Impeachment

[Mr. Deez]

This is depositions, right? If so they should be closed doors so conspirators can’t conspire.

Barry, your understanding of depositions is about as relevant to the discussion as the wishbone offense is to the NFL. A deposition usually happens behind closed doors - not because they're private but because of practical concerns. I can't have journalists camping out in my conference room while I'm taking a deposition. A deposition is an on-the-record examination under oath incident to an official proceeding - just like you'd see in a courtroom. Everybody who is a party to the case or controversy gets to ask questions and receives a copy. Objections to questions are made on the record and resolved by a trial judge. Unless the court (with a legal basis) puts the deposition under seal, it can be made public by anyone who gets a copy. Furthermore, if any party chooses to file the deposition (for example as part of a motion offered to the court), it becomes part of the court record and can be seen by literally anybody who shows up and wants to take a look. (You can ask Paula Deen about that.)

So if we're going to operate this like a deposition, then every member of the committee (and arguably every member of the House and perhaps even Trump) would get to ask questions and get a copy. There wouldn't just be one copy for 435 people to look at while some handjob from Adam Schiff's office looks over their shoulders. Adam Schiff would certainly get to ask questions, but he would not decide who else gets to ask or what questions get asked or answered. A federal judge would decide that according to legal principles and rules.

What this actually is is an oversight hearing masquerading as an impeachment hearing. Questions are answered under oath, and there is a record, but the similarities to a deposition end there. However, since the House Democratic Caucus has a substantial crackpot wing that has had a raging hard-on for impeachment for 3 years, we have to humor them by calling it an impeachment inquiry. It's a little bit like how we have to tell dudes in panties and a dress that they're actually women because they can't handle being told the truth. We have to accommodate and honor their delusion.

Seeing what is coming out of these hearings the GOP May regret when they do go public.

So be it. If he committed an impeachable offense (as the Taylor introductory remarks suggest), then he should go, but if Democrats don't want people to think they have something to hide, then they shouldn't act like they have something to hide. Make all these statements public (in full). Let all relevant parties ask questions and gather evidence, and let the the chips fall where they may.

Here's what I'd like to see happen at this point. I would like to see the House formally open an impeachment inquiry. It's not required, but they should do it because it is consistent with precedent. All statements made before the Intelligence Committee should be made public to the extent that they aren't classified. The matter should be turned over to the Judiciary Committee, where the normal impeachment processes should be followed. Adam Schiff's role in this should be over. He's a dishonest hack with no credibility. He showed that with the Russia controversy, and he confirmed it further in this matter. I may not like Jerrold Nadler's politics any more than I like Schiff's, but he's a much more honorable guy. Everybody on the Hill knows that.

 

[OUBubba]

Barry, your understanding of depositions is about as relevant to the discussion as the wishbone offense is to the NFL. A deposition usually happens behind closed doors - not because they're private but because of practical concerns. I can't have journalists camping out in my conference room while I'm taking a deposition. A deposition is an on-the-record examination under oath incident to an official proceeding - just like you'd see in a courtroom. Everybody who is a party to the case or controversy gets to ask questions and receives a copy. Objections to questions are made on the record and resolved by a trial judge. Unless the court (with a legal basis) puts the deposition under seal, it can be made public by anyone who gets a copy. Furthermore, if any party chooses to file the deposition (for example as part of a motion offered to the court), it becomes part of the court record and can be seen by literally anybody who shows up and wants to take a look. (You can ask Paula Deen about that.)

So if we're going to operate this like a deposition, then every member of the committee (and arguably every member of the House and perhaps even Trump) would get to ask questions and get a copy. There wouldn't just be one copy for 435 people to look at while some handjob from Adam Schiff's office looks over their shoulders. Adam Schiff would certainly get to ask questions, but he would not decide who else gets to ask or what questions get asked or answered. A federal judge would decide that according to legal principles and rules.

What this actually is is an oversight hearing masquerading as an impeachment hearing. Questions are answered under oath, and there is a record, but the similarities to a deposition end there. However, since the House Democratic Caucus has a substantial crackpot wing that has had a raging hard-on for impeachment for 3 years, we have to humor them by calling it an impeachment inquiry. It's a little bit like how we have to tell dudes in panties and a dress that they're actually women because they can't handle being told the truth. We have to accommodate and honor their delusion.



So be it. If he committed an impeachable offense (as the Taylor introductory remarks suggest), then he should go, but if Democrats don't want people to think they have something to hide, then they shouldn't act like they have something to hide. Make all these statements public (in full). Let all relevant parties ask questions and gather evidence, and let the the chips fall where they may.

Here's what I'd like to see happen at this point. I would like to see the House formally open an impeachment inquiry. It's not required, but they should do it because it is consistent with precedent. All statements made before the Intelligence Committee should be made public to the extent that they aren't classified. The matter should be turned over to the Judiciary Committee, where the normal impeachment processes should be followed. Adam Schiff's role in this should be over. He's a dishonest hack with no credibility. He showed that with the Russia controversy, and he confirmed it further in this matter. I may not like Jerrold Nadler's politics any more than I like Schiff's, but he's a much more honorable guy. Everybody on the Hill knows that.

Well stated. We need a button that indicates the following: "I may not agree with you 100% but your take is reasonable and thanks for the detailed reply". In my mind's eye that's the "hook'em" button.

 

[mchammer]

Yet you haven't cited a single case of Trump pursuing corruption that wasn't beneficial to his political aspirations.

The Chinese lady (daughter of Huawei founder) arrested in Canada for selling electronics to Iran. Also, Venezuela.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Well stated. We need a button that indicates the following: "I may not agree with you 100% but your take is reasonable and thanks for the detailed reply". In my mind's eye that's the "hook'em" button.

Serious question - if it's coming from a Sooner, is the hook 'em button a compliment or an insult?

 

[mchammer]

Serious question - if it's coming from a Sooner, is the hook 'em button a compliment or an insult?

Depends on the orientation- up or down.

 

[Seattle Husker]

Do they just want to smear Trump? If so, then this should be viewed just like any other political circus act and shouldn't be taken any more seriously. Or do they actually want to remove Trump from office?

Let's be honest. Does anyone think realistically that 20 Republicans in the Senate in todays tribalist political climate will ever vote to affirmatively for impeachment? That's fantasy if they do. In states where conservatives hold the majority they'd be signing their exit papers. Very few Senators have that kind of courage.

So, the Dems are pursuing your alternate outcome, the only realistic outcome. Of course, they can't be overt or that plays into the R's narrative. What they will do is try to paint the Senate R's as more interested in power thsn driven by values and ethics, essentially the worst of politicians.

However, we shouldn't be calling this am impeachment inquiry of we're not going to treat it as such. Let it be an oversight hearing, and when the evidence is found, refer it to the Judiciary Committee as an impeachment matter.

Like you, I think Pelosi needed to keep her base happy. Calling it an impeachment hearing allowed Schiff to move faster than typical oversight and gave more impetus to witnesses to testify. So, there was more benefit to the Dems than mollifying their base.

Still, calling it an "impeachment inquiry" escalated tensions and gave Republicans ammo they needed to attack the process.

They'll hold the vote later this week which assuredly will follow party lines.

 

[Mr. Deez]

Let's be honest. Does anyone think realistically that 20 Republicans in the Senate in todays tribalist political climate will ever vote to affirmatively for impeachment? That's fantasy if they do. In states where conservatives hold the majority they'd be signing their exit papers. Very few Senators have that kind of courage. So, the Dems are pursuing the alternate outcome.

So it is just to smear Trump. That's sad.

You're raising essentially the same point Republicans make when I say Trump shouldn't act like an *******. They say that since the media will call all Republicans ******** anyway, there's no reason not to just be an *******. I'm of the opinion that we shouldn't validate the charge by making it accurate because I think it's wrong to be an ******* and because it impacts how fair-minded people view Republicans. Well, I think that's also true of an impeachment. The Democrats may not get 20 Republicans to vote to oust Trump, but Pelosi doesn't gain anything by making the decision so easy for them. She just poisons her own cause.

And there is something to be gained by not practicing flagrant unfairness. Will Trump be stronger if he's acquitted in the Senate on a straight party line vote (or perhaps even with Joe Manchin, Kirsten Synema, and Doug Jones voting to acquit) or if he's acquitted with all Democrats plus Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Lisa Murkowski, Cory Gardner, and Pat Toomey voting to convict? If the former scenario happens, Trump can easily dismiss this as a partisan exercise and might even come out stronger. If the latter scenario happens, he's in far worse political shape and almost surely loses in 2020 (depending on how crazy the Democratic nominee is).

Calling it an impeachment hearing allowed Schiff to move faster than typical oversight and gave more impetus to witnesses to testify. So, there was more benefit to the Dems than mollifying their base.

But it's not an impeachment hearing in fact, even if we're calling it that. And I'm not sure they get a procedural advantage. An oversight hearing still has subpoena power.

 

[Crockett]

I can see why he didn't want Vindman to identify everyone with whom the information was shared. While there is much criticism of the "media" as if it was a monolithic liberal bloc. truthfully much of the media is made up of folks who think Trump is always right and anyone who disputes that is subjected to endless ridicule and character assassination. That portion of the media cares nothing about facts, only loyalty. It's nasty and prone to a lot of hyperbole and unfairness.

 

[I35]

Let's revisit since you NEVER site any evidence to back up your claims.



There's too much BS packed into one single sentence fragment to spend time researching and supporting my evidence below so in turn you get only my perspective. If you actually site evidence to back up your claims I'll offer evidence in kind. I've been burned with you too often yhat building a cogent, fact supported, argument gets blown off with a mere emotional fantastic "whataboutism" claim not unlike this very claim.

1. FISA abuse? Until we get an IG Report or the Durham report your pissing in the wind.
2. NSA Spying? You must have missed the various Congressional hearings, one of which Brennan or Clapper claimed the NSA wasn't spying on American citizens. We later learned that American citizen data was most assuredly in the dataset they were capturing. Of course, I don't believe we ever received conclusive proof that they were spying on Americans vs trying to intercept foreigners communicating with Americans. The liberty crowd has equated simply having possession of our call metadata as "spying on Americans".
3. Wiretapping journalist. You'll need to refresh my memory with a link.
4. Iran Ransom. Yes, money was given to Iran as part of the Nuclear deal. What conspiracy are you ckaiming as fact?
5. Solyndra. Hearings were held in Congress that amounted to a poorly run company that went tits up after receiving a loan ftom the US government.
6. Fast and furious. Many hearings were held, subpoenas issued and an AG held in contempt for not testifying. Still, over 10,000 documents were given to the committee(s) investigating it. The outcome? It was a poorly concieved and executed program by the ATF.
7. IRS Scandal. You clearly didn't follow the outcome of this scandal. It cost Lois Lerner her job (and her boss?) but didn't amount to much. The final report essentially outlines the IRS needs to do better at setting it's criteria for determining additional scrutiny. It actually states there was no evidence of any nefarious intent among the 100+ the FBI interviewed when announcing no charges were being pursued.
8. VA scandal? Wait, Obama is personally involved in any poorly run bureaucracy? The 'VA scandal' spans nearly all administrations, including the Trump admin.
9. Benghazi. 7+ unique investigations and all we've learned is sadly the number of deaths hasn't changed, the State Dept security apparatus was woefully underfunded, the Ambassador didn't heed the advice of his limited secuity detail who advised against traveling to Benghazi, and the Obama administration's spin in the immediate aftermath was atrocious.

You think Obama should be impeached for that? Other than maybe Benghazi you'd be a fool to bet that Obama had anything to do with any of those topics. It wasn't like the committee's looking into each topic didn't look for evidence of Obama's fingerprints.

Now, on this current impeachment we have evidence of Trump's direct involvement. In fac . Mueller cited many instances of Trump's direct involvement in obstruction of justice. So while you wildly flail about and make wild claims and non-sequitors just remember that Trump is tied directly in this investigation and probable corruption.

You want me to post links to things that you already know? I’ll give you the benefit of doubt for not knowing about the journalist wire tapping since you only watch CNN. Or maybe you just truly forgot.

A Fox News Reporter was wire tapped by the Obama Adminstration. Even MSNBC said it was wrong by the President. If you don’t believe me google search James Rosen of Fox News. That actually should have been a very big deal and it was swept under the rug for the most part.

Ok Brother you are all over the place on this. You completely missed the whole point for me listing those scandals. It wasn’t for you to respond to each one explaining what happened in those cases. We already know what happened and then what didn’t happen afterwards. That wasn’t my point. But thank you for pointing out one of our previous conversations about Dems being in a safe place because of no consequences for Dems. You helped to make my argument with multiple examples. Talk about the fox guarding the hen house in those scandals.

My point was to get you to compare what they are investigating Trump for vs all of those examples of things that Obama did that the Republicans didn’t try to take to impeachment. To show the witch hunt with pettiness vs things that truly could have the Republicans going after Obama if they had chosen to.

But you said this in a previous post.
“the leaked evidence to date is damning but only a partial view.“. Since you brought this one side that most likely is way out of context or flat out has no truth to it can you explain what you see as damning evidence by the leaks?

I’d like to compare what they think they got on Trump vs actually wire tapping an American citizen only because he’s on the other side of the political aisle.

 

[Seattle Husker]

So it is just to smear Trump. That's sad.

I'm speaking to the certain outcome vs. intention. Its possible to take a principled stance against abuse of power, and be "right" while also recognizing that the Senate won't vote for impeachment regardless of the veracity of the evidence.

Are you equally as sad that the Republican party would be so void of principles (like the Democrats in '99) to stonewall a very probable impeachment worthy offense?

 

[OUBubba]

Serious question - if it's coming from a Sooner, is the hook 'em button a compliment or an insult?

A compliment. I reserve one week a year to get jiggy with the hook'em things with mathematical derivations indicating an upside down horn thing. I've received education from your peers here in the past. This is not my home. I have to be respectful. I can't pee on the rug like I would in my home.

 

[Seattle Husker]

I can see why he didn't want Vindman to identify everyone with whom the information was shared. While there is much criticism of the "media" as if it was a monolithic liberal bloc. truthfully much of the media is made up of folks who think Trump is always right and anyone who disputes that is subjected to endless ridicule and character assassination. That portion of the media cares nothing about facts, only loyalty. It's nasty and prone to a lot of hyperbole and unfairness.

Whomever he told would have been subject to the same character assassination that Vindman is enduring. The guy was moved to the US at 3yrs of age from Ukraine by his parents. He was injured in Iraq by an IED. Vindman has a twin brother in the NSC's legal ethics dept. One can assume both passed background checks. The questioning of Vindman's loyalty to the US is abhorrent.

 

[OUBubba]

Whomever he told would have been subject to the same character assassination that Vindman is enduring. The guy was moved to the US at 3yrs of age from Ukraine by his parents. He was injured in Iraq by an IED. Vindman has a twin brother in the NSC's legal ethics dept. One can assume both passed background checks. The questioning of Vindman's loyalty to the US is abhorrent.

Much like Nicole Wallace said, he's passed much more of a background check than have Ivanka or Jared. That was a mic drop.

 

[Seattle Husker]

My point was to get you to compare what they are investigating Trump for vs all of those examples of things that Obama did that the Republicans didn’t try to take to impeachment. To show the witch hunt with pettiness vs things that truly could have the Republicans going after Obama if they had chosen to.

Not surprisingly you sidestepped the reason for me detailing each scenario. You claimed they weren't investigated which is either disingenuous or a lie. They were in most of those cases which is exactly why I detailed them. Claiming BS like "all the things Obama did" without citing an iota of evidence is par for the course with you. You make vast claims, whataboutism's, and spew other unverifiable tripe as if fact but are merely emotionally driven partisan stances dictated from the end of your body represented by your favorite emoji.

 

[Garmel]

Good luck with impeachment when no laws have been broken.

 

[humahuma]

So US government spent 30 plus million dollars on Mueller investigation, spending or have spent a couple million dollars (in time) on impeachment just to gain political hits on the POTUS. That is what infuriates me. In my opinion this will not end well for the dems.

 

[Mr. Deez]

I'm speaking to the certain outcome vs. intention. Its possible to take a principled stance against abuse of power, and be "right" while also recognizing that the Senate won't vote for impeachment regardless of the veracity of the evidence.

First of all, nobody in this process is taking a principled stance. Let's not be naïve. Kevin McCarthy isn't principled. Nancy Pelosi isn't principled. Adam Schiff is grossly unprincipled, even compared to his colleagues. We have a bunch of extremely partisan actors behaving as such. If we switched the party labels, they would completely flip their positions. If Barack Obama did the exact same thing, Republicans would be freaking out, and Democrats would be calling them racists and saying he was just trying to stop corruption.

Nevertheless, if Democrats want the appearance of principle, they should act accordingly. They lose nothing by doing so.

Are you equally as sad that the Republican party would be so void of principles (like the Democrats in '99) to stonewall a very probable impeachment worthy offense?

If we're not allowed to see any evidence other than leaks, it's kinda hard for me to judge. Let's see the actual evidence (like we did in 1999, 1974, and 1868), and then I can make the call much easier.

 

[horninchicago]

Well stated. We need a button that indicates the following: "I may not agree with you 100% but your take is reasonable and thanks for the detailed reply". In my mind's eye that's the "hook'em" button.

No one likes you.

 

[Crockett]

Humahuma: Is it investigation of corruption and conflict of interest in government of no concern to you, or only objectionable when it involves a squeaky clean guy like President Trump?

 

[OUBubba]

So US government spent 30 plus million dollars on Mueller investigation, spending or have spent a couple million dollars (in time) on impeachment just to gain political hits on the POTUS. That is what infuriates me. In my opinion this will not end well for the dems.

The Starr investigation cost $70 million. All over a hummer.

I don't know the exact number but Manifort alone forfeited assets worth as much as $30 million and others forfeited assets as well. Innocent people don't usually do that.

I'd like to see a more current figure. They're all dated by at least a year.

 

[OUBubba]

No one likes you.

Me? I saw you sparring it up over there on the Herman thread. Quit being so prickly.

 

[OUBubba]

Humahuma: Is it investigation of corruption and conflict of interest in government of no concern to you, or only objectionable when it involves a squeaky clean guy like President Trump?

Off the top rope!

 

[OUBubba]

https://nypost.com/2019/10/29/army-...ts-left-out-of-trump-ukraine-call-transcript/

Shocked!

 

[horninchicago]

Me? I saw you sparring it up over there on the Herman thread. Quit being so prickly.

Ha, yes we are not allowed to question the staff, scheme, anything, on an open forum message board. My mistake.

Been in karate since '85, I like sparring lol.

 

[OUBubba]

Ha, yes we are not allowed to question the staff, scheme, anything, on an open forum message board. My mistake.

Been in karate since '85, I like sparring lol.

I think that's why I like a horn board more. I can go back and forth as opposed to having to sing Boomer Sooner in unison. I mean, I love the tune, but it gets old. Even for a Sooner.

 

[horninchicago]

I think that's why I like a horn board more. I can go back and forth as opposed to having to sing Boomer Sooner in unison. I mean, I love the tune, but it gets old. Even for a Sooner.

Wisest comment you ever made.

 

[mchammer]

 

[Garmel]

Talk about a quid pro quo.

 

[I35]

Not surprisingly you sidestepped the reason for me detailing each scenario. You claimed they weren't investigated which is either disingenuous or a lie. They were in most of those cases which is exactly why I detailed them. Claiming BS like "all the things Obama did" without citing an iota of evidence is par for the course with you. You make vast claims, whataboutism's, and spew other unverifiable tripe as if fact but are merely emotionally driven partisan stances dictated from the end of your body represented by your favorite emoji.

unbelievable that you point I side stepped your last response when you side stepped mine (not once but twice). You make it very hard to engage in a normal conversation. You use this tactic with everyone all the time. You make a claim and then get called out on it then you want to argue about not the substance that was originally posted but on how the argument is being done.

Yes they call it an investigation (wink wink). But so was James Comey with Hillary Clinton. We found out that he wrote up a letter clearing her before they interviewed her.l (another wink wink). https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.newsweek.com/james-comey-fbi-clinton-emails-drafted-statement-686140?amp=1
Under sworn testimony he stated he was assuming Hillary was innocent by the direction the investigation was going (even before one single interview) and that he was feeling political pressure from Loretta Lynch.

You said “Claiming BS like "all the things Obama did" without citing an iota of evidence is par for the course with you.”

I already told you everyone knows it happened. It shouldn’t require a link. But here you go. James Rosen: New Evidence Obama Administration's NSA Spied On Americans. What comes next is you’ll make a joke about I posting a link and then will either completely ignore it or go after the links credibility because it’s not CNN. Im sure you already looked it up but chose not to respond to it. This is just a tactic of playing dumb that you use. If what you said is true then how do you explain the example I gave you with James Rosen.

how about what I said about the NSA Clapper? Did I just make that up. James Clapper's perjury, and why DC made men don't get charged for lying to Congress

Now can you stop side stepping. I requested you give me the stuff that you claim is very damning so I can compare it to the few examples I posted. But if you must know I don’t give a damn what the results the government claimed they investigated. Or what the government is claiming now. Again I just wanting to measure what the Republicans “didn’t try” to impeach Obama with vs What the Dems are “trying” to impeach trump for.

 

[mchammer]

Whomever he told would have been subject to the same character assassination that Vindman is enduring. The guy was moved to the US at 3yrs of age from Ukraine by his parents. He was injured in Iraq by an IED. Vindman has a twin brother in the NSC's legal ethics dept. One can assume both passed background checks. The questioning of Vindman's loyalty to the US is abhorrent.

Like what you have said about General Flynn?