

And Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a top Ukraine specialist within the National Security Council, testified on Tuesday that he included points about anti-corruption in materials given to Trump ahead of both his phone calls with Zelenskiy.

Trump, however, didn't mention corruption in either conversation, according to witnesses who listened in.

What he did say was "Biden," because he wanted Zelenskiy to investigate what Republicans allege may have been improper activity involving former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, who was paid by a Ukrainian company.

The Bidens haven't been accused of breaking the law, but each time Democrats have used their majority to convene a discussion about Ukraine in Congress, it has presented an opening for minority Republicans to restate allegations about Joe and Hunter Biden.

His excellency the ambassador

And Trump didn't say "Biden" when he spoke to a key intermediary in this story, Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union.

Sondland, a donor and political sponsor of the president, is one of the few witnesses who could speak to Trump directly. He said he didn't put the picture together until later on and realize that "Burisma," a word he did recognize as referring to the company that paid Hunter Biden, actually was code for Biden.

Although Sondland remembered Trump asking about investigations when they talked on the phone July 26, in a later call, Sondland said he asked Trump an open-ended question: What do you want from Ukraine?

"I want nothing," Trump confirmed on Wednesday that he responded — he read from handwritten notes when he talked to reporters. "No quid pro quo."

Sondland conveyed that to his colleagues and, a few days later, the White House released the Ukraine assistance on Sept. 11.

The matter of "bribery"

Skeptical Democrats said that discussion had to be placed in the context of the broader saga. The White House had become aware about inquiries about the halted Ukraine aid and Trump knew the game was up, they argue.

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., compared Trump to someone who has been pulled over for speeding and immediately tells the police officer: "I didn't rob the bank. I didn't rob the bank," Swalwell said on Thursday.

For Republicans, Sondland's evidence underscored that there is no case here.

There is no "attempted robbery" metaphor appropriate in impeachment, they argue — Trump was not "caught," per Trump's defenders. He vindicated himself in the conversation with Sondland and with the release of the assistance. Zelenskiy didn't announce an investigation.

None of the Republican members on the Intelligence Committee appeared convinced by an impeachment case. One potential crossover, Texas Rep. Will Hurd, made clear on Thursday that he wasn't sold.

Others scoffed at what they called a waste of time.

"Is that it, really?" asked Rep. Chris Stewart, R-Utah, on Thursday. "You're going to impeach and remove a president — for this?"

Stewart said he thinks it's good news that if House Democrats move ahead with articles of impeachment, that would trigger a Senate trial in which Republicans can use their majority to protect Trump from what Stewart called a scurrilous process.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., reiterated to reporters this week that he'll convene that trial as required by the Constitution, but he believes it's "inconceivable" that the sufficient 20 Republicans would break ranks with Trump and vote to remove the president.

"We aren't finished yet"

Democrats can do that arithmetic the same as anyone else, which means the close of the open hearings this week puts them at a crossroads.

Pelosi and her lieutenants have taken care to state that they don't consider impeachment to be a foregone conclusion.

So one question raised by Schiff's series of hearings is whether Pelosi now might try to climb down in view of the dead end in the Senate — or whether the impeachment train now simply has too much momentum to stop.

Schiff said at the outset of his hearings that he believes Trump's actions might leave the House with no choice but to impeach, because that's all it can do. If what results isn't removal but a message to presidents about what Democrats considered unacceptable here, the work was worth doing, Schiff suggested.

Pelosi, meanwhile, insisted to reporters separately that, on Thursday at least, she hadn't decided what next moves to discuss with the committees of jurisdiction and didn't know what course they'll set.

"We'll see," she said. "We aren't finished yet."

[Grumps 3,704]

My suspicion is that Trump has done MANY things more worthy of impeachment than this inquiry has revealed. Will the actual impeachment commence? This still seems more about politics than justice to me.

[AU64 10,122]

OMG....offering military aid to a foreign government to do something that a US president wants done?    Please someone find me a president who has not held the possibility of financial aid over the head of other countries to get them to do what he wanted them to do.  The big argument about foreign aid is the "quid pro quo" thing..... the basic argument of many folks that the US should not give aid to countries who are not helpful to us?  

We've "bribed" governments to do all sorts of things we wanted done my entire adult life.    And I've yet to see or hear anyone acknowledge under oath that he or she ever heard the name of Biden mentioned and it's a stretch to even infer that he was talking about one of the Bidens.     And of course to see witnesses back tracking or re-interpreting their testimony?    Nothing but a big circus and Dems might have satisfied their "base" but I doubt many of the famous "undecided" citizens were impressed.  JMO.

[TitanTiger 20,472]

18 minutes ago, Grumps said:

My suspicion is that Trump has done MANY things more worthy of impeachment than this inquiry has revealed. Will the actual impeachment commence? This still seems more about politics than justice to me.

I think something can be both.  It's political because...of course it is.  Just like the impeachment hearings on Clinton and Nixon were political.  But it's also about justice.  I think there's ample evidence that Trump abused his power and was trying to hold aid to Ukraine hostage to exact politically-motivated investigations into an opponent or his family.

So, yes, there's a political angle here.  But Trump is the one who gave them the ammo.  He's an unethical, selfish person and unethical, selfish people often get themselves in a lot of trouble because of it.

[NolaAuTiger 3,295]

I don’t think it has moved the needle for either side. 

[DKW 86 7,419]

I was going to quote the whole thread and decided not to. 

Is Trump a sleazebag as a President. Yes, he was a sleazeball as a businessman and is a sleazeball as a President. 
Did Trump break the law? Probably, but at this point the American public is so tired of non-stop investigations that a quorum of the voting population no longer cares. Sanders said it this week.
The Senate is not going to Impeach.  They never were. If the Democrats fail to rid of us of Trump, the blow back could be a year of "Do-Nothing Democrats on Witch-Hunts" for the 2020 Election. I have been saying for two years at least. The Democrats blew their wad on a 23 month bull**** investigation that went nowhere.  If they had played their cards right, they could be really damaging Trump with this investigation. Now, most of the American People are just bored to ******* death with this stuff.

If you want to Win an Election, do that with Policies and Making the Sale that your vision for America is better than theirs. You can win an election driving the other guy's negatives so high that people are repelled by them. But by now, the Dems have totally exhausted and tired the American people on that method at this point. 

The Democrat Primaries may be about see a slew more new candidates. Steyer, Bloomberg,  & HRC launching a faux-draft candidacy is not out of the question either. Pete is leading Iowa at the moment and there may be no consensus front-runner now that Biden is damaged goods over Burisma. Without an investigation clearing him, DJT will be able to talk about "Dirty Biden" the whole campaign. 

Iowa: PB 23.5 Warren 17.8 Sanders 17.0 Biden 17.0
NH: Warren 20.7 Biden 19.0 PB 18.7 Sanders 14.3
By the time NV or CA rolls around, it could be well on the way to a shakeup with 1-2 leaving.

[Grumps 3,704]

For many years I have felt like the dems were much better at strategizing than the repubs. I don't think that anymore.

[bigbird 60,501]

What was it that Carville said in '92?

[SaltyTiger 7,790]

5 hours ago, NolaAuTiger said:

I don’t think it has moved the needle for either side. 

Well said counselor.

[DKW 86 7,419]

16 hours ago, bigbird said:

What was it that Carville said in '92?

Its the Economy Stupid?

[homersapien 11,366]

On 11/23/2019 at 10:51 AM, AU64 said:

OMG....offering military aid to a foreign government to do something that a US president wants done?    Please someone find me a president who has not held the possibility of financial aid over the head of other countries to get them to do what he wanted them to do.  The big argument about foreign aid is the "quid pro quo" thing..... the basic argument of many folks that the US should not give aid to countries who are not helpful to us?  

We've "bribed" governments to do all sorts of things we wanted done my entire adult life.    And I've yet to see or hear anyone acknowledge under oath that he or she ever heard the name of Biden mentioned and it's a stretch to even infer that he was talking about one of the Bidens.     And of course to see witnesses back tracking or re-interpreting their testimony?    Nothing but a big circus and Dems might have satisfied their "base" but I doubt many of the famous "undecided" citizens were impressed.  JMO.

Show me a POTUS who has bribed a foreign government by threatening to withhold U.S. aid unless they investigate a personal political rival.

Uh, how about Guilliani - acting as Trump's representative -  much less Trump himself?

You are clearly not keeping up.

Trump now says both China and Ukraine should investigate Bidens

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/03/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-china-investigate-2020/index.html

 

Trump calls on China to investigate Biden in extraordinary demand

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/oct/03/trump-biden-china-investigation-demand

 

[homersapien 11,366]

Trump’s GOP defenders cannot be shamed. It’s time to try this instead.

If there is one widely shared conclusion about the impeachment hearings that have just concluded, it’s that President Trump’s GOP defenders were never “gettable.”

This idea has been repeated countless times in recent days, as one monumentally damning revelation after another has been exposed, only to be met by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee with up-is-down denial.

Some defenders have flatly inverted what was actually testified to into its diametrical opposite. Others have reflexively reverted to conspiracy theories creating a universe as divorced from the actual corrupt conduct now being examined as one former half of a divided cell is from the other.

The latest updates in the Trump impeachment hearings

It’s now clear that the coming Senate trial will also be conducted in this manner. Reports tell us Republicans are divided over whether to have a drawn out trial that offers a genuine “defense of his conduct,” as if a protracted one will see Trump’s extensive misconduct evaluated and defended on its merits.

Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina, a top Trump loyalist, has just demanded that the State Department turn over extensive documents to help “prove” the theory that the Ukraine activities of Joe Biden and his son Hunter were corrupt.

That invented narrative has already been thoroughly debunked. But what really matters here is that this is the very same theory Trump set out to “prove” with his corrupt pressure on Ukraine in the first place.

Trump and his defenders simply will not leave that goal behind — precisely because Trump continues to view it as central to his reelection chances.

We know what happened here. Trump corruptly tried to extort a foreign ally at a moment of extreme vulnerability into announcing investigations that would boost his reelection chances.

These announcements would then influence domestic press coverage, validating Trump’s efforts to absolve Russia of its role in sabotaging the 2016 election — and his campaign’s coordination with it — and helping smear a potential 2020 campaign opponent.

We know Trump made these demands of the Ukrainian president. We know top Cabinet officials and top White House advisers were involved to one degree or another, and that this put large swaths of the government at the disposal both of Trump’s reelection effort and of the effort to cover it all up.

We know Trump conditioned one official act (a White House meeting) on getting his dirty deeds done. We know a top ringleader told Ukraine that hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid were conditioned on the same, in the full understanding that Trump wanted him to. Trump solicited a bribe.

So this Senate trial will be heavily preoccupied not with examining that conduct, but instead with … continuing to accomplish some of the very same goals (smearing Joe Biden) that drove the whole corrupt scheme all along. The Senate trial will continue using the levers of government to realize those goals, simply continuing where that scheme left off.

Much excellent work has developed the idea that all this goes much further than conventional political misrepresentation and pushes into a realm of disinformation hermetically sealed off from facts altogether.

This lockstep backing has many motives. Some defenders are all in with the project of “disinforming” millions of Trump voters (see David Frum). Others are fine with Trump soliciting foreign interference because the whole party benefits (see Brian Beutler). Others don’t acknowledge an ethical framework that allows for Trump to be wrong, because their highest loyalty is to him (see Adam Serwer).

But a full acknowledgment of all this requires a fundamental change in the way we’ve been communicating about it.

Time for a reset

It’s time to drop the posture that Trump’s defenders can be shamed into accepting what has been unearthed, or that they can be shamed into arguing from a baseline of shared democratic values, or into arguing over how to interpret a comprehensive set of shared facts.

Instead, let’s rhetorically treat Trump’s defenders as his criminal accomplices. Not just as “enablers” of Trump’s corruption but as active participants in it.

Once this is accepted, it becomes obvious why they can’t be “won over,” because they are actively engaged in keeping the corruption in question from getting fully uncovered, in the belief that they, too, benefit from it, and that they, too, lose out if it’s exposed.

The notion that Trump’s defenders can be shamed into facing up to what has happened here is all-pervasive. It includes the have-you-no-shame lectures delivered to Republicans who smeared Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman for supposed dual loyalties.

It includes the oft-expressed idea that Republicans downplaying the evidence are doing so because they fear Trump’s base, as if they would embrace evidence if only they could, as if the problem is missing “courage” and not a more corrupt form of calculated self-interest.

And it includes anguished objections that Attorney General William P. Barr has “politicized” the Justice Department in a way that brings opprobrium upon it.

Meanwhile, on Fox News, Trump just boasted that Barr’s “review” of the origins of the Russia investigation will show a huge “scandal,” that is, show that he was right all along. We’ll soon see about that, but it’s plainly obvious that Barr and those allied with him in this project cannot be shamed into playing this one by facts.

Instead, Barr is using the Justice Department to accomplish precisely the same rewriting of 2016 that drove Trump’s corrupt scheme in the first place — putting Trump’s reelection needs over the findings of our own intelligence services.

The point here isn’t that describing Trump’s defenders in these ways has no truth or utility at all. Surely some might actually feel cowed by Trump voters or feel secret shame in smearing Vindman. Surely shaming smears has worth.

Rather, the point is we need a much more fundamental change in our underlying treatment of the moment. We need to approach it from the premise that Trump’s defenders are not “gettable” because they are accomplices in the whole scheme -- and forthrightly describe what’s happening in kind.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/22/trumps-gop-defenders-cannot-be-shamed-its-time-democrats-try-this-instead/

 

[bigbird 60,501]

1 hour ago, DKW 86 said:

Its the Economy Stupid?

Yep

[Grumps 3,704]

37 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Trump’s GOP defenders cannot be shamed. It’s time to try this instead.

If there is one widely shared conclusion about the impeachment hearings that have just concluded, it’s that President Trump’s GOP defenders were never “gettable.”

This idea has been repeated countless times in recent days, as one monumentally damning revelation after another has been exposed, only to be met by Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee with up-is-down denial.

Some defenders have flatly inverted what was actually testified to into its diametrical opposite. Others have reflexively reverted to conspiracy theories creating a universe as divorced from the actual corrupt conduct now being examined as one former half of a divided cell is from the other.

The latest updates in the Trump impeachment hearings

It’s now clear that the coming Senate trial will also be conducted in this manner. Reports tell us Republicans are divided over whether to have a drawn out trial that offers a genuine “defense of his conduct,” as if a protracted one will see Trump’s extensive misconduct evaluated and defended on its merits.

Meanwhile, Sen. Lindsey O. Graham of South Carolina, a top Trump loyalist, has just demanded that the State Department turn over extensive documents to help “prove” the theory that the Ukraine activities of Joe Biden and his son Hunter were corrupt.

That invented narrative has already been thoroughly debunked. But what really matters here is that this is the very same theory Trump set out to “prove” with his corrupt pressure on Ukraine in the first place.

Trump and his defenders simply will not leave that goal behind — precisely because Trump continues to view it as central to his reelection chances.

We know what happened here. Trump corruptly tried to extort a foreign ally at a moment of extreme vulnerability into announcing investigations that would boost his reelection chances.

These announcements would then influence domestic press coverage, validating Trump’s efforts to absolve Russia of its role in sabotaging the 2016 election — and his campaign’s coordination with it — and helping smear a potential 2020 campaign opponent.

We know Trump made these demands of the Ukrainian president. We know top Cabinet officials and top White House advisers were involved to one degree or another, and that this put large swaths of the government at the disposal both of Trump’s reelection effort and of the effort to cover it all up.

We know Trump conditioned one official act (a White House meeting) on getting his dirty deeds done. We know a top ringleader told Ukraine that hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid were conditioned on the same, in the full understanding that Trump wanted him to. Trump solicited a bribe.

So this Senate trial will be heavily preoccupied not with examining that conduct, but instead with … continuing to accomplish some of the very same goals (smearing Joe Biden) that drove the whole corrupt scheme all along. The Senate trial will continue using the levers of government to realize those goals, simply continuing where that scheme left off.

Much excellent work has developed the idea that all this goes much further than conventional political misrepresentation and pushes into a realm of disinformation hermetically sealed off from facts altogether.

This lockstep backing has many motives. Some defenders are all in with the project of “disinforming” millions of Trump voters (see David Frum). Others are fine with Trump soliciting foreign interference because the whole party benefits (see Brian Beutler). Others don’t acknowledge an ethical framework that allows for Trump to be wrong, because their highest loyalty is to him (see Adam Serwer).

But a full acknowledgment of all this requires a fundamental change in the way we’ve been communicating about it.

Time for a reset

It’s time to drop the posture that Trump’s defenders can be shamed into accepting what has been unearthed, or that they can be shamed into arguing from a baseline of shared democratic values, or into arguing over how to interpret a comprehensive set of shared facts.

Instead, let’s rhetorically treat Trump’s defenders as his criminal accomplices. Not just as “enablers” of Trump’s corruption but as active participants in it.

Once this is accepted, it becomes obvious why they can’t be “won over,” because they are actively engaged in keeping the corruption in question from getting fully uncovered, in the belief that they, too, benefit from it, and that they, too, lose out if it’s exposed.

The notion that Trump’s defenders can be shamed into facing up to what has happened here is all-pervasive. It includes the have-you-no-shame lectures delivered to Republicans who smeared Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman for supposed dual loyalties.

It includes the oft-expressed idea that Republicans downplaying the evidence are doing so because they fear Trump’s base, as if they would embrace evidence if only they could, as if the problem is missing “courage” and not a more corrupt form of calculated self-interest.

And it includes anguished objections that Attorney General William P. Barr has “politicized” the Justice Department in a way that brings opprobrium upon it.

Meanwhile, on Fox News, Trump just boasted that Barr’s “review” of the origins of the Russia investigation will show a huge “scandal,” that is, show that he was right all along. We’ll soon see about that, but it’s plainly obvious that Barr and those allied with him in this project cannot be shamed into playing this one by facts.

Instead, Barr is using the Justice Department to accomplish precisely the same rewriting of 2016 that drove Trump’s corrupt scheme in the first place — putting Trump’s reelection needs over the findings of our own intelligence services.

The point here isn’t that describing Trump’s defenders in these ways has no truth or utility at all. Surely some might actually feel cowed by Trump voters or feel secret shame in smearing Vindman. Surely shaming smears has worth.

Rather, the point is we need a much more fundamental change in our underlying treatment of the moment. We need to approach it from the premise that Trump’s defenders are not “gettable” because they are accomplices in the whole scheme -- and forthrightly describe what’s happening in kind.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/22/trumps-gop-defenders-cannot-be-shamed-its-time-democrats-try-this-instead/

 

Would you be willing to share some of the "one monumentally damning revelation after another that has been exposed"? I agree that it would take a LOT for the republicans to think Trump should be impeached, but it seems equally as unlikely that the dems will admit that there may not be an obvously impeachable offense.

[homersapien 11,366]

18 hours ago, Grumps said:

Would you be willing to share some of the "one monumentally damning revelation after another that has been exposed"? I agree that it would take a LOT for the republicans to think Trump should be impeached, but it seems equally as unlikely that the dems will admit that there may not be an obvously impeachable offense.

Trump is the epitome of the "normalization of deviance". 

And we will pay a price for it.

Here's a semi-comprehensive summary of his scandalous behavior, including the trivial along with "damnable":

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Trump_administration_controversies

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

Impeachment is very serious to do it you must have irrefutable proof that the president has done something that meets that criteria. Multiple witnesses that had been subpoenaed by the Democrats said they felt uneasy about the way Trump conducted his Foreign Policy but when asked point blank if his actions were corruption, bribery, etc. They said no.  Even the ones who said it (MIGHT) have been said they surmised it from hearsay and what they had read or heard in the news and did not know for sure. 

The other issue was having Adam Schiff run the investigation he is obviously biased as during the Mueller probe he said there was irrefutable evidence that President should be impeached yet he never produced the evidence. He cut off cross examinations of witnesses by the Republicans. He held the Republicans to the agreed time limits for questioning or comments but did not hold himself to the same standards.  During the closed sessions he provided material to the press that was one sided while not allowing the opposition to provide anything to the press.  When some of the transcripts from the closed sessions came out it showed that some of the statements vindicated Trump none of which was shown during his briefings. 

It doesn't matter if after hearing the evidence you believe or don't believe Trump was trying to coerce the Ukraine. People are not convicted or Impeached  in this country on believe they are convicted or Impeached on cold hard irrefutable facts based on what I saw and have read there is supposition but no hard facts. in an impeachment or a trial you have to but your personal biases aside and your verdict to convict or impeach should only be based on cold hard facts. 

[bigbird 60,501]

30 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Impeachment is very serious to do it you must have irrefutable proof that the president has done something that meets that criteria. Multiple witnesses that had been subpoenaed by the Democrats said they felt uneasy about the way Trump conducted his Foreign Policy but when asked point blank if his actions were corruption, bribery, etc. They said no.  Even the ones who said it (MIGHT) have been said they surmised it from hearsay and what they had read or heard in the news and did not know for sure. 

The other issue was having Adam Schiff run the investigation he is obviously biased as during the Mueller probe he said there was irrefutable evidence that President should be impeached yet he never produced the evidence. He cut off cross examinations of witnesses by the Republicans. He held the Republicans to the agreed time limits for questioning or comments but did not hold himself to the same standards.  During the closed sessions he provided material to the press that was one sided while not allowing the opposition to provide anything to the press.  When some of the transcripts from the closed sessions came out it showed that some of the statements vindicated Trump none of which was shown during his briefings. 

It doesn't matter if after hearing the evidence you believe or don't believe Trump was trying to coerce the Ukraine. People are not convicted or Impeached  in this country on believe they are convicted or Impeached on cold hard irrefutable facts based on what I saw and have read there is supposition but no hard facts. in an impeachment or a trial you have to but your personal biases aside and your verdict to convict or impeach should only be based on cold hard facts. 

Exactly. Well stated.

[TexasTiger 12,831]

29 minutes ago, AuburnNTexas said:

Impeachment is very serious to do it you must have irrefutable proof that the president has done something that meets that criteria. Multiple witnesses that had been subpoenaed by the Democrats said they felt uneasy about the way Trump conducted his Foreign Policy but when asked point blank if his actions were corruption, bribery, etc. They said no.  Even the ones who said it (MIGHT) have been said they surmised it from hearsay and what they had read or heard in the news and did not know for sure. 

The other issue was having Adam Schiff run the investigation he is obviously biased as during the Mueller probe he said there was irrefutable evidence that President should be impeached yet he never produced the evidence. He cut off cross examinations of witnesses by the Republicans. He held the Republicans to the agreed time limits for questioning or comments but did not hold himself to the same standards.  During the closed sessions he provided material to the press that was one sided while not allowing the opposition to provide anything to the press.  When some of the transcripts from the closed sessions came out it showed that some of the statements vindicated Trump none of which was shown during his briefings. 

It doesn't matter if after hearing the evidence you believe or don't believe Trump was trying to coerce the Ukraine. People are not convicted or Impeached  in this country on believe they are convicted or Impeached on cold hard irrefutable facts based on what I saw and have read there is supposition but no hard facts. in an impeachment or a trial you have to but your personal biases aside and your verdict to convict or impeach should only be based on cold hard facts. 

From where do you get irrefutable as a standard? BTW, this case meets it anyway.

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

2 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

From where do you get irrefutable as a standard? BTW, this case meets it anyway.

How there was nothing in the transcript that said I won't give you the aid unless you do this? Ukraine never opened an investigation on Burisma after talking to Trump and aid was released. By the way the aid that was released to Ukraine was direct military aid that the Obama administration would not give to Ukraine. Impeachment historically is almost never done the last two times it was done it was politically motivated more then evidence based. Clinton had the personal morals of an alley cat but Republicans should not have impeached him.  Trump is disliked for many legitimate reasons he tweets when he shouldn't he has put his foot in his mouth multiple times,  if you are a Democrat he has mounted a  legitimate campaign with the Power of the Office and the Senate to change the Federal Court systems with his appointments.  Obama also tried to change the composition of the courts most Presidents do. 

I totally understand the dislike some people have of Trump but in no way should a personal dislike be a reason for impeaching a dully elected President.  Only one witness so far said there was a Quid Pro Quo /Bribery/Collusion when asked directly and that was Sondland and he said it was not the President and also said he surmised it not knew it. If the witnesses that Schiff and the Democrat's subpoenaed don't think there was Bribery/Collusion, etc. when asked directly, how could people watching and reading it think there was?

When your own witness denies what you are trying to prove you have a very weak case. 

[TexasTiger 12,831]

2 hours ago, AuburnNTexas said:

How there was nothing in the transcript that said I won't give you the aid unless you do this? Ukraine never opened an investigation on Burisma after talking to Trump and aid was released. By the way the aid that was released to Ukraine was direct military aid that the Obama administration would not give to Ukraine. Impeachment historically is almost never done the last two times it was done it was politically motivated more then evidence based. Clinton had the personal morals of an alley cat but Republicans should not have impeached him.  Trump is disliked for many legitimate reasons he tweets when he shouldn't he has put his foot in his mouth multiple times,  if you are a Democrat he has mounted a  legitimate campaign with the Power of the Office and the Senate to change the Federal Court systems with his appointments.  Obama also tried to change the composition of the courts most Presidents do. 

I totally understand the dislike some people have of Trump but in no way should a personal dislike be a reason for impeaching a dully elected President.  Only one witness so far said there was a Quid Pro Quo /Bribery/Collusion when asked directly and that was Sondland and he said it was not the President and also said he surmised it not knew it. If the witnesses that Schiff and the Democrat's subpoenaed don't think there was Bribery/Collusion, etc. when asked directly, how could people watching and reading it think there was?

When your own witness denies what you are trying to prove you have a very weak case. 

Criminal convictions are won with this much evidence.

[AUFAN78 3,894]

To me, each of the Democrats’ witnesses of the past two weeks appeared to be well-intentioned and hard-working, and seemed genuinely to believe they know what’s best.

But a picture also emerged of U.S. diplomats who appear to believe they, rather than the U.S. president, have the ultimate authority to determine our foreign policy. And if the president doesn’t go along? He clearly must be wrong — in their view. Or, even worse, he’s a traitor. He’s to be obstructed. Taken down. 

 

https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/471643-impeachment-inquiry-its-a-question-of-who-should-run-the-show

[AuburnNTexas 7,140]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

Criminal convictions are won with this much evidence.

No they are not. The standard in a criminal trial is guilty beyond the shadow of doubt so your statement is false.  I will concede this is an impeachment and not a criminal trial but our whole justice system is supposed to be based on proof of guilt not conjecture.. Have there been people found guilty with inconclusive evidence yes but usually because they were poor and had incompetent legal representation.

[TexasTiger 12,831]

1 hour ago, AuburnNTexas said:

No they are not. The standard in a criminal trial is guilty beyond the shadow of doubt so your statement is false.  I will concede this is an impeachment and not a criminal trial but our whole justice system is supposed to be based on proof of guilt not conjecture.. Have there been people found guilty with inconclusive evidence yes but usually because they were poor and had incompetent legal representation.

US attorneys have said they’ve made cases on mob guys on less evidence than this. 

[Grumps 3,704]

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Criminal convictions are won with this much evidence.

 

3 hours ago, TexasTiger said:

Criminal convictions are won with this much evidence.

Do you think that Trump should be formally impeached?

Do you think that a formal impeachment will result in Trump's removal from office?

Do yo think that a formal impeachment will ultimately benefit the democrats?

[TexasTiger 12,831]

1 hour ago, Grumps said:

 

Do you think that Trump should be formally impeached?

Do you think that a formal impeachment will result in Trump's removal from office?

Do yo think that a formal impeachment will ultimately benefit the democrats?

Yes. Unlikely. Unknown.