Impeachment hearings

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

NBC news reported at 10:28 am MST that most of the Republicans left the room. Rep. Stewart (Utah), perhaps Trump’s most vocal defender, is among those who left. Fine public servants we have there.

- Doc

[_Jersey Girl]

NBC news reported at 10:28 am MST that most of the Republicans left the room. Rep. Stewart (Utah), perhaps Trump’s most vocal defender, is among those who left. Fine public servants we have there.

- Doc

Cam. I have not been able to watch even 5 minutes of the hearings--IRL. Why did they leave the room? Protest? What? Whose testimony did this follow?

[_mikwut]

Hi Res,

I am about 80% there. Maybe 85%. My last obstacle is getting into minds and intentions particularly of the President. Doesn't a paradox rise the more obvious the dastardly deed and bribery (the impeachable offense) is, shouldn't we have more than the whistleblower raising it as a actual criminal concern beyond just "inappropriate" that we consistently get from the witnesses?

And if the bribery is so clear doesn't it become ridiculous to do it through the channels that what ever was communicated was communicated, just right there out in the open a straight up unambiguous and obvious impeachable offense?

mikwut

[_EAllusion]

I think it is reasonably clear from the totality of evidence that Trump was interested in a public show of investigation of Biden to launder propaganda through the seeming legitimacy of a 3rd party to get the general media to bite. Getting the actual investigation seems secondary to this and would, if it was a legitimate investigation, actively undermine it.

The framing of the President wanting investigations, as euphemistic as that is, seems off.

[_EAllusion]

Hi Res,

I am about 80% there. Maybe 85%. My last obstacle is getting into minds and intentions particularly of the President. Doesn't a paradox rise the more obvious the dastardly deed and bribery (the impeachable offense) is, shouldn't we have more than the whistleblower raising it as a actual criminal concern beyond just "inappropriate" that we consistently get from the witnesses

And if the bribery is so clear doesn't it become ridiculous to do it through the channels that what ever was communicated was communicated, just right there out in the open a straight up unambiguous and obvious impeachable offense?

mikwut

They don’t come across as smart criminals. Hubristic and bumbling would be my description. But hey, they were pretty close to getting away with it, so *shrugs.*

It’s not for the fact witnesses to label the nature of the offense. I find that complaint strange. If they describe what amounts to bribery/extortion, it doesn’t matter if they use that word.

[_EAllusion]

Man, Republicans are *really* hammering Trump’s response that he wanted no quid or quo as if it’s exculpatory. How much do you have to have forgotten about human behavior to think that’s a good line?

What did you do yesterday?

Certainly no homicides. I loved Julie. Good day sir.

[_mikwut]

Hi E,

They don’t come across as smart criminals. Hubristic and bumbling would be my description.

Then we seem to agree, that's my concern.

It’s not for the fact witnesses to label the nature of the offense. I find that complaint strange. If they describe what amounts to bribery/extortion, it doesn’t matter if they use that word.

I'm not asking for witness testimony to say the word. I'm talking about actions parallel in time to the whistleblower stating the seemingly obvious impeachable offense. We should see more outrage the more obvious it seemingly was. As in witnesses making additional complaints or stated concerns to higher ups in action. Otherwise, my obviousness paradox, isn't it the equivalent of witnesses to a bank robbery just letting it happen and not even calling the police, except one party that heard about it afterwards, and then just saying I believed it was inappropriate when on the stand?

Thanks, mikwut

[_EAllusion]

Hi E,

Thanks, mikwut

They we’re in the admin and stayed silent as far as alerting the public is concerned. I think if they were to use words more appropriate to what they witnessed, they would implicitly be attacking themselves. I think the price of getting their testimony is allowing them to soft sell their inaction.

It should make everyone wonder what other things careerists have seen they have begrudgingly not blown the whistle on.

[_Jersey Girl]

EA if you have a moment please. Trump tried to smear Biden via the Ukraine's announcement of an investigation. On the bargaining (extortion) table was aide to the Ukraine and a meeting at the White House.

If I have got this right.

Do you think it's been proven now? If congress were actually able to impeach Trump (I understand the Republican Senators vote problem), but if congress were actually able to impeach him, would there be a way to actually remove Trump from office? Could he be criminally charged?

[_EAllusion]

In fairness, whistleblowing is hard. That’s true in corporate hierarchies and probably is much harder in this context. People fall in line.