|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
On November 10 2019 12:15 Introvert wrote:
Well again, the goal is to see if there is some good reason for investigating Burisma/Biden so asking him questions make sense. it cannot be wrong ipso facto to ask for an investigation of this nature, so they must query if it has a legitimate purpose. However, I agree it's a bit of an reach, as in, their request was very likely to be rejected.
I'm fairly sure it can be wrong ipso facto to ask in specific ways for an investigation of this nature.
I will note that Pelosi trying to get this done by or shortly after Christmas is a sign that they don't think this is politically beneficial. They want Trump weak but not dead. Pelosi was forced into this, but she can hurry it up.
No matter what the merits of the case are (political or otherwise), the optics would get worse the closer it gets to the general election. I don't know that this really means all that much.
|
On November 10 2019 10:58 Introvert wrote:
While Trump is still going "no quid pro quo" (I don't have a firm opinion on that yet), the senate is going to make a different calculation. If they can, they will sidestep the entire question of whether it happened and ask if it was even an impeachable offense if it did.
Trump is sticking on stage 2 of the Trump denial playbook while the Senate is already going to stage 3.
Stage 1: Deny it happened.
Stage 2: Admit it happened, but not the way they're being accused of.
Stage 3: Admit it happened the way they're being accused of, but that it's not illegal.
In this specific case, stage 1 had to be skipped very fast. Trump is still saying "no quid pro quo" while all the evidence says quid pro quo. Eventually he'll come around to where the rest of the Republicans are on stage 3 of saying, "okay, quid pro quo, but it's not illegal (or not that bad)."
I think someone had a better listing of the stages on this forum at one time, but I can't find it.
Closest I could find was m4ini who once listed about Trump on Russia:
"Russia didn't do shit, all fake"
"Russia might've done shit, still most fake and exaggerated"
"Russia did shit, but nobody of the trump administration knew"
"Russia did shit, maybe someone knew of it, but nobody knows"
"Russia did shit and some knew, but certainly not the trumps"
"Russia did shit and DonJR knew, but certainly not DonSR"
"Russia did shit but nothing came from it, so who cares"
This shit repeats over and over again for every scandal Trump is in. Deny every step of the way until faced with overwhelming evidence, be forced to admit it was all true, piece by piece, and then say that it wasn't that bad.
|
United States41985 Posts
On November 10 2019 12:15 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2019 11:45 Ben... wrote:
Ok, then let me ask you this: what will bringing in Hunter Biden for questioning accomplish? He's a private citizen who has not been charged with any crimes, and in questioning him during the trial, that status will not change. Whether he did or didn't do something unseemly is entirely beside the point in this context because unless the Republicans somehow have proof smoking gun proof Biden did something wrong, everything that would be discussed with him would be based on unproven allegations. A similar thing happened with the Benghazi hearings and Hillary Clinton. She came in and testified for 8 hours and it accomplished nothing because there was no concrete proof of what the Republicans were insinuating she did in her handling of the issue.
The only thing I can see Biden's testifying accomplishing is allowing the Republicans to distract from the actual matter at hand. These hearings are about witness and expert testimony, and Hunter Biden is neither a witness to the alleged events that happened with Trump regarding the alleged quid pro quo, nor an expert on any of the topics relating to this impeachment proceeding.
But this is all beside the point because the Republicans know full well that their list of people submitted is going to get rejected. They purposely filled it with people who are unlikely to actually be forced to show up so that when the majority leaders of the committees don't follow through, the Republicans can claim that those running the hearing aren't being fair. That's why I initially said they were acting in bad faith. Their intent is not to get Hunter Biden, the Fusion GPS people, or the whistleblower to testify. Their intent is to try and make the narrative be that the trial is unfair, rather than the actual narrative that the trial has been handled correctly, and that the witnesses are credible and have testified to things that are quite damaging to Trump. The Republicans know that if the hearings are carried out in an uneventful and non-distracting way, things will likely look quite bad for Trump to the public. That's why they're doing all of this stuff to distract.
Trump will get his due process at the senate trial. The impeachment investigation is not at the trial phase yet. They are still in the hearing/investigation phase, as was done in past impeachment investigations. Normally the investigation would have been done by the Justice Department, but they refused this time around so instead it was done by the bipartisan committees. Well again, the goal is to see if there is some good reason for investigating Burisma/Biden so asking him questions make sense. it cannot be wrong ipso facto to ask for an investigation of this nature, so they must query if it has a legitimate purpose. However, I agree it's a bit of an reach, as in, their request was very likely to be rejected. Also, three of the people they want to testify already did in private. Volker, Morrison, and Hale. I've already argued that the WB should be questioned publicly, so I'll leave that. The point of asking the last two is that they can indirectly speak to the issues Trump has with Ukraine and why he might be hesitant to releae aid to them. And I'm sure they have other reasons as well. There is politics here, but I think there's a defensible reason in each. I view this process as obviously political, as we know it is, so these things dont bother me as much. Rejecting the minority's requests is worse l think, generally speaking. So to sum up: I agree with you in many respects, on the narrow subject matter of witnesses requested. But the people the Dems are bringing out are being put in public for the same reasons. They have the worst story to tell. I will note that Pelosi trying to get this done by or shortly after Christmas is a sign that they don't think this is politically beneficial. They want Trump weak but not dead. Pelosi was forced into this, but she can hurry it up.
This is missing the point. Hunter Biden is probably guilty of failing to report petty income from in-kind earnings on taxes (pizza for helping someone move), speeding, and who knows what else. But regardless of what he’s guilty of, this is the executive targeting a private citizen for personal political reasons. It’s like if a cop spent all their time tailing their ex-wife’s new boyfriend and pulling him over for traffic violations. It’s not about whether he did them, it’s about the misuse of public office, public resources, and public trust.
That’s why what Hunter Biden actually did, if it merits investigation, is a separate investigation. Even if Hunter is guilty as sin Trump should still not be directing the state department to withhold aid to Ukraine until they investigate him.
|
Republicans know that Democrats won't hold Hunter Biden accountable for what is clear corruption and know drawing attention to that is enough to make the Ukraine thing a wash for Trump.
|
On November 10 2019 12:15 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2019 11:45 Ben... wrote:
Ok, then let me ask you this: what will bringing in Hunter Biden for questioning accomplish? He's a private citizen who has not been charged with any crimes, and in questioning him during the trial, that status will not change. Whether he did or didn't do something unseemly is entirely beside the point in this context because unless the Republicans somehow have proof smoking gun proof Biden did something wrong, everything that would be discussed with him would be based on unproven allegations. A similar thing happened with the Benghazi hearings and Hillary Clinton. She came in and testified for 8 hours and it accomplished nothing because there was no concrete proof of what the Republicans were insinuating she did in her handling of the issue.
The only thing I can see Biden's testifying accomplishing is allowing the Republicans to distract from the actual matter at hand. These hearings are about witness and expert testimony, and Hunter Biden is neither a witness to the alleged events that happened with Trump regarding the alleged quid pro quo, nor an expert on any of the topics relating to this impeachment proceeding.
But this is all beside the point because the Republicans know full well that their list of people submitted is going to get rejected. They purposely filled it with people who are unlikely to actually be forced to show up so that when the majority leaders of the committees don't follow through, the Republicans can claim that those running the hearing aren't being fair. That's why I initially said they were acting in bad faith. Their intent is not to get Hunter Biden, the Fusion GPS people, or the whistleblower to testify. Their intent is to try and make the narrative be that the trial is unfair, rather than the actual narrative that the trial has been handled correctly, and that the witnesses are credible and have testified to things that are quite damaging to Trump. The Republicans know that if the hearings are carried out in an uneventful and non-distracting way, things will likely look quite bad for Trump to the public. That's why they're doing all of this stuff to distract.
Trump will get his due process at the senate trial. The impeachment investigation is not at the trial phase yet. They are still in the hearing/investigation phase, as was done in past impeachment investigations. Normally the investigation would have been done by the Justice Department, but they refused this time around so instead it was done by the bipartisan committees. Well again, the goal is to see if there is some good reason for investigating Burisma/Biden so asking him questions make sense. it cannot be wrong ipso facto to ask for an investigation of this nature, so they must query if it has a legitimate purpose. However, I agree it's a bit of an reach, as in, their request was very likely to be rejected. Also, three of the people they want to testify already did in private. Volker, Morrison, and Hale. I've already argued that the WB should be questioned publicly, so I'll leave that. The point of asking the last two is that they can indirectly speak to the issues Trump has with Ukraine and why he might be hesitant to releae aid to them. And I'm sure they have other reasons as well. There is politics here, but I think there's a defensible reason in each. I view this process as obviously political, as we know it is, so these things dont bother me as much. Rejecting the minority's requests is worse l think, generally speaking. So to sum up: I agree with you in many respects, on the narrow subject matter of witnesses requested. But the people the Dems are bringing out are being put in public for the same reasons. They have the worst story to tell. I will note that Pelosi trying to get this done by or shortly after Christmas is a sign that they don't think this is politically beneficial. They want Trump weak but not dead. Pelosi was forced into this, but she can hurry it up.
Whether there is a good reason to investigate Biden has zero impact on Trump's impeachment hearing. Even if he was undoubtedly guilty, it doesn't matter. He's not on trial here, Trump is. Whether Biden is innocent or guilty has no bearing on how Trump acted. If you want to investigate Biden then that needs a separate trial with a separate goal. This isnt a TV trial where the judge can say "I find Trump innocent because Biden is guilty!" While the jury gasps. This is an impeachment hearing about Trump using national assets for his own gain.
On November 10 2019 16:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
Republicans know that Democrats won't hold Hunter Biden accountable for what is clear corruption and know drawing attention to that is enough to make the Ukraine thing a wash for Trump.
Again, it's not related. If there's a criminal investigation into HB, there's no "democrats won't hold him accountable", because they have no say in the first place. Unlike Trump, HB is not the president, and can be put on trial. This is a completely different process to an impeachment hearing, which is not a criminal trial. Trump is not on trial for doing criminal activities here, he's on trial for misusing his job for a personal gain. This is a "Should he be fired?" investigation. Whether HB is guilty or not has no bearing.
|
On November 10 2019 12:15 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2019 11:45 Ben... wrote:
Ok, then let me ask you this: what will bringing in Hunter Biden for questioning accomplish? He's a private citizen who has not been charged with any crimes, and in questioning him during the trial, that status will not change. Whether he did or didn't do something unseemly is entirely beside the point in this context because unless the Republicans somehow have proof smoking gun proof Biden did something wrong, everything that would be discussed with him would be based on unproven allegations. A similar thing happened with the Benghazi hearings and Hillary Clinton. She came in and testified for 8 hours and it accomplished nothing because there was no concrete proof of what the Republicans were insinuating she did in her handling of the issue.
The only thing I can see Biden's testifying accomplishing is allowing the Republicans to distract from the actual matter at hand. These hearings are about witness and expert testimony, and Hunter Biden is neither a witness to the alleged events that happened with Trump regarding the alleged quid pro quo, nor an expert on any of the topics relating to this impeachment proceeding.
But this is all beside the point because the Republicans know full well that their list of people submitted is going to get rejected. They purposely filled it with people who are unlikely to actually be forced to show up so that when the majority leaders of the committees don't follow through, the Republicans can claim that those running the hearing aren't being fair. That's why I initially said they were acting in bad faith. Their intent is not to get Hunter Biden, the Fusion GPS people, or the whistleblower to testify. Their intent is to try and make the narrative be that the trial is unfair, rather than the actual narrative that the trial has been handled correctly, and that the witnesses are credible and have testified to things that are quite damaging to Trump. The Republicans know that if the hearings are carried out in an uneventful and non-distracting way, things will likely look quite bad for Trump to the public. That's why they're doing all of this stuff to distract.
Trump will get his due process at the senate trial. The impeachment investigation is not at the trial phase yet. They are still in the hearing/investigation phase, as was done in past impeachment investigations. Normally the investigation would have been done by the Justice Department, but they refused this time around so instead it was done by the bipartisan committees. Well again, the goal is to see if there is some good reason for investigating Burisma/Biden so asking him questions make sense. it cannot be wrong ipso facto to ask for an investigation of this nature, so they must query if it has a legitimate purpose. However, I agree it's a bit of an reach, as in, their request was very likely to be rejected. Also, three of the people they want to testify already did in private. Volker, Morrison, and Hale. I've already argued that the WB should be questioned publicly, so I'll leave that. The point of asking the last two is that they can indirectly speak to the issues Trump has with Ukraine and why he might be hesitant to releae aid to them. And I'm sure they have other reasons as well. There is politics here, but I think there's a defensible reason in each. I view this process as obviously political, as we know it is, so these things dont bother me as much. Rejecting the minority's requests is worse l think, generally speaking. So to sum up: I agree with you in many respects, on the narrow subject matter of witnesses requested. But the people the Dems are bringing out are being put in public for the same reasons. They have the worst story to tell. I will note that Pelosi trying to get this done by or shortly after Christmas is a sign that they don't think this is politically beneficial. They want Trump weak but not dead. Pelosi was forced into this, but she can hurry it up. Whether or not Hunter Biden is guilty of anything at all is utterly and completely irrelevant to the impeachment hearings.
Trump could have irrevocable proof of Hunter's guilt and it still wouldn't matter.
Trump is accused of abusing the office of the President, whether he was right or not isn't relevant to whether he engaged in a quid pro quo. In the same way that it doesn't matter that the Police find cocaine in your house if they entered illegally.
There are proper procedures for these things and they exist to ensure possible conflicts are not a problem. Trump, as usual, completely ignored this and because of that he is now in trouble.
|
On November 10 2019 19:17 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2019 12:15 Introvert wrote:On November 10 2019 11:45 Ben... wrote:
Ok, then let me ask you this: what will bringing in Hunter Biden for questioning accomplish? He's a private citizen who has not been charged with any crimes, and in questioning him during the trial, that status will not change. Whether he did or didn't do something unseemly is entirely beside the point in this context because unless the Republicans somehow have proof smoking gun proof Biden did something wrong, everything that would be discussed with him would be based on unproven allegations. A similar thing happened with the Benghazi hearings and Hillary Clinton. She came in and testified for 8 hours and it accomplished nothing because there was no concrete proof of what the Republicans were insinuating she did in her handling of the issue.
The only thing I can see Biden's testifying accomplishing is allowing the Republicans to distract from the actual matter at hand. These hearings are about witness and expert testimony, and Hunter Biden is neither a witness to the alleged events that happened with Trump regarding the alleged quid pro quo, nor an expert on any of the topics relating to this impeachment proceeding.
But this is all beside the point because the Republicans know full well that their list of people submitted is going to get rejected. They purposely filled it with people who are unlikely to actually be forced to show up so that when the majority leaders of the committees don't follow through, the Republicans can claim that those running the hearing aren't being fair. That's why I initially said they were acting in bad faith. Their intent is not to get Hunter Biden, the Fusion GPS people, or the whistleblower to testify. Their intent is to try and make the narrative be that the trial is unfair, rather than the actual narrative that the trial has been handled correctly, and that the witnesses are credible and have testified to things that are quite damaging to Trump. The Republicans know that if the hearings are carried out in an uneventful and non-distracting way, things will likely look quite bad for Trump to the public. That's why they're doing all of this stuff to distract.
Trump will get his due process at the senate trial. The impeachment investigation is not at the trial phase yet. They are still in the hearing/investigation phase, as was done in past impeachment investigations. Normally the investigation would have been done by the Justice Department, but they refused this time around so instead it was done by the bipartisan committees. Well again, the goal is to see if there is some good reason for investigating Burisma/Biden so asking him questions make sense. it cannot be wrong ipso facto to ask for an investigation of this nature, so they must query if it has a legitimate purpose. However, I agree it's a bit of an reach, as in, their request was very likely to be rejected. Also, three of the people they want to testify already did in private. Volker, Morrison, and Hale. I've already argued that the WB should be questioned publicly, so I'll leave that. The point of asking the last two is that they can indirectly speak to the issues Trump has with Ukraine and why he might be hesitant to releae aid to them. And I'm sure they have other reasons as well. There is politics here, but I think there's a defensible reason in each. I view this process as obviously political, as we know it is, so these things dont bother me as much. Rejecting the minority's requests is worse l think, generally speaking. So to sum up: I agree with you in many respects, on the narrow subject matter of witnesses requested. But the people the Dems are bringing out are being put in public for the same reasons. They have the worst story to tell. I will note that Pelosi trying to get this done by or shortly after Christmas is a sign that they don't think this is politically beneficial. They want Trump weak but not dead. Pelosi was forced into this, but she can hurry it up. Whether there is a good reason to investigate Biden has zero impact on Trump's impeachment hearing. Even if he was undoubtedly guilty, it doesn't matter. He's not on trial here, Trump is. Whether Biden is innocent or guilty has no bearing on how Trump acted. If you want to investigate Biden then that needs a separate trial with a separate goal. This isnt a TV trial where the judge can say "I find Trump innocent because Biden is guilty!" While the jury gasps. This is an impeachment hearing about Trump using national assets for his own gain. Show nested quote +On November 10 2019 16:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
Republicans know that Democrats won't hold Hunter Biden accountable for what is clear corruption and know drawing attention to that is enough to make the Ukraine thing a wash for Trump. Again, it's not related. If there's a criminal investigation into HB, there's no "democrats won't hold him accountable", because they have no say in the first place. Unlike Trump, HB is not the president, and can be put on trial. This is a completely different process to an impeachment hearing, which is not a criminal trial. Trump is not on trial for doing criminal activities here, he's on trial for misusing his job for a personal gain. This is a "Should he be fired?" investigation. Whether HB is guilty or not has no bearing.
I'm not going to argue that it's not tenuous and all that, just point out it's nothing compared to the kind of sprawling investigations authorities do all the time using completely unrelated cases to justify questioning and harassing people with far less justification.
Which brings me to the point I was making. I don't care much about the process stuff because I'm confident it's all bogus, the court that matters at this point for Trump is the court of public opinion. People can point at the rules and process and call Republicans names for their theatrics, rhetoric, and hypocrisy, my point is that it's basically masturbatory.
Additionally, the type of responses it generates from liberals feeds Trump's base. The more it's hyped up as a real investigation/trial rather than the theater it is, the more vindicated Trump will be when he isn't removed from office (or possibly even impeached by the house).
|
On November 10 2019 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2019 19:17 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2019 12:15 Introvert wrote:On November 10 2019 11:45 Ben... wrote:
Ok, then let me ask you this: what will bringing in Hunter Biden for questioning accomplish? He's a private citizen who has not been charged with any crimes, and in questioning him during the trial, that status will not change. Whether he did or didn't do something unseemly is entirely beside the point in this context because unless the Republicans somehow have proof smoking gun proof Biden did something wrong, everything that would be discussed with him would be based on unproven allegations. A similar thing happened with the Benghazi hearings and Hillary Clinton. She came in and testified for 8 hours and it accomplished nothing because there was no concrete proof of what the Republicans were insinuating she did in her handling of the issue.
The only thing I can see Biden's testifying accomplishing is allowing the Republicans to distract from the actual matter at hand. These hearings are about witness and expert testimony, and Hunter Biden is neither a witness to the alleged events that happened with Trump regarding the alleged quid pro quo, nor an expert on any of the topics relating to this impeachment proceeding.
But this is all beside the point because the Republicans know full well that their list of people submitted is going to get rejected. They purposely filled it with people who are unlikely to actually be forced to show up so that when the majority leaders of the committees don't follow through, the Republicans can claim that those running the hearing aren't being fair. That's why I initially said they were acting in bad faith. Their intent is not to get Hunter Biden, the Fusion GPS people, or the whistleblower to testify. Their intent is to try and make the narrative be that the trial is unfair, rather than the actual narrative that the trial has been handled correctly, and that the witnesses are credible and have testified to things that are quite damaging to Trump. The Republicans know that if the hearings are carried out in an uneventful and non-distracting way, things will likely look quite bad for Trump to the public. That's why they're doing all of this stuff to distract.
Trump will get his due process at the senate trial. The impeachment investigation is not at the trial phase yet. They are still in the hearing/investigation phase, as was done in past impeachment investigations. Normally the investigation would have been done by the Justice Department, but they refused this time around so instead it was done by the bipartisan committees. Well again, the goal is to see if there is some good reason for investigating Burisma/Biden so asking him questions make sense. it cannot be wrong ipso facto to ask for an investigation of this nature, so they must query if it has a legitimate purpose. However, I agree it's a bit of an reach, as in, their request was very likely to be rejected. Also, three of the people they want to testify already did in private. Volker, Morrison, and Hale. I've already argued that the WB should be questioned publicly, so I'll leave that. The point of asking the last two is that they can indirectly speak to the issues Trump has with Ukraine and why he might be hesitant to releae aid to them. And I'm sure they have other reasons as well. There is politics here, but I think there's a defensible reason in each. I view this process as obviously political, as we know it is, so these things dont bother me as much. Rejecting the minority's requests is worse l think, generally speaking. So to sum up: I agree with you in many respects, on the narrow subject matter of witnesses requested. But the people the Dems are bringing out are being put in public for the same reasons. They have the worst story to tell. I will note that Pelosi trying to get this done by or shortly after Christmas is a sign that they don't think this is politically beneficial. They want Trump weak but not dead. Pelosi was forced into this, but she can hurry it up. Whether there is a good reason to investigate Biden has zero impact on Trump's impeachment hearing. Even if he was undoubtedly guilty, it doesn't matter. He's not on trial here, Trump is. Whether Biden is innocent or guilty has no bearing on how Trump acted. If you want to investigate Biden then that needs a separate trial with a separate goal. This isnt a TV trial where the judge can say "I find Trump innocent because Biden is guilty!" While the jury gasps. This is an impeachment hearing about Trump using national assets for his own gain. On November 10 2019 16:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
Republicans know that Democrats won't hold Hunter Biden accountable for what is clear corruption and know drawing attention to that is enough to make the Ukraine thing a wash for Trump. Again, it's not related. If there's a criminal investigation into HB, there's no "democrats won't hold him accountable", because they have no say in the first place. Unlike Trump, HB is not the president, and can be put on trial. This is a completely different process to an impeachment hearing, which is not a criminal trial. Trump is not on trial for doing criminal activities here, he's on trial for misusing his job for a personal gain. This is a "Should he be fired?" investigation. Whether HB is guilty or not has no bearing. I'm not going to argue that it's not tenuous and all that, just point out it's nothing compared to the kind of sprawling investigations authorities do all the time using completely unrelated cases to justify questioning and harassing people with far less justification. Which brings me to the point I was making. I don't care much about the process stuff because I'm confident it's all bogus, the court that matters at this point for Trump is the court of public opinion. People can point at the rules and process and call Republicans names for their theatrics, rhetoric, and hypocrisy, my point is that it's basically masturbatory. Additionally, the type of responses it generates from liberals feeds Trump's base. The more it's hyped up as a real investigation/trial rather than the theater it is, the more vindicated Trump will be when he isn't removed from office (or possibly even impeached by the house).
There's some truth to this. No one believes for a second that the Trump investigation is going to end in indictment. It is, as you say, theatrics. However it's still important theatrics, because it (hopefully) helps sway the public opinion. If Trump gets impeached but not indicted, Republicans have something to answer for in future political debates.
|
On November 11 2019 00:05 Excludos wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2019 20:07 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 10 2019 19:17 Excludos wrote:On November 10 2019 12:15 Introvert wrote:On November 10 2019 11:45 Ben... wrote:
Ok, then let me ask you this: what will bringing in Hunter Biden for questioning accomplish? He's a private citizen who has not been charged with any crimes, and in questioning him during the trial, that status will not change. Whether he did or didn't do something unseemly is entirely beside the point in this context because unless the Republicans somehow have proof smoking gun proof Biden did something wrong, everything that would be discussed with him would be based on unproven allegations. A similar thing happened with the Benghazi hearings and Hillary Clinton. She came in and testified for 8 hours and it accomplished nothing because there was no concrete proof of what the Republicans were insinuating she did in her handling of the issue.
The only thing I can see Biden's testifying accomplishing is allowing the Republicans to distract from the actual matter at hand. These hearings are about witness and expert testimony, and Hunter Biden is neither a witness to the alleged events that happened with Trump regarding the alleged quid pro quo, nor an expert on any of the topics relating to this impeachment proceeding.
But this is all beside the point because the Republicans know full well that their list of people submitted is going to get rejected. They purposely filled it with people who are unlikely to actually be forced to show up so that when the majority leaders of the committees don't follow through, the Republicans can claim that those running the hearing aren't being fair. That's why I initially said they were acting in bad faith. Their intent is not to get Hunter Biden, the Fusion GPS people, or the whistleblower to testify. Their intent is to try and make the narrative be that the trial is unfair, rather than the actual narrative that the trial has been handled correctly, and that the witnesses are credible and have testified to things that are quite damaging to Trump. The Republicans know that if the hearings are carried out in an uneventful and non-distracting way, things will likely look quite bad for Trump to the public. That's why they're doing all of this stuff to distract.
Trump will get his due process at the senate trial. The impeachment investigation is not at the trial phase yet. They are still in the hearing/investigation phase, as was done in past impeachment investigations. Normally the investigation would have been done by the Justice Department, but they refused this time around so instead it was done by the bipartisan committees. Well again, the goal is to see if there is some good reason for investigating Burisma/Biden so asking him questions make sense. it cannot be wrong ipso facto to ask for an investigation of this nature, so they must query if it has a legitimate purpose. However, I agree it's a bit of an reach, as in, their request was very likely to be rejected. Also, three of the people they want to testify already did in private. Volker, Morrison, and Hale. I've already argued that the WB should be questioned publicly, so I'll leave that. The point of asking the last two is that they can indirectly speak to the issues Trump has with Ukraine and why he might be hesitant to releae aid to them. And I'm sure they have other reasons as well. There is politics here, but I think there's a defensible reason in each. I view this process as obviously political, as we know it is, so these things dont bother me as much. Rejecting the minority's requests is worse l think, generally speaking. So to sum up: I agree with you in many respects, on the narrow subject matter of witnesses requested. But the people the Dems are bringing out are being put in public for the same reasons. They have the worst story to tell. I will note that Pelosi trying to get this done by or shortly after Christmas is a sign that they don't think this is politically beneficial. They want Trump weak but not dead. Pelosi was forced into this, but she can hurry it up. Whether there is a good reason to investigate Biden has zero impact on Trump's impeachment hearing. Even if he was undoubtedly guilty, it doesn't matter. He's not on trial here, Trump is. Whether Biden is innocent or guilty has no bearing on how Trump acted. If you want to investigate Biden then that needs a separate trial with a separate goal. This isnt a TV trial where the judge can say "I find Trump innocent because Biden is guilty!" While the jury gasps. This is an impeachment hearing about Trump using national assets for his own gain. On November 10 2019 16:17 GreenHorizons wrote:
Republicans know that Democrats won't hold Hunter Biden accountable for what is clear corruption and know drawing attention to that is enough to make the Ukraine thing a wash for Trump. Again, it's not related. If there's a criminal investigation into HB, there's no "democrats won't hold him accountable", because they have no say in the first place. Unlike Trump, HB is not the president, and can be put on trial. This is a completely different process to an impeachment hearing, which is not a criminal trial. Trump is not on trial for doing criminal activities here, he's on trial for misusing his job for a personal gain. This is a "Should he be fired?" investigation. Whether HB is guilty or not has no bearing. I'm not going to argue that it's not tenuous and all that, just point out it's nothing compared to the kind of sprawling investigations authorities do all the time using completely unrelated cases to justify questioning and harassing people with far less justification. Which brings me to the point I was making. I don't care much about the process stuff because I'm confident it's all bogus, the court that matters at this point for Trump is the court of public opinion. People can point at the rules and process and call Republicans names for their theatrics, rhetoric, and hypocrisy, my point is that it's basically masturbatory. Additionally, the type of responses it generates from liberals feeds Trump's base. The more it's hyped up as a real investigation/trial rather than the theater it is, the more vindicated Trump will be when he isn't removed from office (or possibly even impeached by the house). There's some truth to this. No one believes for a second that the Trump investigation is going to end in indictment. It is, as you say, theatrics. However it's still important theatrics, because it (hopefully) helps sway the public opinion. If Trump gets impeached but not indicted, Republicans have something to answer for in future political debates.
Their answer will be something to the effect of "A bipartisan senate dismissed the partisan witch hunt in the house and exonerated Trump. You know what they didn't investigate/did find? (insert their favorite Dem corruption rumor or not)..."
This also creates this really weird situation where of all the horrible stuff Trump is doing we're playing out this cynical impeachment theater over him withholding foreign aid in hopes of exposing corruption, with the big crime being that it would have benefited him politically.
So not only does he eventually get exonerated for the obvious, implicitly all of his bad policy get's a pass. Because "surely if there was something worse than Ukraine, he'd be/have been impeached for it."
One reason there's little talk about the Senate amid the 2020 speculation is because the most optimistic scenario gives them just 50+ the VP which isn't enough to do anything considering that "50" will include Manchin and those like him.
|
I would definitely recommend checking out Fiona Hill's testimony. I started reading it last night. It's pretty crazy. She was the administration's expert on Russia and Ukraine until early July of this year, and she explained that the whole Ukraine election meddling thing had already been looked into by the administration in 2017, that there was no there there, and that the intel folks had direct evidence to the contrary of the claims of the conspiracy. Not only that, but she made the Republicans' use of the Ukraine meddling conspiracy look quite bad by blatantly saying that this focus on the Ukraine meddling conspiracy directly helps Russia, and that the focus needs to be on Russia for 2020 because they will likely be causing way more trouble than in 2016. My guess is the Republicans will do everything in their power to stop her from testifying publicly, because if she does and she handles their questioning the same way she did in the closed door hearing, they are in trouble. She did not put up with questions about conspiracies at all and was quite blunt about everything she saw while also being more than happy to point to multiple other people who could (and by the sounds of things, did) corroborate what she claimed.
There's a particularly good exchange between her and Jim Jordan, where Jordan tries to use the call summary to argue that Zelensky wanted Yovanovitch gone so Trump was right to get rid of her, and Hill explains how Zelensky had bad English, and based on her experience as a translator, it was likely that Trump and Zelensky had been talking about different people after a certain point, and her argument was far stronger than anything Jordan put forth. He seemed rather dumbfounded at the end of the exchange because she essentially shut his entire line of questioning down within a couple questions, and ended with him agreeing with her assessment more or less.
This is the hornet's nest the Republicans have kicked by using the poor arguments they have been using to try to defend what happened. These aren't political appointees that aren't experienced being dealt with in this impeachment hearing. These are decades-long career officials who are the top of their fields, and are loyal to the country, not Trump. Trying to pick fights with these people on topics they are experts in is not going to end well for the Republicans.
|
On November 10 2019 09:40 FueledUpAndReadyToGo wrote:Show nested quote +On November 10 2019 08:53 redlightdistrict wrote:
Facebook is apparently deleting posts about the CIA fake whistleblower who worked in the Obama admin with Biden.
Yes because spreading an unconfirmed name of a person who will face serious death threats is fucking stupid you idiot
little rude
Whats the story with Kimberly Guilfoyle? She has gone from working at Fox News, to being married to being Married to the most well known Democratic Governor in the USA Gavin Newsome, to marrying Eric Villency, a CEO of a international corporation who doubles as writer for Huffington Post and New York Times, to dating the sitting presidents son Donald Trump jr....am i missing something on why nobody is looking into her? Either she is playing both sides, has a wide range in dating partners, or trying to beat Jackie O's gold digging record of Marring the most powerful man in the world JFK than marring the oldest richest man in the world Aristotle a few years later.
|
It is especially peculiar since the US are known for being a country that never extradites its nationals abroad, doesn't matter what crimes they committed, and doesn't recognize international court of justices regarding their rights to prosecute US nationals.
They themselves rarely investigate or Care about crimes committed abroad, except on tax evasion matters.
So, very suddenly that policy changes for Biden ^^ and we still don't know what he would be accused of. "Maybe corruption" doesn't cut it since the US justice system cannot investigate someone without a serious basis (which Trump reminded us of continuously for the last 3years on the russia investigation...).
So on what basis would you call HB to testify? About what? Fishing for a crime?
Same for the whistleblower. You don't care about him since what he raised was all corroborated and them some by career officials.
He's just being called to make this a circus since reps can't argue on the facts that public power was used illegally for private gains.
Edit : phase 3 started.
https://www.axios.com/rand-paul-trump-ukraine-quid-pro-quo-2385f6cc-2831-44ce-8a53-dee546719019.html
I Wonder on his last comment about not having the money. Did he vote for the Trump tax break? 🤣 Fiscal hawk on a part-time basis... Hypocrisy...
|
Can you imagine the furor if certified witch Hillary Clinton had been president and tried to cheat the 2020 elections by essentially bribing a foreign power? The GOP would lose its shit. And since they're much better at abusing the various institutions they'd probably much further along in the impeachment process than those spineless democrats.
|
I always find it weird how people who support the republicans never seem to see the massive, obvious hypocrisy. In so many situations, if you just turn around which side of the spectrum actors are on and leave all other factors identical, their response shifts by 180°.
The only real explanations for this are either stupidity or acting in bad faith. I cannot think of any other.
|
On November 11 2019 03:19 Simberto wrote:
I always find it weird how people who support the republicans never seem to see the massive, obvious hypocrisy. In so many situations, if you just turn around which side of the spectrum actors are on and leave all other factors identical, their response shifts by 180°.
The only real explanations for this are either stupidity or acting in bad faith. I cannot think of any other.
A mix of both, lawmakers acting in bad faith and knowing it will work, because they appeal to voters who aren't well-versed with the law, and considered "uneducated". And of course, religious people that place their religion over everything else (including the law), and weapon-crazed people, supremacists etc etc. A nice bunch overall.
Of course there are normal people voting for Trump, but I can't excuse those. I'm just constantly baffled that overall, this part of the population makes up ~50% of voters.
(Don't get me wrong, there are also crazy people on the left side. However, far from enough to define the policy of the other half of the voting population. Medicare for all while suppressing all forms of private health insurance seems a bit crazy a change to me when you look at the current starting point.
I love what we have here : a national, basic health insurance -that we pay for in our salaries, nothing is free- so you can get care and be treated, including surgeries, cancer etc. Then, *state-regulated to avoid bad practices* additional private health insurance if you want additional coverage for cosmetic dentition treatments, branded glasses or lenses, high-end doctors etc...)
The conservatives were originally supposed to be the law-and-order abiding party, fiscal conservatives etc. How times have changed from that, to a personality cult to piss the other half off.
|
On November 11 2019 03:19 Simberto wrote:
I always find it weird how people who support the republicans never seem to see the massive, obvious hypocrisy. In so many situations, if you just turn around which side of the spectrum actors are on and leave all other factors identical, their response shifts by 180°.
The only real explanations for this are either stupidity or acting in bad faith. I cannot think of any other.
To that point, if it wasn't Hunter Biden but Charlotte Pence in the identical situation Democrats wouldn't be trying to impeach Trump for it.
|
On November 11 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 03:19 Simberto wrote:
I always find it weird how people who support the republicans never seem to see the massive, obvious hypocrisy. In so many situations, if you just turn around which side of the spectrum actors are on and leave all other factors identical, their response shifts by 180°.
The only real explanations for this are either stupidity or acting in bad faith. I cannot think of any other. To that point, if it wasn't Hunter Biden but Charlotte Pence in the identical situation Democrats wouldn't be trying to impeach Trump for it.
If Trump was pulling strings to get Charlotte Pence investigated, the case that he was using the office of the President for his own personal political gain would be far more tenuous.
+ Show Spoiler +In fact I don't see how it would personally benefit him at all. Which is why he wouldn't do it.
Saying that the Democrats would not investigate him for such a thing does not seem like a good example of hypocrisy or partisanship.
|
On November 11 2019 07:46 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 03:19 Simberto wrote:
I always find it weird how people who support the republicans never seem to see the massive, obvious hypocrisy. In so many situations, if you just turn around which side of the spectrum actors are on and leave all other factors identical, their response shifts by 180°.
The only real explanations for this are either stupidity or acting in bad faith. I cannot think of any other. To that point, if it wasn't Hunter Biden but Charlotte Pence in the identical situation Democrats wouldn't be trying to impeach Trump for it. If Trump was pulling strings to get Charlotte Pence investigated, the case that he was using the office of the President for his own personal political gain would be far more tenuous. + Show Spoiler +In fact I don't see how it would personally benefit him at all. Which is why he wouldn't do it. Saying that the Democrats would not investigate him for such a thing does not seem like a good example of hypocrisy or partisanship.
So it's not the bribing/extortion that's the problem, it's who it benefited and you don't see the hypocrisy or partisanship... okay
|
On November 11 2019 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 07:46 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 03:19 Simberto wrote:
I always find it weird how people who support the republicans never seem to see the massive, obvious hypocrisy. In so many situations, if you just turn around which side of the spectrum actors are on and leave all other factors identical, their response shifts by 180°.
The only real explanations for this are either stupidity or acting in bad faith. I cannot think of any other. To that point, if it wasn't Hunter Biden but Charlotte Pence in the identical situation Democrats wouldn't be trying to impeach Trump for it. If Trump was pulling strings to get Charlotte Pence investigated, the case that he was using the office of the President for his own personal political gain would be far more tenuous. + Show Spoiler +In fact I don't see how it would personally benefit him at all. Which is why he wouldn't do it. Saying that the Democrats would not investigate him for such a thing does not seem like a good example of hypocrisy or partisanship. So it's not the bribing/extortion that's the problem, it's who it benefited and you don't see the hypocrisy or partisanship... okay
I would probably still find some of the details of how this went down problematic if Trump was trying to get some random pleb or somebody on his own side investigated.
But yes, the fact that Trump was using the office for his own personal gain as opposed to your hypothetical situation where he would not personally gain anything does make a pretty substantial difference. I'm not sure what your difficulty with that is.
EDIT: I am finding this hypothetical situation a little difficult to come to grips with simply because the notion of Trump pulling strings to get a Pence investigated is so obviously ludicrous.
|
On November 11 2019 08:17 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On November 11 2019 07:58 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 07:46 Aquanim wrote:On November 11 2019 07:24 GreenHorizons wrote:On November 11 2019 03:19 Simberto wrote:
I always find it weird how people who support the republicans never seem to see the massive, obvious hypocrisy. In so many situations, if you just turn around which side of the spectrum actors are on and leave all other factors identical, their response shifts by 180°.
The only real explanations for this are either stupidity or acting in bad faith. I cannot think of any other. To that point, if it wasn't Hunter Biden but Charlotte Pence in the identical situation Democrats wouldn't be trying to impeach Trump for it. If Trump was pulling strings to get Charlotte Pence investigated, the case that he was using the office of the President for his own personal political gain would be far more tenuous. + Show Spoiler +In fact I don't see how it would personally benefit him at all. Which is why he wouldn't do it. Saying that the Democrats would not investigate him for such a thing does not seem like a good example of hypocrisy or partisanship. So it's not the bribing/extortion that's the problem, it's who it benefited and you don't see the hypocrisy or partisanship... okay I would probably still find some of the details of how this went down problematic if Trump was trying to get some random pleb or somebody on his own side investigated. But yes, the fact that Trump was using the office for his own personal gain as opposed to your hypothetical situation where he would not personally gain anything does make a difference. I'm not sure what your difficulty with that is. EDIT: I am finding this hypothetical situation a little difficult to come to grips with simply because the notion of Trump pulling strings to get a Pence investigated is so obviously ludicrous.
Really that hard for you to imagine Trump believing Pence has machinations to replace him and wanting leverage on Pence to prevent it?
Obviously doing things in the "national interest" are also in his personal and political interests. So it's not that he was benefiting personally/politically for bribery/extortion. It's the ratio calculated by partisans of the national interest in confronting the kinda corruption Hunter Biden was engaged in and a Biden presidency would open up vs the personal/political benefit Trump would gain from it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
