Thoughts - Day one of the Impeachment hearings

FreeinChrist

CF Advisory team
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2003
144,978
17,393
USA/Belize
✟1,748,098.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Interesting day it was. I have a lot of thoughts swirling around.

First, the GOP had no defense. It was pathetic. Nunes just stated conspiracy junk.
House Republicans Did A Really Bad Job Defending Trump From Ukraine Allegations

Throughout the nearly six-hour hearing, Republican members of the House Intelligence Committee veered between defending the idea of investigating corruption in Ukraine, and Hunter Biden in particular, and simultaneously claiming it was outrageous to suggest the president would do so. They shouted easily refutable criticism of the witnesses’ testimony and spoke of baseless conspiracy theories popularized in the deep reaches of conservative media. At times the witnesses — both experts in U.S. policy on Ukraine — appeared confused by the far-right line of questioning.​


They ignored many things -like that Trump only released aid 2 days after the current inquiry was announced, and less than a day before the planned televised announcement that Trump wanted was going to happen by President Zelensky. Keep in mind that this was on Sept. 11th, and that the fiscal year for congress ends on Sept. 30th. Was Trump trying to avoid giving any money at all to Ukraine? That would have made Putin happy. On Sept. 26th congress extended the money given to Ukraine:
Senate passes Ukraine aid extension, averts government shutdown for now

The legislation — which primarily serves to extend government funding to Nov. 21, beyond the end of the fiscal year on Sept. 30 — would extend for another year $250 million in Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative funds that are set to expire.

After a two-month freeze, the White House released the aid earlier this month under pressure from lawmakers who said Ukraine needed to help in its ongoing conflict with Russian-backed separatists. Lawmakers had expressed fears Kyiv would not have enough time to spend the money.​



They repeatedly commented on how Trump did more for Ukraine than Obama - ignoring that through most of Obama's administration, Ukraine was led by a pro-Russia president helped into office by former Trump campaign head Paul Manafort.

They repeatedly commented on the idea that this was all hearsay, though first hand witnesses will be coming up and the day's witnesses had first hand knowledge, too, along with second had information. They ignore the fact that the White House is obstructing justice in refusing to cooperate with the House investigation.


Second, the witnesses were sterling! They have led lives of service to the US and were unassailable. Taylor, in particular, was clearly showing he was being nonpartisan. And there is this:
Democrats land damning new evidence in impeachment testimony

The most explosive revelation came from Taylor, who told lawmakers that one of his aides overheard Gordon Sondland — the U.S. ambassador to the European Union and a top Trump campaign donor — on the phone with the president, during which the aide could hear Trump ask about “the investigations.” Taylor said Sondland told the president that the Ukrainians were “ready to move forward.”

The aide told Taylor that Sondland subsequently relayed “that President Trump cares more about the investigations of Biden, which [Rudy] Giuliani was pressing for.” Taylor said he was “not aware of this information” when he testified at a private deposition on Oct. 22, and learned of it only last week.

The aide is David Holmes, a source familiar with the matter told POLITICO.

Impeachment investigators announced during the hearing that Holmes, an official at the U.S. Embassy in Ukraine, is scheduled to testify behind closed doors on Friday, an indication that Democrats’ efforts to unearth new information is active even as they have begun making their public sales pitch to the American people. It is also a reflection of how rapidly the investigation has unfolded, yielding new and often startling evidence on a near-daily basis that has fueled the party’s drive toward the third presidential impeachment in U.S. history.​

Third, my favorite moment was this:


The first 20 seconds are great where he invites President Trump to testify.

I am glad I am retired and can watch the whole thing.
 

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟875,252.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Yesterday didn't offer much new, but it was intended to bring some of the facts to the masses. It established the general framework that the request was made for the investigation, and there was some follow up behind the scenes towards obtaining the investigation. For those paying attention that has been established for some time, since they released the text exchanges before the closed-door hearings.

I think based on everything we know so far there is not much of an argument that it was not an attempted quid pro quo, though it was not ultimately followed through on.

It shows the off-the cuff nature of Trumps operation, working with his team, sometimes without including the rest of those in the government that need to be included. I get that this is partly due to leaks. It also shows that once he got legitimate blow back that this was a bad idea he backed off of it. That is a good thing, though he should have people around him who are less willing to say yes initially, and a lawyer who knows better than to go into that territory to start with.

On the other hand I don't think the election was his main motivation. His words in the call indicate he does think Biden was corrupt, and seems to want to investigate. But I think it is more about his usual willingness to attack anyone who attacks him than a well thought out election scheme.

While they reiterated the framework of the case these two witnesses had not spoken to the president, and could not establish motive. And it will likely come down to that. Republicans are unlikely to vote against Trump unless clear statements come out regarding his intent to sway the election, etc.

Of course, if Rudy testifies who knows what he will say.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟803,537.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
Interesting day it was. I have a lot of thoughts swirling around.

First, the GOP had no defense.
Let me just say that it is not up to the GOP to mount any DEFENSE. In fact, Schiff has prevented the GOP from mounting any real defense.

Regardless, it is up to Democrats to PROVE that Trump committed some impeachable offense. That didn't happen. The star witnesses couldn't even state what impeachable offense might have occurred.
 
Upvote 0

Yttrium

Independent Centrist
May 19, 2019
3,875
4,308
Pacific NW
✟245,071.00
Country
United States
Faith
Skeptic
Marital Status
Single
My thoughts... This is going to set a strong precedent for future presidents.

We have acts by President Trump and his people that are currently considered to be abuses of power by many. Republicans don't seem to have a rational response to this, either attacking the methods of the impeachment investigation, or pushing forward thoroughly debunked conspiracy theories.

The Democrats will lay out a strong case that Trump held up aid to a foreign nation in exchange for political favors, to throw dirt at a political opponent. The Republicans in the Senate won't convict. Thus the precedent will be that this kind of behavior by Trump will be perfectly fine for all future presidents.

Yay.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟875,252.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Let me just say that it is not up to the GOP to mount any DEFENSE. In fact, Schiff has prevented the GOP from mounting any real defense.

Regardless, it is up to Democrats to PROVE that Trump committed some impeachable offense. That didn't happen. The star witnesses couldn't even state what impeachable offense might have occurred.


Yeah, the few times they really tried to mount a defense through rhetoric I think was counter-productive.

To me their best defense is simply that Trump wanted the investigation, but didn't ultimately demand it. He wanted it because the interests of the president of Ukraine and his interests overlapped. The president of Ukraine ran on getting rid of corruption. Trump noted someone on his radar who might have been corrupt.
 
  • Winner
Reactions: rjs330
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟875,252.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
My favorite part of all of yesterday.

their star witness. LOL


I actually thought that was a cheap shot. The guy definitely had strong disagreements with Trump's desire to make aid contingent, but I didn't get the notion that he was out to get the president as much as he was afraid the president was going to mess up the whole situation.

Now that doesn't mean that he was not helpful to those who want to remove the president, and some clearly have for a long time.

But then if Trump knew they were out to get him, and he did, then he needed to have very careful people around him, and Rudy was not that.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,641
15,968
✟486,396.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
Yeah, the few times they really tried to mount a defense through rhetoric I think was counter-productive.

To me their best defense is simply that Trump wanted the investigation, but didn't ultimately demand it. He wanted it because the interests of the president of Ukraine and his interests overlapped. The president of Ukraine ran on getting rid of corruption. Trump noted someone on his radar who might have been corrupt.
And in response, Donald ordered up a bunch of facebook ads against that someone. That's gonna be a hard to sell as the response of someone legitimately concerned about the justice system investigating corruption.
 
Upvote 0

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟875,252.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
And in response, Donald ordered up a bunch of facebook ads against that someone. That's gonna be a hard to sell as the response of someone legitimately concerned about the justice system investigating corruption.

It won't be a hard sell to the intended audience--senate republicans.

However, a calm focus on the facts would be more convincing to independents, etc. Trump just doesn't seem to know when to use that approach.
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,641
15,968
✟486,396.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
It won't be a hard sell to the intended audience--senate republicans.

They'll blow whatever way the people voting for them do.

However, a calm focus on the facts would be more convincing to independents, etc. Trump just doesn't seem to know when to use that approach.
Given the facts in this case, it would be a pretty bad time for him to start now.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

tall73

Sophia7's husband
Site Supporter
Sep 23, 2005
31,991
5,854
Visit site
✟875,252.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Given the facts in this case, it would be a pretty bad time for him to start now.

I disagree. The facts are pretty strong against him. But it will still come down to motivation and intention, and the more he says the worse that will likely go for him.

But I think they have made the calculation already that the Senate will not convict, so get the base angry by noting that people are out to get him.

The drawback to that is that those in the middle may acknowledge that some are out to get him, but they still note that he used poor judgment that walked right into that trap. And the more he calls his actions perfect, the more that turns them off.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Hank77
Upvote 0

FreeinChrist

CF Advisory team
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2003
144,978
17,393
USA/Belize
✟1,748,098.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
My favorite part of all of yesterday.

their star witness. LOL

I like the face Taylor made finally - like "what nonsense is this?!?"
 
Upvote 0

Kenny'sID

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Feb 28, 2016
18,185
7,003
69
USA
✟585,394.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
My favorite part of all of yesterday.

their star witness. LOL


LOL!,

All depending on the outcome, I have to wonder how the Democrats will react to another huge loss here? This in top of losing the election could bring out the worst in an already very vindictive people.Is it any wonder Trump stayed away?

Rated G


That's not a knife....


....THAT'S a knife!
 
Upvote 0

FreeinChrist

CF Advisory team
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2003
144,978
17,393
USA/Belize
✟1,748,098.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
Yeah, the few times they really tried to mount a defense through rhetoric I think was counter-productive.

To me their best defense is simply that Trump wanted the investigation, but didn't ultimately demand it. He wanted it because the interests of the president of Ukraine and his interests overlapped. The president of Ukraine ran on getting rid of corruption. Trump noted someone on his radar who might have been corrupt.
I think he did demand and only backed off once the complaint was made and he then had to back off. He only finally allowed the aid 2 days later and only 19 days before it would have expired.

It does't matter than he didn't succeed. The bank robber who messes up and has to abandon the robbery is still committing a crime.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟803,537.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
It does't matter than he didn't succeed. The bank robber who messes up and has to abandon the robbery is still committing a crime.
Maybe, maybe not. It kind of depends on the point at which the robbery is called off.

For example, shoplifting generally isn't a crime until one has actually left the store without paying for the merchandise. The state of mind, whether intentional or not, doesn't really matter.
 
Upvote 0

FreeinChrist

CF Advisory team
Christian Forums Staff
Site Advisor
Site Supporter
Jul 2, 2003
144,978
17,393
USA/Belize
✟1,748,098.00
Country
United States
Faith
Baptist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat

The aid was withheld and only released after the complaint.
The summary of the transcript where Trump says, "We would like you to do me a favor though...." and there is no mention of any corrupt just the desire for an investigation in the Bidens.
The planned news event by Zelensky was cancelled after the aid was finally released.
Taylor's first hand account of what Sondland told him.

There is more....but when Vindman testifies and the fellow who heard the call between Trump and Sondland testifies, there will be more.

I wonder if the IG will be able to testify?
 
Upvote 0

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,855
17,179
✟1,422,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I think based on everything we know so far there is not much of an argument that it was not an attempted quid pro quo, though it was not ultimately followed through on.

If a robber attempts to steal from your home and gets caught, it's still a crime.
 
Upvote 0

NightHawkeye

Work-in-progress
Site Supporter
Jul 5, 2010
45,814
10,318
✟803,537.00
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Married
If a robber attempts to steal from your home and gets caught, it's still a crime.
Not necessarily.

It depends on whether he's in the house or not. If he hasn't entered the house then, generally speaking, there has not been a crime.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

wing2000

E pluribus unum
Site Supporter
Aug 18, 2012
20,855
17,179
✟1,422,729.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Regardless, it is up to Democrats to PROVE that Trump committed some impeachable offense. That didn't happen. The star witnesses couldn't even state what impeachable offense might have occurred.

Nor, as witnesses from the State Department, is it their role to state what is an impeachable offense. That is up to the Congress. The question was nothing more than grandstanding by Jordan.

Correction: Ratcliffe, not Jordan.

Bill Taylor: Mr. Ratcliffe, I would just like to say that I am not here to do anything having to do with having to decide about impeachment. That is not what either of us are here to do. This is your job. Thank you

Impeachment Hearing First Day Transcript: Bill Taylor & George Kent Testimony Transcript - Rev
 
Upvote 0