Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public phase of impeachment hearing will began in about 50 minutes.

Here is the C-span link where you can watch it live without anyone else's interpretation:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?466134-1/impeachment-hearing-william-taylor-george-kent

Let us start the conversation. This hearing will be the final test of our constitution and democracy. It is a defining moment of our country!

He more I hear the more I am convinced these hearings are political

We should be limiting foreign aid.

Without a doubt. And certainly making sure a new recently elected government is legit before handing them millions and/or billions is prudent.

Huh? What's your beef with Zelensky? You think he's not legit?

You think we shouldn't give military aid to Ukraine? You prefer Russia then.

Nothing now. But back then? He was a new leader who had no real history in a corrupt country. Best be prudent.

OK, but if that was the decision (and it clearly wasn't), there are legal ways to do that, and it needed Congressional approval at that point (the aid had already been approved). He did not use the legal channels. He just said said don't sent it yet (beyond the legally required time to send it and without using proper methods - so IIMU that was issuing an order to break the law), I'm waiting for something first. A favor. (bribery)

Meaning he was not part of the kleptocracy post-USSR. . . .

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused. Sondman’s opening statement declared something to the effect that there was a definite quid pro quo with Ukraine (or whatever you want to call it) at the direction of Trump. Sondland later said that he asked Trump on a phone call what he wanted from Ukraine, and Trump said ‘Nothing. No quid pro quo.’ (as written on that ridiculous paper that Trump trotted out later today). Republicans appeared to hone in on that and state that Sondland was just speculating a quid pro quo. What am I missing?

Rs asking those questions did not talk about WHEN that call happened. It was after the whistleblower report was sent to the white house.

There's a Canadian radio program, "As it Happens", where someone they were talking to pointed out that Trump never voiced that phrase until after word got out that there was a whistleblower.

Pretty sure it's also not anywhere in the script for any of the Godfather movies. And I don't think Nixon said "quid pro quo" to Hanoi in 1968 nor did Ollie North ever use those words. Hm, what do these people have in common?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I’m confused. Sondman’s opening statement declared something to the effect that there was a definite quid pro quo with Ukraine (or whatever you want to call it) at the direction of Trump. Sondland later said that he asked Trump on a phone call what he wanted from Ukraine, and Trump said ‘Nothing. No quid pro quo.’ (as written on that ridiculous paper that Trump trotted out later today). Republicans appeared to hone in on that and state that Sondland was just speculating a quid pro quo. What am I missing?

Rs asking those questions did not talk about WHEN that call happened. It was after the whistleblower report was sent to the white house.

It was after the whistle blower report, and it was also after a Politico article that reported that Trump had held up the security assistance, and it was when Ambassador Taylor asked Sondland whether they were saying that both the security assistance and White House meeting were conditioned on investigations, which is why Sondland was seeking guidance on what to say.

Saying that you are not committing a crime, during or after you committed a crime, does not make you innocent of the crime.

Thank you for clarifying the timing! I couldn't watch all of the hearings today.

I really fear for this country. People getting hung up on details when the main issue is staring them in the face. The President of the USA used his official power to request help for his own campaign. Done. Who cares what he said about whether or not there was QPQ?

[Anonymous]

Just wondering, was there no point in these hearings where Fruman and Parnas were ever mentioned? The smear campaign against Yovanovitch was part of their indictment, they were hanging with Rudy, did they only meet with Ukrainians whenever they were overseas?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All Americans would benefit from exploring and exposing Ukrainian interference and any Biden corruption.

And Trump corruption as well.

No, don't fall for that trap. There is no evidence of Biden corruption. Trump tried to pressure Ukraine into making up evidence, and announcing an investigation that would make it seems as if there might be evidence. But there is *no evidence* - there is PLENTY of evidence about Trump corruption, though, and I look forward to it being explored in depth.

Asking to manufacture the evidence and asking to investigate are two different things. If there are no evidence of any improper behavior by either Bidens, why to worry so much? It would be great for Biden’s campaign to show wrongful allegations, and it will be great for Ukraine to investigate possible foreign corruption. Why Democrats are so opposed to the investigation? If you think Trump improperly requested it, why don’t any of the Democrats or even Biden himself file a proper request?

Because people who don't wear tinfoil hats know there is no there there. Take yours off already.

We'll soon see:

https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2019/11/20/not-a-conspiracy-theory-ukraine-expands-investigation-into-burisma-founder/

So you do understand what the deal about Burisma and Joe Biden was, right? The problem was that the prosecutor was not investigating Burisma, and everyone wanted him too. So after international pressure, Shokin was fired.

And strictly speaking the guy who runs Burisma, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just wondering, was there no point in these hearings where Fruman and Parnas were ever mentioned? The smear campaign against Yovanovitch was part of their indictment, they were hanging with Rudy, did they only meet with Ukrainians whenever they were overseas?

They were mentioned today, but with an ongoing investigation, it may be hard to raise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All Americans would benefit from exploring and exposing Ukrainian interference and any Biden corruption.

And Trump corruption as well.

No, don't fall for that trap. There is no evidence of Biden corruption. Trump tried to pressure Ukraine into making up evidence, and announcing an investigation that would make it seems as if there might be evidence. But there is *no evidence* - there is PLENTY of evidence about Trump corruption, though, and I look forward to it being explored in depth.

Asking to manufacture the evidence and asking to investigate are two different things. If there are no evidence of any improper behavior by either Bidens, why to worry so much? It would be great for Biden’s campaign to show wrongful allegations, and it will be great for Ukraine to investigate possible foreign corruption. Why Democrats are so opposed to the investigation? If you think Trump improperly requested it, why don’t any of the Democrats or even Biden himself file a proper request?

Because people who don't wear tinfoil hats know there is no there there. Take yours off already.

We'll soon see:

https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2019/11/20/not-a-conspiracy-theory-ukraine-expands-investigation-into-burisma-founder/

So you do understand what the deal about Burisma and Joe Biden was, right? The problem was that the prosecutor was not investigating Burisma, and everyone wanted him too. So after international pressure, Shokin was fired.

And strictly speaking the guy who runs Burisma, right?

Well, if we want to have hearings about nepotism and graft, let's get Hunter, Ivanka and Jared under oath at the same time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"I definitely do NOT want any garbage. Nope! Not me! Not desiring any garbage today."

So good.

[Anonymous]

I check National Review from time to time to see what they are saying. Nothing about Sondland today, but there is an article about how Nixon was treated unfairly and didn't do anything impeachable (also Andrew Johnson, also unfair because they didn't let the Confederacy back into the House yet). Although no mention of Clinton, oddly (!) enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All Americans would benefit from exploring and exposing Ukrainian interference and any Biden corruption.

And Trump corruption as well.

No, don't fall for that trap. There is no evidence of Biden corruption. Trump tried to pressure Ukraine into making up evidence, and announcing an investigation that would make it seems as if there might be evidence. But there is *no evidence* - there is PLENTY of evidence about Trump corruption, though, and I look forward to it being explored in depth.

Asking to manufacture the evidence and asking to investigate are two different things. If there are no evidence of any improper behavior by either Bidens, why to worry so much? It would be great for Biden’s campaign to show wrongful allegations, and it will be great for Ukraine to investigate possible foreign corruption. Why Democrats are so opposed to the investigation? If you think Trump improperly requested it, why don’t any of the Democrats or even Biden himself file a proper request?

Because people who don't wear tinfoil hats know there is no there there. Take yours off already.

We'll soon see:

https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2019/11/20/not-a-conspiracy-theory-ukraine-expands-investigation-into-burisma-founder/

So you do understand what the deal about Burisma and Joe Biden was, right? The problem was that the prosecutor was not investigating Burisma, and everyone wanted him too. So after international pressure, Shokin was fired.

And strictly speaking the guy who runs Burisma, right?

Are you totally deranged?

[Anonymous]

^^ Oh, well. The writer (Conrad Black) also a fraudster pardoned by Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:All Americans would benefit from exploring and exposing Ukrainian interference and any Biden corruption.

And Trump corruption as well.

No, don't fall for that trap. There is no evidence of Biden corruption. Trump tried to pressure Ukraine into making up evidence, and announcing an investigation that would make it seems as if there might be evidence. But there is *no evidence* - there is PLENTY of evidence about Trump corruption, though, and I look forward to it being explored in depth.

Asking to manufacture the evidence and asking to investigate are two different things. If there are no evidence of any improper behavior by either Bidens, why to worry so much? It would be great for Biden’s campaign to show wrongful allegations, and it will be great for Ukraine to investigate possible foreign corruption. Why Democrats are so opposed to the investigation? If you think Trump improperly requested it, why don’t any of the Democrats or even Biden himself file a proper request?

Because people who don't wear tinfoil hats know there is no there there. Take yours off already.

We'll soon see:

https://www.redstate.com/nick-arama/2019/11/20/not-a-conspiracy-theory-ukraine-expands-investigation-into-burisma-founder/

So you do understand what the deal about Burisma and Joe Biden was, right? The problem was that the prosecutor was not investigating Burisma, and everyone wanted him too. So after international pressure, Shokin was fired.

And strictly speaking the guy who runs Burisma, right?

Are you totally deranged?

My understanding is that the focus of Burisma corruption has mostly focused on Zlochevsky.

[Anonymous]

^^ i.e. Shokin was failing to investigate Zlochevsky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The public phase of impeachment hearing will began in about 50 minutes.

Here is the C-span link where you can watch it live without anyone else's interpretation:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?466134-1/impeachment-hearing-william-taylor-george-kent

Let us start the conversation. This hearing will be the final test of our constitution and democracy. It is a defining moment of our country!

He more I hear the more I am convinced these hearings are political

We should be limiting foreign aid.

Without a doubt. And certainly making sure a new recently elected government is legit before handing them millions and/or billions is prudent.

Huh? What's your beef with Zelensky? You think he's not legit?

You think we shouldn't give military aid to Ukraine? You prefer Russia then.

Nothing now. But back then? He was a new leader who had no real history in a corrupt country. Best be prudent.

OK, but if that was the decision (and it clearly wasn't), there are legal ways to do that, and it needed Congressional approval at that point (the aid had already been approved). He did not use the legal channels. He just said said don't sent it yet (beyond the legally required time to send it and without using proper methods - so IIMU that was issuing an order to break the law), I'm waiting for something first. A favor. (bribery)

Meaning he was not part of the kleptocracy post-USSR. . . .

This attempted justification for Trump's actions are disproved by the slightest scrutiny. Investigating the Bidens and 2016 conspiracy theories would do nothing to ensure that the 2019 security assistance would be managed properly. State and DOD had been working with Ukraine very closely on anti-corruption measures and had procedures in place to monitor the funds.

If Trump was concerned about corruption in Ukraine he would not send Giuliani and Sondland and Perry to corruptly demand political investigations by Ukraine and would not keep the reasons for the hold on the security assistance secret from Congress and State and Defense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:^^ i.e. Shokin was failing to investigate Zlochevsky.

Shokin was using the powers of his office to enrich himself, to protect corrupt cronies, and to manufacture investigations against anti-corruption activists who criticized him. That is why everyone wanted him removed. It was not about Burisma.