Impeachment hearings

[_EAllusion]

Again, it seems like you're trying to mind read with the benefit of hindsight and pretend like people make fully rational decisions. What Trump was asking for was interested in was an announcement of an investigation. He could use that to knock Biden out of a crowded primary field and never have to face running against him. If the investigation is completed before the primary and exonerates Biden, then he just does what he always does and attacks the investigation as inadequate, or corrupt, or whatever. After all, it wasn't HIS investigation (and you know how corrupt Ukraine is. That Zelensky -- thought he was a good guy but he turned out to be just another crook. Frankly, I have a hard time imagining that Trump would see any risk from the scenario you describe.

In terms of intent, it's entirely appropriate to infer intent from the nature of the act. Suspicion that Biden committed a crime does not justify pressuring, extorting, or bribing another head of state to even conduct an investigation into a political opponent -- let alone to PUBLICLY announce the opening of an investigation. The use of his fixer as a back channel to communicate terms of the deal is sufficient to infer corrupt intent. (Which is the intent required under federal law for bribery.) There is no requirement that the intent element be proved by evidence independent from the evidence used to to prove the act.

The focus on getting a televised announcement of the investigation, with assistance writing it from Trump people no less, gives the game away there. One, because it shows the real desire was the propaganda value, but also, that's completely backwards if you were interested in actually investigating the matter.

[_EAllusion]

Subgenius apparently thinks if you say, "no crimes" while discussing your crimes, you're in the clear. Buncha criminal masterminds we got over here.

(I know he doesn't really think this. He's pretending to be stupid(er) to pwn the libs.)

[_EAllusion]

>gang of unelected deep state bureaucrats decide they hate drumpf more than they care about ethics/doing their jobs/not breaking the law/etc.

>abuse their power and access in increasingly harebrained and embarrassing schemes to drive the elected president out of office or otherwise thwart his plans

These also include Trump appointees. At a certain point, continuously arguing that Trump is hiring traitorous, inept, unethical morons says something about his performance in one key aspects of Presidential duties, does it not?

I know Trump cannot fail; he can only be failed. But if we take this apologetic used over and over again at face value, then Trump has a hell of a record surrounding himself with failure.

[_EAllusion]

The leader of Republicans in the House is now fully embracing the "Ukraine meddled in the US election" counternarrative. I know the media has a vague, almost ineffable tolerance of Republican mendacity because that's what everyone expects of them, but it should concern people how utterly Orwellian this is.

It's not one bad actor. It's the party. Parties behaving like this eventually get to the point that they just don't lose elections. They lose wars and revolutions. Not elections.

[_EAllusion]

There's probably enough polling out at this point to see that support for impeachment peaked about a month ago and has receded a little bit. This parallels Trump's approval numbers dipping a couple of points and gradually going back to where he was. The Ukraine story and subsequent impeachment stories seemed to have caused the public to invert on impeachment opinions for/against, stagnated, and now it is lowering just a bit. Impeachment is still supported by a slight plurality of Americans, but the trend in decline of support may be ongoing.

The evidence could not be more obvious. I do wonder if this is the 10%'ers getting riled up by the explosive news, then reverting back to prior trends.

I think this supports honor's view that getting support for impeachment best works when you have a simple story to tell with easy, soundbyte level explications of wrongdoing. I'd retort that even the most straightforward things can be made complex rather quick as we've seen. I think this supports my view that what "works" as far as public opinion is concerned is when Trump is staggered by one damning story after the next. Once the complexity, both-sideism, and right-wing agitprop set in, it's quicksand.

[_EAllusion]

I caught this from Brian Beutler:

Everyone's forgotten by now, but the transcript of the secret 2016 conversation where @GOPLeader says Putin pays Trump, then @PRyan swears everyone to secrecy? It begins with a lengthy, sympathetic explanation of the plight Ukrainian reformers face.

https://Twitter.com/brianbeutler/status ... 9330574337

Rereading the exchange, the conversation over Russian propaganda as it relates to Ukraine is both dead-on and a gut punch. The story was largely dismissed when it broke because it was passed the point anyone could do anything about it and Paul Ryan claimed they were just joking around. In the present context of the Republican party now adopting Russian disinformation with respect to Ukraine more or less as a formal position, it feels relevant again.

[_EAllusion]

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/2 ... ler-072698

Politico is reporting that Democrats may after all fold the obstruction aspects of the Mueller report into impeachment hearings as well...

[Guest]

...Fox News - Trump impeachment hearings day five: live updates

TL:DR
Sondland admits Trump didn't instruct him to quid pro quo

Two things. One, Sondland states unequivocally that this was the express instruction of the President given to him via Rudy Giuliani. President says to Sondland, Giuliani dictates my policy and desires on Ukraine. Giuliani instructs explicit quid pro quo. Secondly, Holmes testified that he heard Trump explicitly detail the quid pro quo to Sondland during lunch.

Ukrains admits they didn't beleive there was quid pro quo

Three things. First, Ukraine "loves Trump's ass" and will "do anything he wants" so this should also include saying whatever he wants them to say to further benefit him. Secondly, the testimony of a victim of bribery is not valid when the guilty party still holds leverage over him; this should be obvious. Thirdly, I've seen no evidence that Ukraine has said "no quid pro quo." All I've seen are repeated claims by republicans that Zelensky said he didn't feel "pressure" about this. But what he "feels" is irrelevant to the fact that we already know he was asked several times to announce publicly that he would investigate the Bidens and that the release of the funding was conditioned on that.

Hill admits she doesn't like how President runs State dept.

Because he runs it incompetently. Hill is well respected and knows how the job is done, unlike the President.

Demis refuse to admit they have no evidence of a crime being committed by President......again.

Evidence exists all over the place. Evidence of obstruction, abuse of power, bribery, violating the emoluments clause, and most recently, perjury.

[Guest]

https://www.politico.com/news/2019/11/22/impeachment-robert-mueller-072698

Politico is reporting that Democrats may after all fold the obstruction aspects of the Mueller report into impeachment hearings as well...

They would be foolish not to. I never really understood the argument that the impeachment needed to be about just one thing in the most simplified manner. Most Americans aren't knuckle-dragging simpletons just because describes most of Trump's base. The President is guilty of a multiplicity of crimes and he should be held to account for all of them. The onus will be on the Republicans in the Senate to exonerate him, and when they do (and they will) it will forever stain the Republican party and they'll no longer be able to talk about the rule of law as a driving force behind so many of their bigoted policies (i.e. we don't hate immigrants, we just respect the "rule of law"). Republicans think the rule of law doesn't apply to old rich white men.

I would also take it a step further and bring up his past as a con artist. This man has a history that shows a blatant disregard for what's ethical and more importantly legal. From defrauding Americans with his Trump University scam to his recent theft from his own charity for veterans. The courts have decided already that he has done these things so the Republicans really have no defense on those fronts. All they've done is try to detract attention away from these things by obsessively rambling about Steele Dossier and "No collusion."

[_Icarus]

Its funny how this all started with Republicans implying that they'd be appalled if Trump had actually done any of these things. Now in a matter of weeks their views have quickly changed from "No he didn't" to "so what if he did."

When the whistle-blower complaint was released their defense was:

"That's just hearsay"

They harped on this talking point for weeks but then more and more witnesses with first hand knowledge came forth. All they do at that point is fall back on technicalities and try to distance Trump from these people. Trump hilariously went on the air to say he doesn't even know Gordon Sondland that well. A man who can call him from a cell phone and banter with him using four letter curse words. A man who he tapped to be ambassador because he received a $1 million gift. That's the man he doesn't really know.

The people saying Trump and Sondland aren't close are the same people who basically married Barrack Obama to Bill Ayers and Jeremiah Wright.

So now that there are multiple witnesses with first hand knowledge of Trump's crime, how do the Republicans respond? With actions that prove they never really cared about the rule of law to begin with. All they care about is politics.