Impeachment Inquiry What do y'all think?

[caleb1633 1,418]

The whole thing seems like partisan mud slinging. I'm not a Trump supporter, but I have observed that the democratic party has been hell bent on doing whatever they can to delegitimize his administration for years now. They were going to try to impeach him for something at some point, and given that the establishment POTUS candidates they have in the race don't seem to be panning out as contenders for winning the election, this was a political move to try and either change the 2016 election results or influence the 2020 results. It wouldn't have mattered what evidence was shown, they were going to vote to issue articles of impeachment. If the senate doesn't remove him from office, it's another platform for the democrats to try and say that the republicans will allow Trump to do whatever he wants, even obstruction of justice and abuse of power. They could definitely beat him in the 2020 election if they put their weight behind someone like Tulsi Gabbard, who is more moderate and garners respect from republicans, democrats, and independents; but she isn't part of the establishment, so they'd rather impeach Trump and use it as a means of positioning one of their own in office. It's all political hog wash.

[TexasTiger 12,811]

20 minutes ago, bigbird said:

We're just gonna go in circles with this. I think the House should've proven it incontrovertibly before taking it to the Senate and you think the Senate should prove the case. I think it's probably best to agree to disagree. I'm okay with that.

 

One other point though, by not taking it to the court and going ahead with the 2nd article the House is saying that they have the power to determine a subpoenas legitimacy and if it can override executive privilege claims. That isn't a legislative power. That solely belongs with the Court.

 

They might argue the Supreme Court has previously addressed that issue.

One question — are you arguing how it works or how you think it should work?

[homersapien 11,354]

On 12/16/2019 at 11:20 AM, bigbird said:

If the court process plays out, then there is only black and white. There is no gray area for either side to play in.  The independent, free thinking democrats and Republicans, and others that are open to the idea of impeachment could be swayed. I for one, if the Courts ruled against Trump and he continued his blockade, would be all on board the impeachment train.

Well, if Republicans are really interested in the truth they will issue senate subpoenas for "primary" witnesses during their trial. (I think that Justice Roberts can enforce those immediately)

But according to their own statements, they aren't interested in getting to the truth. Their only interest is doing Trump's bidding.

That constitutes the real farce in this process.

[bigbird 60,368]

14 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Testimony from people who relate what they personally heard, experienced - or even inferred from circumstances - is not "hearsay"

No, that would be conjecture, inference, and opinion

[homersapien 11,354]

6 hours ago, DKW 86 said:

After Schiff and Nadler wouldnt allow testimony from Rep. witnesses, how does anyone think that the Dems will get witnesses?

Politics is a two way street. 

Hunter Biden and the Whistleblower?

Neither are relevant or beneficial.  Republicans were just trying to obfuscate and create more chaos to discredit the investigation.

Schiff to use his power to cut it off.

 

[bigbird 60,368]

24 minutes ago, homersapien said:

And they found a lot of evidence.

But not that "smoking gun" that would've made it incontrovertible

[homersapien 11,354]

2 minutes ago, bigbird said:

No, that would be conjecture, inference, and opinion

No you are wrong. 

[bigbird 60,368]

9 minutes ago, TexasTiger said:

They might argue the Supreme Court has previously addressed that issue.

One question — are you arguing how it works or how you think it should work?

They could but who should decide if the Court had?

Which aspect?

[homersapien 11,354]

1 minute ago, bigbird said:

But not that "smoking gun" that would've made it incontrovertible

In your opinion.

I consider there are several "smoking guns" including Trump's own statements.

[bigbird 60,368]

47 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Testimony from people who relate what they personally heard, experienced - or even inferred from circumstances - is not "hearsay".

 

33 minutes ago, bigbird said:

No, that would be conjecture, inference, and opinion

 

29 minutes ago, homersapien said:

No you are wrong. 

So your saying me calling this, ...or even inferred from circumstances , inference

Is wrong?

Okay.

 

[DKW 86 7,411]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

Hunter Biden and the Whistleblower?

Neither are relevant or beneficial.  Republicans were just trying to obfuscate and create more chaos to discredit the investigation.

Schiff to use his power to cut it off.

One man's obfuscation is another man's testimony...

[bigbird 60,368]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/18/politics/impeachment-polling-donald-trump/index.html

 

LIVEHouse begins debate on articles of impeac

 

 

Warning lights are flashing for Democrats as they prepare to impeach Trump

Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large

 

Updated 12:34 PM ET, Wed December 18, 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

(CNN)Some time later today -- maybe MUCH later today -- the House will vote to impeach President Donald Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress -- both tied to his actions around a July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky.

Even as the House prepares for the historic vote, however, there's growing evidence that the public impeachment proceedings in the House against Trump may actually be helping him politically.

 

THE POINT -- NOW ON YOUTUBE!n each episode of his weekly YouTube show, Chris Cillizza will delve a little deeper into the surreal world of politics. Click to subscTake a new Gallup poll released Wednesday morning, which shows two things happening since House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, opened up a formal impeachment inquiry in October regarding Trump's conduct with Zelensky:

 

1) Trump's job approval rating has gone from 39% to 45%

2) Support for Trump's impeachment and removal has dipped from 52% to 46%.

 

Those results largely affirm other data out over the past week or so that suggest support for impeachment has dipped. In a CNN national poll released earlier this week, 45% said they supported the impeachment and removal of the President -- down from 50% who said the same in a mid-November CNN survey. That same poll showed opposition to impeachment/removal at 46%, up 4 points from mid-November. And a CNN "poll of polls" -- an average of all six most recent quality/credible national polling conducted between December 4 and December 15 -- showed 46% favored impeachment and removal as compared to 49% who did not.

Now, as I have noted previously, these numbers are not "good" for Trump -- as he so often takes to Twitter to proclaim. Compared to recent past presidents -- including Bill Clinton, who actually was impeached -- a significantly lager chunk of the public now favors Trump's removal than ever felt that way about Clinton, Barack Obama or George W. Bush. In fact, Trump's current numbers on impeachment are most similar to those of Richard Nixon in the spring of 1974. (Articles of impeachment on Nixon were approved by the House Judiciary Committee but never came to a floor vote because Nixon resigned first.)

But what the trend line in recent weeks suggests is that the intense focus on impeachment has marginally helped, not hurt Trump. The change in public opinion is slight, yes. And it may well be temporary. But for the moment, it's the sort of thing that has to make Democrats a little (and maybe more than a little) nervous about the path they have chosen.

Remember this: Pelosi did not want to go down the impeachment path. She stood athwart her party over the summer as more and more of her Democratic members announced their support for an impeachment inquiry over Trump's conduct in connection to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Her concern, which she voiced publicly and privately, was that a partisan impeachment -- one without significant bipartisan support -- would too bitterly divide the country to make it worth doing.

Here's exactly what Pelosi told The Washington Post magazine on that very topic:

"Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he's just not worth it."

 

That all changed in the fall, when a whistleblower complaint regarding Trump's actions on that July 25 call surfaced. It rapidly became clear that Trump's behavior on the call was a dam-breaker -- Pelosi could no longer stand in the way of the momentum within her caucus to move toward impeaching the President.

But simply because Pelosi acquiesced to that inexorable momentum does not mean that her concerns about the politics of impeachment had changed. What Pelosi knew then -- and knows now -- is that impeachment is a chaos-creator in the American electorate. There is simply no certainty about how the voters -- particularly the small number of independent and/or undecided voters -- will react to all of this.

And the early returns -- emphasis on the word "early" -- have to make Democrats worried

[AU64 10,122]

23 hours ago, bigbird said:

I'm getting it. Maybe we're just talking past each other.

IMO, the house should've heard both sides and had a Court ruling to force other testimonies before moving forward. It would've made the whole thing at least look less political. I think you believe that the Senate should call the other testimonies that weren't heard in the house. I hope that's right. If so, why would they need to if the House would've done it in the first place?

And if the Senate opens up "new ground or evidence" seems the House should be able to consider that "evidence" and re-vote......and of course the new evidence found in the Senate might require that the House call a few rebuttal witnesses of their own.     This could go on forever if we decide to make up the rules as we go along. 

[homersapien 11,354]

23 hours ago, bigbird said:

 

 

So your saying me calling this, ...or even inferred from circumstances , inference

Is wrong?

Okay.

 

I am saying that there were many examples of witnesses testifying in the house relaying what they personally heard.  Sondland for example, talked about his discussions with Trump.  

Trump held military aid from Ukraine and tried to coerce them to announce an investigation of Biden's son.  His personal attorney Giuliani acted as a shadow state department and pressured Ukraine to play ball, and even had the ambassador to Ukraine who was acting according to U.S. national policy - dismissed because she was "in the way".  That's not hearsay evidence.

I watched most of the house hearings.  The evidence was overwhelming. The general claim that evidence was heresay was just another tactic used by the Republicans who disparage the investigation and don't want to deal with the actual facts. 

[caleb1633 1,418]

No matter what your political views are, I find it shameful that Americans would ever find excitement in a President being impeached. I would never have been excited to see Bush or Obama be impeached because I support my president as best I can whether I agree with him or not, and I hope that they are doing what's best for our country. Maybe Trump deserved this, maybe he didn't (that debate will never end). But we should never be cheering for our President to fail.

 

P.S. Can't wait to get the facepalm or dislike from icanthearyou.

[bigbird 60,368]

20 minutes ago, caleb1633 said:

Can't wait to get the facepalm or dislike from icanthearyou.

That's a badge of honor. Wear it proudly

[AUFriction 1,179]

My political views are complicated, but the easiest way to describe me would be to call me a moderate with slight libertarian lean. I don’t really care for either party, and think there are extremist nuts in both.

Forget political BS. I’m evaluating this through the lens of the law. I believe a lot of the democrats supporting impeachment are doing so for political reasons. Yet, it is the right thing to do legally. The documented conversation showed clear evidence of Trump attempting to use the office for personal/political gain, which is absolutely illegal and wrong for many reasons. What is more concerning is the pattern of behavior. The Mueller report had no smoking gun. But, if this matter was a civil case rather than a criminal one, he would have lost. The preponderance of evidence suggested his administration was crossing legal lines, and the only real question was whether Trump was involved in it. But, if you pair this incident with the info gathered in the mueller report, there’s a pattern of Trump and his inner circle violating constitutional limits of power. Obama bent their limits of power as a president (which is why I didn’t like him either), but he never outright crossed them. Forget your opinions on his policy. Trump should be removed because he very clea rly crosses legal lines. 
If prominent democrats hadn’t made statements suggesting that they would do whatever they could to impeach him before all this mess started, the Republican Party would have woken up by now, and Trump would probably be out of office already. As it stands, Republicans are questioning the (probably misguided) motivations of the democrats on impeachment rather than looking at the facts. Regardless of your political views, you should a) admit that Trump broke the law and should be removed and b) admit that whatever party you are closest to supporting has absolutely failed to be objective in this process.c) be somewhat ashamed of all of our political leaders for letting their biased views and desires for power/control to overshadow the need to follow the law.

[DKW 86 7,411]

On 12/17/2019 at 2:00 PM, caleb1633 said:

The whole thing seems like partisan mud slinging. I'm not a Trump supporter, but I have observed that the democratic party has been hell bent on doing whatever they can to delegitimize his administration for years now. They were going to try to impeach him for something at some point, and given that the establishment POTUS candidates they have in the race don't seem to be panning out as contenders for winning the election, this was a political move to try and either change the 2016 election results or influence the 2020 results. It wouldn't have mattered what evidence was shown, they were going to vote to issue articles of impeachment. If the senate doesn't remove him from office, it's another platform for the democrats to try and say that the republicans will allow Trump to do whatever he wants, even obstruction of justice and abuse of power. They could definitely beat him in the 2020 election if they put their weight behind someone like Tulsi Gabbard, who is more moderate and garners respect from republicans, democrats, and independents; but she isn't part of the establishment, so they'd rather impeach Trump and use it as a means of positioning one of their own in office. It's all political hog wash.

And folks, after February, that will be the feeling of most of America...They arent paying attention to all the details. McCabe? What happens to him? He is under criminal charges now.They start talking about how he was involved in the bad FISA warrants, it may be over.

[DKW 86 7,411]

18 hours ago, bigbird said:

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/18/politics/impeachment-polling-donald-trump/index.html

 

LIVEHouse begins debate on articles of impeac

 

 

Warning lights are flashing for Democrats as they prepare to impeach Trump

Analysis by Chris Cillizza, CNN Editor-at-large

 

Updated 12:34 PM ET, Wed December 18, 2019

 

 

 

 

 

 

(CNN)Some time later today -- maybe MUCH later today -- the House will vote to impeach President Donald Trump for abuse of power and obstruction of Congress -- both tied to his actions around a July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky.

Even as the House prepares for the historic vote, however, there's growing evidence that the public impeachment proceedings in the House against Trump may actually be helping him politically.

 

THE POINT -- NOW ON YOUTUBE!n each episode of his weekly YouTube show, Chris Cillizza will delve a little deeper into the surreal world of politics. Click to subscTake a new Gallup poll released Wednesday morning, which shows two things happening since House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California, opened up a formal impeachment inquiry in October regarding Trump's conduct with Zelensky:

 

1) Trump's job approval rating has gone from 39% to 45%

2) Support for Trump's impeachment and removal has dipped from 52% to 46%.

 

Those results largely affirm other data out over the past week or so that suggest support for impeachment has dipped. In a CNN national poll released earlier this week, 45% said they supported the impeachment and removal of the President -- down from 50% who said the same in a mid-November CNN survey. That same poll showed opposition to impeachment/removal at 46%, up 4 points from mid-November. And a CNN "poll of polls" -- an average of all six most recent quality/credible national polling conducted between December 4 and December 15 -- showed 46% favored impeachment and removal as compared to 49% who did not.

Now, as I have noted previously, these numbers are not "good" for Trump -- as he so often takes to Twitter to proclaim. Compared to recent past presidents -- including Bill Clinton, who actually was impeached -- a significantly lager chunk of the public now favors Trump's removal than ever felt that way about Clinton, Barack Obama or George W. Bush. In fact, Trump's current numbers on impeachment are most similar to those of Richard Nixon in the spring of 1974. (Articles of impeachment on Nixon were approved by the House Judiciary Committee but never came to a floor vote because Nixon resigned first.)

But what the trend line in recent weeks suggests is that the intense focus on impeachment has marginally helped, not hurt Trump. The change in public opinion is slight, yes. And it may well be temporary. But for the moment, it's the sort of thing that has to make Democrats a little (and maybe more than a little) nervous about the path they have chosen.

Remember this: Pelosi did not want to go down the impeachment path. She stood athwart her party over the summer as more and more of her Democratic members announced their support for an impeachment inquiry over Trump's conduct in connection to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election. Her concern, which she voiced publicly and privately, was that a partisan impeachment -- one without significant bipartisan support -- would too bitterly divide the country to make it worth doing.

Here's exactly what Pelosi told The Washington Post magazine on that very topic:

"Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there's something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don't think we should go down that path, because it divides the country. And he's just not worth it."

 

That all changed in the fall, when a whistleblower complaint regarding Trump's actions on that July 25 call surfaced. It rapidly became clear that Trump's behavior on the call was a dam-breaker -- Pelosi could no longer stand in the way of the momentum within her caucus to move toward impeaching the President.

But simply because Pelosi acquiesced to that inexorable momentum does not mean that her concerns about the politics of impeachment had changed. What Pelosi knew then -- and knows now -- is that impeachment is a chaos-creator in the American electorate. There is simply no certainty about how the voters -- particularly the small number of independent and/or undecided voters -- will react to all of this.

And the early returns -- emphasis on the word "early" -- have to make Democrats worried

Pretty much what most real politicos have said for a while now. 

When I agree with a lightweight like Cillizza, man are things bad...

OTOH, Cillizza is Cillizza, one of the most clueless commentators out there...

[bigbird 60,368]

Thoughts on Pelosi potentially holding up sending the articles to the Senate?

 

For me, I think it would be a huge mistake for the left. If it was so imperative to impeach with unprecedented speed and with Trump being such a threat to national defense, then why hold up the process. It makes the whole thing look even more political and weak and draws it out even longer into the new year. If drawn out through the early part of the year, that will really affect the primaries and remain the foremost issue. I don't think that is a winning strategy.

[TexasTiger 12,811]

3 minutes ago, bigbird said:

Thoughts on Pelosi potentially holding up sending the articles to the Senate?

 

For me, I think it would be a huge mistake for the left. If it was so imperative to impeach with unprecedented speed and with Trump being such a threat to national defense, then why hold up the process. It makes the whole thing look even more political and weak and draws it out even longer into the new year. If drawn out through the early part of the year, that will really affect the primaries and remain the foremost issue. I don't think that is a winning strategy.

I have no problem with it. The jury foreman has said he’ll assure the trial isn’t fair.

[Brad_ATX 13,654]

1 hour ago, bigbird said:

Thoughts on Pelosi potentially holding up sending the articles to the Senate?

 

For me, I think it would be a huge mistake for the left. If it was so imperative to impeach with unprecedented speed and with Trump being such a threat to national defense, then why hold up the process. It makes the whole thing look even more political and weak and draws it out even longer into the new year. If drawn out through the early part of the year, that will really affect the primaries and remain the foremost issue. I don't think that is a winning strategy.

I don't know that it's much different than when McConnell held up the vote for Garland.  In each case, one party can yell at the other for not "doing their job".  Also as a strategy, it may be her and Schumer's only chance to compell McConnell to actually have witnesses during the trial.  If they don't send the articles over, then Trump can never accurately claim exoneration.  If he does, the Dems have a talking point of "we never sent the articles over because several members of the Senate, including the Senate majority leader, have stated that they will abandon their duties of being fair witnesses."

Not sure I agree with the strategy or the way this whole thing has been done, but that's my thinking on it.

[bigbird 60,368]

1 minute ago, Brad_ATX said:

Not sure I agree with the strategy or the way this whole thing has been done, but that's my thinking on it.

How do you think the public will view it? 

[SaltyTiger 7,764]

1 hour ago, TexasTiger said:

I have no problem with it. The jury foreman has said he’ll assure the trial isn’t fair.

How long could she hold them with no common ground on a "fair trial"

 

11 minutes ago, bigbird said:

How do you think the public will view it? 

That will be very interesting JMO

[TexasTiger 12,811]

14 minutes ago, SaltyTiger said:

How long could she hold them with no common ground on a "fair trial"

I don’t know, but there’s no rush at this point.