Donald rails against impeachment -- doesn't think there should be public hearings

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,773
17,075
✟1,389,285.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think you have the transcript. Do you have words which absolutely reveals clear intent that Trump said unless you give information to me to beat my opponent in the 2020 election you will not receive any aid.

In a court room, a jury does not need the defendant to "absolutely reveal clear intent" to decide a guilty verdict. A defendant's actions, credibility, past behavior, the testimony of witnesses and a multitude of other factors can lead a juror to decide one is guilty.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GodLovesCats
Upvote 0

TLK Valentine

I've already read the books you want burned.
Apr 15, 2012
64,493
30,319
Behind the 8-ball, but ahead of the curve.
✟541,512.00
Country
United States
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Single
I think you have the transcript. Do you have words which absolutely reveals clear intent that Trump said unless you give information to me to beat my opponent in the 2020 election you will not receive any aid. Without such a declaration you have mere speculation and it'll go down in history that they impeached the President on something that wasn't substantial.


First of all, we have the edited transcript that Donald allowed to be released. Let's hear testimony to determine if that transcrit is not only the truth, but the whole truth, mmmkay?

Second, when a Mob boss is caught talking to one of his button men on the phone, how do you think the conversation sounds?

"Listen, George -- I want you to go to 377 Hamilton Street, home of Vincent Lupo, aka "Vinnie the Pin," and shoot him twice in the back of the head. You head me correctly, George... I am hereby ordering you to murder Vincent Lupo."

Anything less would be speculation, and we certainly shouldn't waste our time investigating the unfortunate death of Mr. Lupo, now should we?

I get it you don't like Trump. But this issue is bigger than he. You're setting the criteria for all future Presidents to be ousted out of power based on opinions rather than actual words in a text.

I get it you love Donald and will say anything, do anything, think anything to protect him. But you're right -- the issue is bigger than he. We have witnesses ready to testify that a crime has been committed, and a president desperate to make sure those witnesses never testify. This bears investigation...

...don't you think?

Who said it's blown out of the water?

Reality -- or haven't you noticed that even Donald's most loyal defenders in Congress are one by one abandoning the "No quid pro quo" mantra?

Get in step, my friend -- the playbook is as such:

1. There was no quid pro quo
2. There was a quid pro quo, but it wasn't illegal.
3. There was a quid pro quo and it was illegal, but Giuliani did it all by himself.

The Senate Republicans are already moving from mantra #1 to mantra #2 -- don't be left behind; it'll be awkward when they move on to mantra #3 without you...

And as for your next link and line Republicans try a different approach. Who said they're changing their argument? You've never heard about arguing one's case from different perspectives? You make a demand that a Quid Pro Quo is actually wrong when in fact legally speaking it's not.

Except it is wrong -- and many of the Senate Republicans, having read the testimony, can no longer argue that it didn't happen. So now they're arguing that it's not impeachable.

When that defense fails, they'll hang Giuliani out to dry... and so will you.

So even if it were allowed you there was so what? But what's the intent of the QPQ would determine it's right or wrong. And also you had the leader of Ukraine openly saying he had no conscious thought when it came to QPQ that there even was one!

If he wants his foreign aid, he had better say that! That's kind of the whole point of the QPQ...

...don't you think?

So this is what they impeach the President on? That's the best they've got?

Any time Donald wants to sign a confession, that's be nice of course... but criminals have been convicted without one.

Give investigators a little credit -- some of them are quite good at what they do.

Well TLK you're doing what Schiff did. You're making up words of things that aren't actually in the transcript.

There's a lot that's not actually in the transcript -- we'd rather know what was in the conversation.

You need to protect future Presidents of the United States by not signing on to such a low bar of defining just what are facts instead of theory. Future generations will thank you for reconsidering your position.

Future generations will behave themselves should they be elected president... they will know that they are being held to the highest standards of ethics, they will know that even the appearance of impropriety is unacceptable, and they will not use the office for personal gain.

They will remember the words that Lindsey Graham said -- before he sold out his principles:

graham-quote.jpg


The absolute highest office in the land must be held to the absolute highest standards...

don't you think?
 
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
I think you have the transcript. Do you have words which absolutely reveals clear intent that Trump said unless you give information to me to beat my opponent in the 2020 election you will not receive any aid. Without such a declaration you have mere speculation and it'll go down in history that they impeached the President on something that wasn't substantial. I get it you don't like Trump. But this issue is bigger than he. You're setting the criteria for all future Presidents to be ousted out of power based on opinions rather than actual words in a text.

It is not speculation at all. The placements of three ellipses after "I want you to me a favor though" (all in the same paragraph that Trump spoke those words) makes their meaning obvious. In addition, Bill Taylor knows exactly which words were omitted and replaced with ellipses immediately after that phrase. So the idea this is all specutation has already bene thrown out the window.
 
Upvote 0

Basil the Great

Well-Known Member
Supporter
Mar 9, 2009
4,766
4,085
✟721,243.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Green
Broadcast, cable networks to televise impeachment hearings


They'll all be streaming the coverage across their digital platforms.

CBS was the first to announce detailed plans. They'll pre-empt their regular daytime programming to have their Evening News anchor Norah O’Donnell leading their coverage, beginning on Wednesday with the testimony of Bill Taylor and George Kent, and then proceeding on November 15 with the testimony from Marie Yovanovitch. Numerous experienced correspondents will contribute to their coverage. CBS This Morning will also be dedicated to discussing the hearings.

PBS will broadcast the hearings live with analysis from their NewsHours team. They'll also air the hearings in primetime on their digital channel carried by 157 public TV stations. And it will be available across all PBS digital platforms - their website, their PBS video app which runs on smartphones and on Apple, Roku, smart TVs.

Plus! The BBC has said it is going to show Trump's impeachment hearings in full. Their coverage will also be available on their app, website.
Thanks ,much. I will relay the info to mom and she will not be a happy camper that her two soaps will be pre-empted.
 
  • Friendly
Reactions: Ada Lovelace
Upvote 0

GodLovesCats

Well-Known Member
Mar 16, 2019
7,401
1,328
47
Florida
✟117,917.00
Country
United States
Faith
Protestant
Marital Status
Single
In a court room, a jury does not need the defendant to "absolutely reveal clear intent" to decide a guilty verdict. A defendant's actions, credibility, past behavior, the testimony of witnesses and a multitude of other factors can lead a juror to decide one is guilty.

This would obviously prove Donald Trump should be convicted because he will be impeached for a pattern of abusive, unprofessional, inappropriate, and illegal behavior in office.

The way I see it, if Trump had nothing to hide, he would have released the full unedited call transcript, so just the fact it is on a secret classified server while a summary was publicized is proof he is guilty.
 
Upvote 0

stevil

Godless and without morals
Feb 5, 2011
6,967
5,730
✟247,356.00
Country
New Zealand
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The way I see it, if Trump had nothing to hide, he would have released the full unedited call transcript, so just the fact it is on a secret classified server while a summary was publicized is proof he is guilty.
I disagree that it is proof he is guilty.
1. I don't know if there is a word for word transcript of the phone call.
2. If the "minutes" of the call are put together via a process of "official" witnesses putting their heads together and drafting it up, editing it and agreeing on a final version and then filing it, then there might be a degree of sanitising going on, although too much sanitising might invoke "whistleblower" complaints, so they have a check on their ability to portray the conversation differently to what went down. But obviously there would be an ability to do some tweaking, no-one remembers conversations word for word. and the "..." seems like it was a compromise, those doing the sanitising would probably have preferred not to put "..." at all, but others probably would have liked mention of something in there (we don't know what that something is) It might be that one person thinks it was this and someone else thought it was that or it could be more nefarious that someone wanted to hide something that was said and another person was somehow convinced that removing the something was ok as long as at least something was put there.

What I do wonder though is this.

Let's say the Democrats win the next election.
Will this new President have access to this top secret file server?
Will they be able to see what went on?
Will they be able to declassify that detail and make it available to the authorities and/or the public?
If the authorities see it and are concerned then they can take action, without needing to be instructed by the new president. The old president will obviously no longer be a sitting president.
 
Upvote 0

Kentonio

Well-Known Member
Jan 25, 2018
7,467
10,458
48
Lyon
✟266,564.00
Country
France
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
What I do wonder though is this.

Let's say the Democrats win the next election.
Will this new President have access to this top secret file server?
Will they be able to see what went on?
Will they be able to declassify that detail and make it available to the authorities and/or the public?
If the authorities see it and are concerned then they can take action, without needing to be instructed by the new president. The old president will obviously no longer be a sitting president.

They could but almost certainly wouldn't. As soon as they started the process the Republicans would cause a massive uproar about the new President trying to punish their predecessor and the new Presidents honeymoon momentum would evaporate as they got bogged down in this rather than whatever policy objectives they want to achieve.

Justice comes very far behind political consideration for both parties in reality.
 
Upvote 0