Impeachment hearings

[_EAllusion]

Yeah. Trump totally shies away from things because he’s worried what Democrats think of him. Uh huh.

- Doc

The crazy thing here is I think we've seen enough to know that the Trump admin probably could just straight up get away with the Barr-led DoJ running sham investigations of his opponents at this point. The media is *that* broken, but they clearly thought it was important to launder this through a foreign party to make it seem legitimate and to avoid allegations of misuse of law enforcement.

After Trump is acquitted, this might be a lesson learned for the future.

The other crazy thing is that they were very close to it working. The announcement was agreed upon and set to go. Ukraine was successfully extorted. The whistle blower complaint stopped it at the 11th hour.

[_mikwut]

I'll try to catch up here, first canpakes:

mikwut wrote:
Here is the pdf to the book Trump in interviews admitted he read well before any of the drama exploded, http://willzuzak.ca/cl/corruption/Schwe ... mpires.pdf just go to the Biden chapter.

Well, I guess that Trump never made it to Chapter 12, or he would have had to announce investigations into himself and his own family as well, based on the reasoning you're offering here.

Yup. And that's consistent with my own reasoning. I am not a Trump supporter. I hate the two party system we have that is part of the root of many of our political nihilistic problems. Religious adherents to the left and the right harm our country under this system. It is corrupt, broken and terribly damaging to our Republic. In this climate there exists a weird psychology phenomena that when something is being said critical of congress or the democrats then it is just Trump religious support. The phenomena is knee deep on both sides. I join the Trump critical chorus in all kinds of matters I just don't turn a blind eye to the other side.

Dr Cam:

Fact: Trump threatened to block $400 million in promised aid while they are under an illegal invasion by Russia.

Fact: Transparent, unambiguous extortion with nearly half a billion dollars of US taxpayer money.

Well let's see if those are indeed facts. I don't know of any testimony in the impeachment hearings that doesn't just rely on timing of the aid as supposed proof that Trump himself blocked it for nefarious purposes. The best direct evidence I am aware of is the OMB letter from counsel Mark Paoletta regarding the issue. If it was as you say so unambiguous than the funds would have been withheld with what is called a deferral. But the OMB made great pains to state the delay in funding was not a deferral. The letter stated, "if compliance with constitutionally non-binding directives from Congressional committees to ‘hold’ funds is not a deferral, then certainly a delay in obligating funds arising from a Presidential direction that a policy process is necessary prior to making obligations [i]cannot be[/i].” Emphasis mine The letter insists the release of funds was consistent with prior practices.

Remember also what you are saying here and what you would need to "unambiguously" prove to also convince me and what I consider the reasonable man divorced from the hystrionics of the left and right is a flat out dead pan conspiracy. The OMB is directed by Mulvaney who indeed is a Trump appointee but it is by and large made up of state employees, they are not appointed by the president or political advocates for him they are just bean counters and paper pushers by and large. Trump, through Mulvaney would have had to straight on conspiracy wink akin to our 911 thread and worked or threatened these employees to break the law - and why would they do that? It would all need to be answered. Now I understand the President has blocked witnesses from testifying but that is part of a greater constitutional argument the president is making about the entire impeachment proceedings not just this narrow aspect, so we don't know unambiguously but presumptively and that isn't good enough for me when we are talking such serious constitutional matters. I don't reach certainty and unambiguity so easily, neither did our framers. That is opposite of my criminal defense training where you don't get those presumptions.

I can't believe we’re doing this, but bananas seems to be the order of the day so here goes nothing.

It definitely is bananas, opiods are seriously killing more Americans than we spent on a ridiculous war in Afganistan that cost us more than what we spent post wwII on reconstructing Europe. Millions of jobs will soon be lost to automation in the very near future and Andrew Yang is the only one talking about it and his own party is keeping him from election far better than any Republican could. If you don't think that going unaddressed won't birth even more MAGA had wearing crazies think again. Our civil rights are seriously reduced and still under attack and no one seems to give a damn. God I could go on but the essay would end with in spite of all the hard core reality impeachment over corruption that is cound up and down our democracy is all consuming. That is mental. That is insane.

1) July 25 2019 with newly elected Ukrainian President Zelensky, President Trump attempted to solicit the support of a foreign government by requesting an investigation against one of his political opponents. President Trump repeatedly made requests including opening up an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his role in the firing of a Ukrainian prosecutor that Trump claims was supposedly unfairly shut down by Biden because he supposedly feared his son was being investigated. That’s pretty much it in a nutshell.

Yup. And I am not satisfied at all he didn't have at a minimum a rational basis for believing those things. Just because one side calls it a conspiracy theory doesn't convince me. Facts that we are still missing is what convinces me. He referred Zelensky to AG Barr as well and he discussed broader corruption he was concerned with as well as Biden.

2) Days before his conversation with Ukrainian leader Zelensky the Trump administration illegally withheld Congressional approved aid allocated to Ukraine.

As I have stated. That is not what the OMB said happened. The timing of the money being held right before the call isn't damning but almost exculpatory for the President given the OMB letter because pauses don't occur with such a wave of the immediate hand. And it would be a direct interruption of the process legally in stream. It would be obvious. The statutes for the President to defer had already passed, there would be problems but you find unambiguous that in your narrative dozens from two different departments the Pentagon and the OMB would just popped to attention like nutbreaker soldiers because President said. Ok. unambiguous and certain and factual. Not in my world.

3) After a whistleblower from the Director of National Intelligence filed a complaint that stated President Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the US 2020 election," characterizing the conduct as a "serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of law". President Trump has been attempting to cover all of this up. There’s your ____ mens rea, Mikwut.

A complaint is fine. Just think of the extent of what your saying. There isn't one person sitting with a check book and Trump called her and told her don't write the Ukraine check. Then on September 11 called her and told her to cover crap up and she doesn't know anything about the law of the funds being allocated and released. You have to double the conspiracy over to the Pentagon because part of the funds were distributed to be released there. You were in the military right? I was. What's your guess on how far down his sweeping up the mess would have to go, and nobody but your cherished whistleblower says peep, c'mon? We got a whistle blower we can't cross examine but no other member of this vast conspiracy saying anything? You going to join me now on the towers coming down right? I can agree with Republicans about confronting one's accusers because that is found directly in the Constitution and that is unambiguous.

And no that is an assertion that needs proof not proof of mens rea.

4) A Trump appointed Inspector General detailed his concerns in letters where he stated that the whistleblower complaint being kept from Congress was both urgent and “relates to one of the most important and significant of the (Director of National Intelligence)’s responsibilities to the American people.”

So your saying the bureaucratic conspiracy has another layer yet but it provides proof your narrative is unambiguous? Ok.

5) The US Ambassador to the EU and major Trump campaign donor Gordon Sondland has stated that this was a quid pro quo deal. Furthermore, top US diplomat Bill Taylor testified to Congress that President Trump extorted Ukrainian President Zelensky by withholding $400 million in military aid. President Trump wanted President Zelensky to publicly state on CNN that he was opening up an investigation into Biden.

Jesus, he said in his direct phone call with Trump that Trump said no quid pro quo. Bill Taylor does not have all the information to make that statement certain he had to make inferences based on the timing, if he was crossed with the OMB letter he would have said something completely different. Why don't you recognize how often you just assume one sides narrative and don't even address the other?

Asan aside millions still hasn’t made its way to Ukraine:

https://www.latimes.com/politics/story/ ... ed-ukraine

Just remember, Trump released aid in 2017, he released aid in 2018, but suddenly he became concerned about corruption in 2019 after Vice President Biden announced that he was going to run. That’s it. That’s the bottom line.

There were also normal delays in those funds as well.

mikwut

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

“I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a ‘quid pro quo’?” Sondland said. “. . . With regard to the requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes.”

[_EAllusion]

There's a push to have Justin Amash be one of the House impeachment managers. I would be thrilled to see this and think it is smart political strategy, but there's something amusing in the stories I'm seeing on it. In sources friendly to the idea, he's being described as one of the most conservative remembers in Congress. Amash's politics are near identical to mine, and what I find is I get described as a radical liberal or conservative depending what is convenient for the person agreeing or disagreeing with me. It's as predictable as the phases of the moon.

Because it's important to play up the "even the conservative agrees!" angle, all of a sudden he's the most conservative who ever did conservative.

[_honorentheos]

But what did Biden do with regard to to Burisma, the Ukrainian government, and his son that needs perception management? Maybe that’ll help someone like myself trying to follow your line of reasoning now that I’m back on track.

Like I said, if Trump or the DoJ had cause for concern back in 2016, 2017, 2018, or now 2019 why wasn’t a probe conducted and, say, they grabbed all of Biden’s State departments communications for review?

in my opinion, the facts around Biden are so obvious once one looks into them it doesn't require investigation to recognize there's nothing there. The bar is so low for the facts being able to overturn the optics there's no reasonable scenario where a legitimate investigation would need to go past an initial review of the facts.

What requires perception management is that the basic outline looks bad. Not only does it look bad, it almost sounds like the same thing Trump is accused of which means it takes on some of the shine of the facts around Trump's own acts for basic human psychological reasons. Continued influence effects, attribution biases, etc., mean the similarities rub off on how one perceives each being potentially valid at a superficial level.

So the problem is at a superficial level Biden demanding the removal of Shokin looks quite bad. As I put it previously, the narrative being tossed around by Republicans - "Hunter Biden was hired by Burisma! The president of Burisma was under investigation for corruption by the Ukraine prosecutor general's office! Joe Biden told the President of Ukraine if he didn't get rid of the PG they wouldn't get aid money! JOE BIDEN COVERED UP FOR HIS SON'S CLIENT! CORRUPTION!" - holds up on first glance up to the conclusion so one can easily arrive at the conclusion by simply becoming aware of the initial claims and realizing they are true. Hunter Biden WAS hired by Burisma, and Joe Biden DID demand the removal of the prosecutor general on condition of aid being released.

Were the optics not what they are, I'd not argue the Democrats need to confront it. But that's not the case.

For EA's analogy to hold, I'd have to be doing something that, on first review, really looks like I was a pedophile. So, perhaps if we put a different, let's say it's a hypothetical poster in place instead who doesn't resemble a real poster on this board at all. But let's suppose this poster has posted things on the board that get pretty creepy about wanting to have a relationship with a younger person. And let's say the claim is made this person is a pedophile. That person will end up having a lot more people seriously consider the possibility given the initial review of the facts make it seem like it's possible. Assuming they are not actually one, they'd probably still need to do something, especially if the claims are likely to lead to real consequences for them if not addressed.

The Republican counterargument to impeachment is building on this idea Joe Biden did something that the House wasn't willing to look into, instead trying to use Trump's concern for said apparent impropriety to overturn the 2016 election since they can't win in 2020 on their own. So the Senate is shutting down a political boondoggle when they clear Trump and move on.

[_EAllusion]

For EAllusion's analogy to hold, I'd have to be doing something that, on first review, really looks like I was a pedophile.

Look, these serious allegations of criminal pedophile behavior against you aren't something for me to litigate. That should be for the police. But you have been known to be awfully friendly to kids, which looks bad on the surface.

The Republican counterargument to impeachment is building on this idea Joe Biden did something that the House wasn't willing to look into, instead trying to use Trump's concern for said apparent impropriety to overturn the 2016 election since they can't win in 2020 on their own. So the Senate is shutting down a political boondoggle when they clear Trump and move on.

They're doing that because they want to turn impeachment into an opportunity to hurt Joe Biden and make impeachment seem like a complicated morass of accusations and counter-accusations, you goof. The more it is engaged, the more it has that desired effect.

[_honorentheos]

The bar for clearing up what actually happened is so low given the nature of the facts, it's silly not to shut it down. Instead, every time it's brought up it gets the, "There is no evidence of actual wrong doing" given as the response. Which carries an implication the evidence is unavailable. It's not a strategy to avoid addressing it. It's accepting the counter narrative and letting it become the only narrative.

[_EAllusion]

The bar for clearing up what actually happened is so low given the nature of the facts, it's silly not to shut it down. Instead, every time it's brought up it gets the, "There is no evidence of actual wrong doing" given as the response. Which carries an implication the evidence is unavailable. It's not a strategy to avoid addressing it. It's accepting the counter narrative and letting it become the only narrative.

"There is no evidence of wrongdoing" gets trotted out because mainstream journalistic ethics prevents reporters from saying, "So-and-so is deceiving you with false allegations." "No evidence of wrongdoing" is meant to be an attempt at fairness that deliberately stops short of implying the accuser is misleading or misled. It does give the implication that evidence could be found, and moreover, it turns out people are influenced in favor of allegations simply from the act of hearing about them.

You don't defeat this by getting wrapped up into a longer debate over baseless allegations because people are influenced by merely hearing the allegations. If you want to deal with the "there is no evidence of wrongdoing" you're better off trying to get journalists to do their job properly. It's not a great option either way, which is why Republicans have an incentive to be shameless liars, but you're just going to fuel the fire if you let innuendo against you become the topic of focus.

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

Amash's politics are near identical to mine, and what I find is I get described as a radical liberal or conservative depending what is convenient for the person agreeing or disagreeing with me. It's as predictable as the phases of the moon.

Who accused you of being a Conservative? I find that difficult to believe that someone would believe that.

- Doc

[_Doctor CamNC4Me]

The bar for clearing up what actually happened is so low given the nature of the facts, it's silly not to shut it down. Instead, every time it's brought up it gets the, "There is no evidence of actual wrong doing" given as the response. Which carries an implication the evidence is unavailable. It's not a strategy to avoid addressing it. It's accepting the counter narrative and letting it become the only narrative.

I mean, people who support Trump have deliberately divorced themselves from reality in service of their GOP fetish. They just believe whatever the current Trump sycophant pundit says and can't be bothered to read or listen for themselves either because it's too burdensome or confusing.

So, how do you get the point across that some crackhead ex-Navy son of privilege landed a $600/k job without Biden's influence, and that while not illegal, it just looks bad, but hey, while we're getting sidetracked talking about Biden's nepotism, or influence peddling, or suggested venality we'll just ignore everything about Trump because why the “F” not? I'd suggest getting into a Kobayashi Maru is pointless because we already know there's no winning by talking about Hunter Biden's employment. In other words, the Democrats need to do a better job at hammering away at Trump's quid pro quo and that that is illegal. Period.

- Doc