Impeachment hearings

[_Smokey]

Pop quiz, Smokey. I’ll make this one easy. True or false: the investigative phase of the impeachment process was never referred to as an “impeachment inquiry” before the election of Donald Trump.

All you need to do is be clear.

Is this an impeachment inquiry, an impeachment hearing, or an impeachment milkshake?

[_canpakes]

Pop quiz, Smokey. I’ll make this one easy. True or false: the investigative phase of the impeachment process was never referred to as an “impeachment inquiry” before the election of Donald Trump.

All you need to do is be clear.

Is this an impeachment inquiry, an impeachment hearing, or an impeachment milkshake?

Smokey translation: “I can’t answer that because I would look like an idiot. And be wrong.”

[_Res Ipsa]

More tap dancing from Smokey.

Smokey, here is your claim:

[A]n “impeachment inquiry” is not a real thing.

Here is my question:

True or false: the investigative phase of the impeachment process was never referred to as an “impeachment inquiry” before the election of Donald Trump.

My question has nothing to do with "this." It has to do with your claim that an "impeachment inquiry" is not a real thing.

It's true or false. I made it as easy for you as I possibly can. What's the answer?

[_honorentheos]

...I found it interesting that Taylor essentially said ...

said that he only heard something from someone who said they heard something from someone else?

that is interesting...mhm hm

The argument it's all based on secondhand information is certainly one of the main thrusts of Republican push back. I suspect it will come down to the Sondland testimony next week before that discussion moves. Regardless.

What it wasn't was the subject of that sentence you quoted from.

What I said was, "I found it interesting that Taylor essentially said he viewed the withholding of military aid as the line that was crossed for him, but conditioning a meeting with Trump was less concerning."

That's referencing a statement by Taylor about something he said on Monday in answer to a question. His response was that withholding aid was a serious matter, and once it was clear to him that the aid was being withheld rather than just a meeting with Trump, he was willing to resign in protest.

Let's be clear. He had direct knowledge the aid was being withheld. He was against that for what he viewed to be very serious reasons. Your comment was a misdirection as it doesn't relate to my statement in any way. Which, on reflection, is ironic.

[_Smokey]

Is it an impeachment hearing, or is it an impeachment inquiry?

Or are they the same thing?

[_Res Ipsa]

Is it an impeachment hearing, or is it an impeachment inquiry?

Or are they the same thing?

After all the chances I've given you to answer a straightforward question, I'm just going to take your evasion as an admission that you know that the investigation portion of the impeachment process has been referred to as an "impeachment inquiry" long before Trump became president. Your claim that "impeachment inquiry" isn't a thing is total BS.

Constitutionally, impeachment is a thing. Other than the vote, the process is left to the House. A necessary part of the process is gathering facts, which has been and is being referred to an "impeachment inquiry." One method of investigation is taking testimony from witnesses at a hearing. That's what you posted a picture of: taking witness testimony at a hearing. It's part of the impeachment inquiry, but it's not the entire inquiry. As it's also part of the overall impeachment process, you could call it an impeachment hearing. Just as we might refer to a hearing that is part of the budget process as a "budget hearing."

Checking the official press release from the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, I found this title: Full Committee Open Hearing for the Impeachment Inquiry. So, we could go with that. Personally, "Milkshake" is lots easier to type.

Why the obsession with labels?

[_canpakes]

Why the obsession with labels?

Indeed.

[_subgenius]

Let's be clear. He had direct knowledge the aid was being withheld. He was against that for what he viewed to be very serious reasons.

None of which is grounds for impeachment or an impeachment "inquiry".
Biden wanted to withhold aid and never was there a hari fire screaming constitutional crisis.
Taylor's "direct knowledge" in this case is grounds only for his own resignation letter, and nothing else.

[_honorentheos]

Let's be clear. He had direct knowledge the aid was being withheld. He was against that for what he viewed to be very serious reasons.

None of which is grounds for impeachment or an impeachment "inquiry".
Biden wanted to withhold aid and never was there a hari fire screaming constitutional crisis.
Taylor's "direct knowledge" in this case is grounds only for his own resignation letter, and nothing else.

Ok, Kanye.

[_honorentheos]

Let's be clear. He had direct knowledge the aid was being withheld. He was against that for what he viewed to be very serious reasons. Your comment was a misdirection as it doesn't relate to my statement in any way. Which, on reflection, is ironic.