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

[TLK Valentine]

Trump rails against impeachment: 'They shouldn't be having public hearings'

President Trump on Friday said there should be no public hearings in the impeachment inquiry as he railed against the process unfolding in the House.

"They shouldn’t be having public hearings. This is a hoax," Trump said as he left the White House for events in Georgia.

Two things: 1. Doesn't Donald like to boast about his transparency?

and 2: Wasn't the original complaint about closed-door proceedings? Now Donald's followers all have to shift gears because having them out in the open displeases him as well...

Thoughts?

 

[keith99]

Just a couple of days ago the complaint was against things being done behind closed doors.

He does not want it done in private, he does not want it done in public.

In short he does not want an investigation of any sort.

What a surprise!

 

[TLK Valentine]

Just a couple of days ago the complaint was against things being done behind closed doors.

He does not want it done in private, he does not want it done in public.

In short he does not want an investigation of any sort.

What a surprise!

His reversal doesn't surprise me in the slightest... it's all those poor followers who now have to forsake everything He told them before to embrace the new narrative that worries me.

 

[stevil]

Also they were complaining about Republicans not being involved, even though Republicans were involved and were allowed to ask questions.

Now they are complaining that their witnesses must first be approved by the Democrats. Well, we can see by the list of witnesses that there is a need to vet as the Republicans want to investigate topics other than the charges brought against Trump.
They want to investigate Hunter and Fusion One and want to out the whistle blower. It seems they have no interest in assessing if Trump has abused his office.

I'm sure in a real court of law there must be a vetting process where the judge decides if witnesses or evidence is appropriate to be presented in the case. Otherwise the defense could drag it on forever.

 

[Hank77]

Trump rails against impeachment: 'They shouldn't be having public hearings'



Two things: 1. Doesn't Donald like to boast about his transparency?

and 2: Wasn't the original complaint about closed-door proceedings? Now Donald's followers all have to shift gears because having them out in the open displeases him as well...

Thoughts?

I picked up something else in this article. The name Pam Bondi seemed familiar to me and it was.

His complaints about the process come as the White House is preparing to bolster its staffing to combat impeachment. Former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi and former Treasury Department spokesman Tony Sayegh are expected to join the White House communications team in the coming days.

He has added another controversial person to his admin. Trump gave her a campaign donation from his charity foundation. The IRS got word of it and fined Trump for an illegal contribution and she backed out of joining the lawsuit against Trump University. (another "something for something?") She is also involved with the Scientology "church" that was being investigated by the FBI for human trafficking and abuse of workers.
Pam Bondi - Wikipedia

 

[ViaCrucis]

His reversal doesn't surprise me in the slightest... it's all those poor followers who now have to forsake everything He told them before to embrace the new narrative that worries me.

"To know and not to know, to be conscious of complete truthfulness while telling carefully constructed lies, to hold simultaneously two opinions which cancelled out, knowing them to be contradictory and believing in both of them, to use logic against logic, to repudiate morality while laying claim to it, to believe that democracy was impossible and that the Party was the guardian of democracy, to forget whatever it was necessary to forget, then to draw it back into memory again at the moment when it was needed, and then promptly to forget it again: and above all, to apply the same process to the process itself. That was the ultimate subtlety: consciously to induce unconsciousness, and then, once again, to become unconscious of the act of hypnosis you had just performed. Even to understand the word "doublethink" involved the use of doublethink." - 1984

-CryptoLutheran

 

[Basil the Great]

I have been wondering if the four major commercial networks will cover the hearings live and pre-empt their regular daytime schedule? I suspect that they might, but we will now soon enough.

 

[BryanJohnMaloney]

So, it was bad to have closed door hearings .

 

[TLK Valentine]

So, it was bad to have closed door hearings .

And now it's bad to have open door hearings... wonder what changed?

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Just a couple of days ago the complaint was against things being done behind closed doors.

He does not want it done in private, he does not want it done in public.

In short he does not want an investigation of any sort.

What a surprise!

 

[GodLovesCats]

And now it's bad to have open door hearings... wonder what changed?

Nothing. Donald Trump said he does not think he should be impeached, so there should be no hearings at all - open or closed. First he was frustrated about Democrats controlling the House. Now the complaint is, naturally, he does not want everyone who speaks English and has Internet access to know what he did on July 25.

 

[Bobber]

Trump rails against impeachment: 'They shouldn't be having public hearings'



Two things: 1. Doesn't Donald like to boast about his transparency?

and 2: Wasn't the original complaint about closed-door proceedings? Now Donald's followers all have to shift gears because having them out in the open displeases him as well...

Thoughts?

You can have Trump likes transparency and doesn't feel there should be any hearings and both be true. Let's just say if you were going to be having hearings to impeach a President merely for spiting on the side walk which isn't illegal does that mean to say the one can't say likewise they're transparent for saying there shouldn't be hearings about it? Do you appreciate the tremendous amount of tax payers money being wasted on a process THEY KNOW won't bear fruit when they should be about the people's business?

 

[Bobber]

View attachment 266432

See my post #12

 

[TLK Valentine]

You can have Trump likes transparency and doesn't feel there should be any hearings and both be true.

Doesn't look like we have a choice.

Still, the president who gets praised for never backing down from a fight is pretty desperate to back down from a fight...

Let's just say if you were going to be having hearings to impeach a President merely for spiting on the side walk which isn't illegal does that mean to say the one can't say likewise they're transparent for saying there shouldn't be hearings about it?

True, but holding foreign aid hostage in exchange for dirt on your political opponents is somewhat more serious than spitting on the sidewalk...

...don't you think?

You're not supposed to. Because the original defense of "no quid pro quo," which loyal followers dutifully echoed has pretty much been blown out of the water, it's time to break in a new defense to rally around...

Republicans Try Different Response to Ukraine Call: Quid Pro Quo Isn’t Impeachable

That's right -- using government resources to strongarm foreign governments to help your reelection campaign is not an impeachable offense! Start chanting it now; might as well get used to it.

At least until...

What We Learned From Reading Thousands Of Pages Of Impeachment Inquiry Transcripts

... Donald will hang Giuliani out to dry, claiming that he acted alone... which you will too.

Do you appreciate the tremendous amount of tax payers money being wasted on a process THEY KNOW won't bear fruit when they should be about the people's business?

Keeping the branches of government in check is the people's business.

 

[GodLovesCats]

I have been wondering if the four major commercial networks will cover the hearings live and pre-empt their regular daytime schedule? I suspect that they might, but we will now soon enough.

That would have already been decided by now if they were planning to. Of course, I am glad Fox won't do it. But why not CBS, ABC, or NBC, which are not nearly as conservative?

 

[cow451]

Comrades! Evil media Democratics take Presidential Trump’s words, display them making him look bad. Inquest meetups should be away from eyes of that guy from ABC and those women with Michaels that should be home baking cookies and doing webcams. Meetups in horrible House of Repenters should be open so American peoples can see what loyalty looks like when servants are interrogated in bright lights and torture chairs! Those that are disloyal are being reported!

I must go. The medication lady is coming.

 

[Ada Lovelace]

I have been wondering if the four major commercial networks will cover the hearings live and pre-empt their regular daytime schedule? I suspect that they might, but we will now soon enough.

That would have already been decided by now if they were planning to. Of course, I am glad Fox won't do it. But why not CBS, ABC, or NBC, which are not nearly as conservative?

Broadcast, cable networks to televise impeachment hearings

ABC, CBS, NBC and PBS will set aside scheduled programming next week to cover the House’s first open impeachment hearings on President Trump.

The cable news networks CNN, Fox News Channel, MSNBC and CSPAN will also provide live coverage. The broadcast networks’ announcement Friday that they would televise the hearing, however, gives the event an extra measure of exposure and weight with the public.

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.

 

[Freodin]

Do you appreciate the tremendous amount of tax payers money being wasted on a process THEY KNOW won't bear fruit when they should be about the people's business?

Two words.

Hillary.
Clinton.

 

[Bobber]

Two words.

Hillary.
Clinton.

ONE difference Freodin. No one knew for a fact those investigations wouldn't go no where. With this you've already got 100% of Republicans stand against this in the House + two Dems. That's bipartisan support to say enough plus a Senate already signalling they see nothing to impeach the President. Plus I hardly doubt they have anymore compelling evidence on this or they would have already leaked it or announced it. Best to drop and and move on.

 

[Bobber]

True, but holding foreign aid hostage in exchange for dirt on your political opponents is somewhat more serious than spitting on the sidewalk...

...don't you think?

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.

You're not supposed to. Because the original defense of "no quid pro quo," which loyal followers dutifully echoed has pretty much been blown out of the water, it's time to break in a new defense to rally around...

Who said it's blown out of the water? 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.

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

That's right -- using government resources to strongarm foreign governments to help your reelection campaign is not an impeachable offense!

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