Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Dems are desperate

From Republicans’ point of view, the impeachers’ strongest case against Trump depended on establishing a quid pro quo for something of purely personal benefit to the president—in other words, bribery. Perhaps a quid pro quo could be inferred from the phone call, but the Democrats sought to establish that a more explicit one had been communicated through intermediaries. Yet none of the key intermediaries—Ambassadors Taylor, George Kent, Gordon Sondland, and Kurt Volker—testified that they had been instructed by the White House to condition aid on Ukraine’s investigation of Burisma. Sondland later amended his deposition to clarify that “in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.” But that presumption, as Representative Mike Turner pointed out in questioning him, does not even rise to the level of hearsay. The president appears to have wanted the government of Ukraine to announce corruption investigations, including into Burisma and alleged 2016 election meddling. But none of the star witnesses testified to direct knowledge that this request was ever made part of a quid pro quo for military aid.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/republicans-trump-impeachment/603439/

[Anonymous]

That's because Republicans are short-sighted amoral idiots. They wouldn't countenance this behavior in a Democrat president and they know it. Just disgusting.

- former Republican

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dems are desperate

From Republicans’ point of view, the impeachers’ strongest case against Trump depended on establishing a quid pro quo for something of purely personal benefit to the president—in other words, bribery. Perhaps a quid pro quo could be inferred from the phone call, but the Democrats sought to establish that a more explicit one had been communicated through intermediaries. Yet none of the key intermediaries—Ambassadors Taylor, George Kent, Gordon Sondland, and Kurt Volker—testified that they had been instructed by the White House to condition aid on Ukraine’s investigation of Burisma. Sondland later amended his deposition to clarify that “in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.” But that presumption, as Representative Mike Turner pointed out in questioning him, does not even rise to the level of hearsay. The president appears to have wanted the government of Ukraine to announce corruption investigations, including into Burisma and alleged 2016 election meddling. But none of the star witnesses testified to direct knowledge that this request was ever made part of a quid pro quo for military aid.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/republicans-trump-impeachment/603439/

Not a Dem. Read the transcript. It is enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And a majority of Americans are glad Trump is being impeached.

A majority of voters approve of the House of Representatives’ impeachment of President Donald Trump earlier this week, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll conducted in the immediate aftermath of the vote.

The narrow majority who approve, 52 percent, is greater than the 43 percent who disapprove of the House voting to impeach Trump, the poll shows. Five percent of voters have no opinion on Trump’s impeachment.

It boggles the mind that the GOP hasn’t seriously thought of replacing such a damaged candidate.

And, the Dems will likely nominate a man who bragged about extorting the Ukranians.

It was bi-partisan US and global policy. Do you not understand this willfully?

Yes, it's wilful. There are a lot of posters who post in bad faith. And pundits and politicians.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dems are desperate

From Republicans’ point of view, the impeachers’ strongest case against Trump depended on establishing a quid pro quo for something of purely personal benefit to the president—in other words, bribery. Perhaps a quid pro quo could be inferred from the phone call, but the Democrats sought to establish that a more explicit one had been communicated through intermediaries. Yet none of the key intermediaries—Ambassadors Taylor, George Kent, Gordon Sondland, and Kurt Volker—testified that they had been instructed by the White House to condition aid on Ukraine’s investigation of Burisma. Sondland later amended his deposition to clarify that “in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.” But that presumption, as Representative Mike Turner pointed out in questioning him, does not even rise to the level of hearsay. The president appears to have wanted the government of Ukraine to announce corruption investigations, including into Burisma and alleged 2016 election meddling. But none of the star witnesses testified to direct knowledge that this request was ever made part of a quid pro quo for military aid.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/republicans-trump-impeachment/603439/

1. It is unheard of for a U.S. official to a foreign country to investigate an American (where an American criminal investigation isn't in progress). U.S. citizens are governed by U.S. laws.
2. It is beyond inappropriate for a U.S. official to ask a foreign country to investigate an American (where an American criminal investigation isn't in progress.) for personal gain.
3. The President asked another country to investigate a political rival.

That Trump did this is uncontested. He released the transcript himself. Then he urged China to investigate the Bidens on public tv. You don't have to prove the quid pro quo. It is inappropriate no matter what his motive is.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Dems are desperate

From Republicans’ point of view, the impeachers’ strongest case against Trump depended on establishing a quid pro quo for something of purely personal benefit to the president—in other words, bribery. Perhaps a quid pro quo could be inferred from the phone call, but the Democrats sought to establish that a more explicit one had been communicated through intermediaries. Yet none of the key intermediaries—Ambassadors Taylor, George Kent, Gordon Sondland, and Kurt Volker—testified that they had been instructed by the White House to condition aid on Ukraine’s investigation of Burisma. Sondland later amended his deposition to clarify that “in the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I presumed that the aid suspension had become linked to the proposed anti-corruption statement.” But that presumption, as Representative Mike Turner pointed out in questioning him, does not even rise to the level of hearsay. The president appears to have wanted the government of Ukraine to announce corruption investigations, including into Burisma and alleged 2016 election meddling. But none of the star witnesses testified to direct knowledge that this request was ever made part of a quid pro quo for military aid.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/republicans-trump-impeachment/603439/

Maybe because all politicians are lawyers they feel the need to "prove beyond a reasonable doubt" that Trump wanted Biden investigated in exchange for political favors. I'm just a normal person, so I don't have that problem. It seems incredibly unlikely based on the evidence in the transcript and the testimonies that Trump didn't want the investigation for political gain. If Trump didn't want Biden investigated for his political gain, then he needs to pony up some evidence to support that claim. It doesn't have to be admissible-in-a-court of law evidence. Just some reasonable explanation of his behavior. He hasn't done that.

[Anonymous]

Yet none of the key intermediaries—Ambassadors Taylor, George Kent, Gordon Sondland, and Kurt Volker—testified that they had been instructed by the White House to condition aid on Ukraine’s investigation of Burisma.

Those weren’t the key intermediaries. The key intermediaries were at the White House, at OMB and at State in DC and were barred from testifying or submitting documents.

[Anonymous]

Hey Putin thinks it’s all a sham.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-touts-putin-speaking-out-against-his-impeachment/2019/12/21/7f23baf2-2404-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Hey Putin thinks it’s all a sham.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-touts-putin-speaking-out-against-his-impeachment/2019/12/21/7f23baf2-2404-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html

This is the most shocking news of the century.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Hey Putin thinks it’s all a sham.


https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-touts-putin-speaking-out-against-his-impeachment/2019/12/21/7f23baf2-2404-11ea-a153-dce4b94e4249_story.html

This is the most shocking news of the century.

But Trump listens to Putin more than he listens to American intelligence services, so that's why Trump thinks his impeachment is a sham.

[Anonymous]

Kudos for Doug Jones for reminding everyone that some principles are more important than politics.
https://www.politico.com/news/2019/12/22/doug-jones-impeachment-089307

Doug Jones, the most vulnerable Democratic senator up for reelection, on Sunday dismissed concerns that a vote to remove President Donald Trump from office would cost him his Senate seat.

“Everyone wants to talk about this in the political terms and the political consequences term. This is a much more serious matter than that,” the Alabama senator told Martha Raddatz, co-anchor of ABC’s “This Week.”

“This has to do with the future of the presidency and how we want our presidents to conduct themselves. It has all to do with the future of the Senate and how the Senate should handle impeachment and articles of impeachment that come over. That’s how I’m looking at this,” he added. “If I did everything based on a pure political argument, all you’d need is a computer to mash a button. That’s just not what this country is about. It’s not what the founders intended to do.”

[Anonymous]

More evidence that Trump has been lying about the Ukraine.

About 90 minutes after President Trump held a controversial telephone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine in July, the White House budget office ordered the Pentagon to suspend all military aid that Congress had allocated to Ukraine, according to emails released by the Pentagon late Friday.

A budget official, Michael Duffey, also told the Pentagon to keep quiet about the aid freeze because of the “sensitive nature of the request,” according to a message dated July 25.

An earlier email that Mr. Duffey sent to the Pentagon comptroller suggested that Mr. Trump began asking aides about $250 million in military aid set aside for Ukraine after noticing a June 19 article about it in the Washington Examiner.

[Anonymous]

+1 million. If the GOP actually believed Trump was innocent, they wouldn’t be fighting so hard to have witnesses testify.

Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) said she doesn’t understand why the Trump administration is blocking witnesses from testifying in President Donald Trump’s pending Senate impeachment trial.

“I think that there will be an agreement and this trial will go forward,” she said Sunday on CNN’s “State of the Union. “I think what is shocking to me is, right now, despite the president claiming his innocence, claiming that he wants to present witnesses, he's the one blocking the witnesses.”

[Anonymous]

What a fiasco this impeachment exercise has been for the Democrats!

Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) said on ABC's "This Week" that the allegations that President Trump exploited Ukraine for his political benefit are "serious" and "impeachable," but added that there are "gaps" in the House's case and that he is willing to acquit Trump in a Senate trial if "those dots aren't connected."

[Anonymous]

Rambling Rally Comfort Zone
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/arts/television/trump-impeachment-rally.html

While the House of Representatives impeached President Trump on Wednesday, the president held a campaign rally in Battle Creek, Mich., where he suggested future presidents could, like him, get impeached simply for making phone calls.

“The rally was billed as a ‘Merry Christmas’ rally,” Seth Meyers reported Thursday night. “And in the spirit of this season, Trump went through a list of grievances and insults so long, CNN actually had to tally up a list of everyone and everything he attacked.”

“That’s right: the president attacked security guards, Democrats, the media and dishwashers. Normally when someone rambles that long you have to take away their keys.” — SETH MEYERS

“Trump also lashed out viciously at Representative Debbie Dingell from Michigan. Debbie Dingell is the widow of a World War II veteran, longtime congressman John Dingell, who’s very popular. He died in February. Trump last night at the rally made a ‘joke’ suggesting that congressman Dingell went to hell because his wife voted for impeachment. Trump believes that since he graciously allowed the flags at federal buildings to be lowered to half-mast to honor John Dingell, his widow should have shown her appreciation by voting not to impeach. In other words, another quid pro quo is what he was looking for.” — JIMMY KIMMEL

“He really doesn’t seem to know what he did. Maybe that’s why he’s so angry.” — JIMMY KIMMEL

“Aw, poor Trump, man. He just became the third president in history to get impeached and you see what’s happening: He’s trying to convince everyone that it doesn’t bother him. You know? He’s just like, ‘It doesn’t even feel like we got impeached.’ Like, yeah, no, not ‘we’ — you got impeached. There’s no ‘we.’” TREVOR NOAH

“Yeah, we’re not — you are. In terms of getting impeached, the rest of us did great yesterday.” — SETH MEYERS