Impeachment hearings

[_Icarus]

Today, Gordon Sondland nailed the impeachment coffin shut by confirming what Trump and his people have been lying about all along, that there was in fact a quid pro quo and it all came from the direction of the President via his right hand man Rudy Giuliani. From his opening statement today:

"Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker and I worked with Mr. Rudy Giuliani on Ukraine matters at the express direction of the President of the United States. We did not want to work with Mr. Giuliani. Simply put, we played the hand we were dealt. We all understood that if we refused to work with Mr. Giuliani, we would lose an important opportunity to cement relations between the United States and Ukraine. So we followed the President's orders...

Mr. Giuliani's requests were a quid pro quo for arranging a White House visit for President Zelensky. Mr. Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing investigations of the 2016 election/DNC server and Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the President of the United States, and we knew that these investigations were important to the President...

We learned that the White House had also suspended security aid to Ukraine. I was adamantly opposed to any suspension of aid, as the Ukrainians needed those funds to fight against Russian aggression. I tried diligently to ask why the aid was suspended, but I never received a clear answer. In the absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations of the 2016 election and Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded. I shared concerns of the potential quid pro quo regarding the security aid with Senator Ron Johnson. And I also shared my concerns with the Ukrainians...

I followed the directions of the President. We worked with Mr. Giuliani because the President directed us to do so. We had no desire to set any conditions on the Ukranians. Indeed, my personal view -- which I shared repeatedly with others -- was that the White House meeting and security assistance should have proceeded without pre-conditions of any kind...

Was there a "quid pro quo?" As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/20/politics ... index.html

[_MissTish]

Sondland seems to have brought a blowtorch.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Subgenius’ tactic is to simply say anything since Fox News’ tactic is to just say anything and its viewers are like, “YUP!” It doesn’t matter that you posted a thoughtful reply with informative links because he doesn’t read. That’s why my BIG PICTURE WITH FEW WORDS caught his attention. That’s why he and his ilk generally communicate in BIG PICTURES WITH FEW WORDS because they don’t really think as much as they emote. That’s why 4Chan/pol/ is so popular with the Right because it’s an image board that primarily communicates through BIG PICTURES WITH FEW WORDS.

So. They like tv because there are BIG PICTURES WITH FEW WORDS. They like Facebook because they can share BIG PICTURES WITH FEW WORDS. And they love memes because, well, you get the point.

- Doc

[_EAllusion]

It’s increasingly clear just how much the admin is a straight up organized crime syndicate. Impeaching Trump, though much deserved, will not solve this.

Also, Ken Starr was on Fox recently giving pro impeachment views. That’s eyebrow raising.

[_DarkHelmet]

As bad as the testimony is for Trump, it's not moving the polls at all.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/78054063 ... heir-minds

Trump supporters will stand by their man no matter what, and the Republicans in congress must do the same to avoid their wrath.

[_Maksutov]

As bad as the testimony is for Trump, it's not moving the polls at all.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/78054063 ... heir-minds

Trump supporters will stand by their man no matter what, and the Republicans in congress must do the same to avoid their wrath.

Getting Relief Society to consider rejecting Trump is like getting Mormons to show what would cause them to lose faith.

My father once gave me some great advice. "Don't put your faith in a man." Trump and the Brethren are just men but they are endowed by their followers with infallibility, making them virtual objects of worship and the center of cults.

[_Icarus]

As bad as the testimony is for Trump, it's not moving the polls at all.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/78054063 ... heir-minds

Trump supporters will stand by their man no matter what, and the Republicans in congress must do the same to avoid their wrath.

That poll took place November 11th-15th. The pubic hearings started on the 13th with the most damning testimonies given the past two days, four days after the poll ended.

[_honorentheos]

I think the Democrats have calculated that the entire impeachment process enthuses their base and is win for them politically. I'm still unsure if that's true or not. What do you think Honor?

I don't think the Mueller saga really changed anyone's political opinions. Truth will be determined by the electoral college. If Trump does win, he needs to really clean house if he doesn't want another 4 years of investigations and alleged scandals.

My personal opinion, with no claim to have particular insight into the minds of Democrat representatives or the DNC, is that the impeachment proceedings have some sincere, earnest belief behind them that Trump has indeed committed impeachable offenses. I don't think it's purely political. I do think most people on both sides are skeptical that the Senate will remove Trump from office even if the House impeaches him so there is a political element to the proceedings.

I've listened to the testimonies on Wednesday and Friday, and my sense is the Republicans are probably winning the appeal to those who most need to hear the case made and may genuinely be in a place where the proceedings would move their opinion. The quote from Chris Stewart on Friday is one example where that kind of direct line of questioning has a certain appeal, clarity of the intent and provides bite-sized answers from the witness made for the modern media environment. I thought similar questions on Wednesday regarding Trump providing bullets rather than blankets had the clarity of message that probably appeals to voters in critical swing districts who aren't invested enough to dig into the issues themselves but need to be persuaded. The headlines on Wednesday and Friday are often more direct and edited than the actual proceedings, which I think is deceptive. The Democrats would do well to enforce some discipline in their questioning, have an objective for each participant, and use the witness to make the point.

That said, there is so much churn around Sondland and the revelations from Wednesday and in yesterday's closed door session that this coming week could make all of the above irrelevant. If Sondland is interested in not going to jail for Trump it's quite possible next Thursday we'll be talking about this in a very, very different light.

Uh, yeah. The conversation just changed and biggly.

[_honorentheos]

It seems Guilliani is out of wiggle room now given Sondland put him in the crosshairs of the investigation with nowhere to go. The next question is if Guilliani is willing to go to jail for Trump?

[_EAllusion]

It seems Guilliani is out of wiggle room now given Sondland put him in the crosshairs of the investigation with nowhere to go. The next question is if Guilliani is willing to go to jail for Trump?

He’s got separate legal troubles, but what process related to here results in him going to jail? Congress has been very reluctant to use its contempt powers to force testimony.

If he were to go to jail, the smart play seems to be to wait a little bit until Trump is re-elected with the kind of tactics Giuliani was working on, then get a pardon. Congress isn’t going to impeach Trump again for corrupt pardons. It’s less than a year.