Kansas Crimson

Turley makes a good point I think. There isn't first-hand absolute proof that Trump demanded the investigations in return for political gain - it's only very very likely given the testimonies. They need to subpoena the folks Trump won't let testify. Otherwise this is a waste of time and will fail in the Senate.

do we ever get a complete, unredacted record of the phone call?

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:02 pm Turley makes a good point I think. There isn't first-hand absolute proof that Trump demanded the investigations in return for political gain - it's only very very likely given the testimonies. They need to subpoena the folks Trump won't let testify. Otherwise this is a waste of time and will fail in the Senate.

It will fail in the Senate regardless.

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:02 pm Turley makes a good point I think. There isn't first-hand absolute proof that Trump demanded the investigations in return for political gain - it's only very very likely given the testimonies.

Turley is the most inconsistent and lamest of the witnesses today (I only heard the opening statements - all of them - as I was driving in to work). The "no first-hand absolute proof" is the most idiotic argument. That's like saying that if no one saw the gun being fired during a shooting murder the bullet could have been lodged in the victim in another way, such as being thrown from across the room. Everyone knows that Trump did it. The Repubs only don't want to admit to knowing it, at least in public.

I do agree that there are witnesses who should be made to testify under a subpoena

zsn wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:09 pm
Everyone knows that Trump did it. The Repubs only don't want to admit to knowing it, at least in public.

There should be a hearing within the hearing to determine if the repubs do in fact know it. And won’t admit they know it in a public setting.

Could be the missing piece.

I am sure there are some elected officials who are not currently mixing it up in any of the other on going hearings that would love a hearing of their own.

zsn wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:09 pm

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:02 pm Turley makes a good point I think. There isn't first-hand absolute proof that Trump demanded the investigations in return for political gain - it's only very very likely given the testimonies.

Turley is the most inconsistent and lamest of the witnesses today (I only heard the opening statements - all of them - as I was driving in to work). The "no first-hand absolute proof" is the most idiotic argument. That's like saying that if no one saw the gun being fired during a shooting murder the bullet could have been lodged in the victim in another way, such as being thrown from across the room. Everyone knows that Trump did it. The Repubs only don't want to admit to knowing it, at least in public.

I do agree that there are witnesses who should be made to testify under a subpoena

Like in court, the standard is "beyond a reasonable doubt", right? I don't think you have that yet.

This is not and never was a "real" impeachment -- by design.

This is an election-tactic, for better or worse.

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:02 pm Turley makes a good point I think. There isn't first-hand absolute proof that Trump demanded the investigations in return for political gain - it's only very very likely given the testimonies. They need to subpoena the folks Trump won't let testify. Otherwise this is a waste of time and will fail in the Senate.

It will fail in the Senate even if they have a video of Trump screaming it into Zelensky's face. Trump has admitted that he has done what he is being charged with.

We are just at the point of quibbling over whether what he has done is "bad enough" to warrant impeachment and the GOP has made it very clear that there is no testimony or evidence that they could see that would make them vote yes.

There will also be 2 obstruction articles. The proof has been obstructed from being shown.

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:57 pm This is not and never was a "real" impeachment -- by design.

This is an election-tactic, for better or worse.

I don't buy that. Seems like a really dumb tactic if that's the case. Problem is, what were they supposed to do - it's legitimately an impeachable offense.

Honestly, the stonewalling of the Congressional investigation should be an impeachable offense in its own right. We cannot have a President simply flip the bird to Congressional oversight like this.

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 4:24 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 2:57 pm This is not and never was a "real" impeachment -- by design.

This is an election-tactic, for better or worse.

I don't buy that. Seems like a really dumb tactic if that's the case. Problem is, what were they supposed to do - it's legitimately an impeachable offense.

ANYTHING is an impeachable offense. It is, by design, a political process. And everyone knew going in that the politics of this were to damage Trump enough to make it more difficult for him to win reelection, NOT to have him removed from office.

That doesn't mean that the offenses are any less worthy of exposure, censure, impeachment, whatever. It's an acknowledgment that, at present, the electoral ramifications of impeachment and removal are enormously unpredictable.

Nancy Pelosi is smarter than she looks.

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 4:30 pm Honestly, the stonewalling of the Congressional investigation should be an impeachable offense in its own right. We cannot have a President simply flip the bird to Congressional oversight like this.

I mean...lulz

Mjl wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 1:02 pm Turley makes a good point I think. There isn't first-hand absolute proof that Trump demanded the investigations in return for political gain - it's only very very likely given the testimonies. They need to subpoena the folks Trump won't let testify. Otherwise this is a waste of time and will fail in the Senate.

^^^

And not only that, as one of the republican representatives pointed out, the two people with direct knowledge, Zelensky and Trump, both deny it!

#caseclosed

That said, any politician who continues to push Trumps absurd cover story that he was worried about rampant corruption in Ukraine should be voted out of office at the next opportunity.

He was so concerned about rampant Ukrainian corruption that he asked the Ukrainians to investigate an American. My 1st grader sees the problem with that.

"I am so worried that someone is going to eat my dessert that I am going to have my dessert loving Dad watch my dessert while I go play for awhile" is a phrase she is not stupid enough to utter.

"lulz"

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 4:33 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 4:30 pm Honestly, the stonewalling of the Congressional investigation should be an impeachable offense in its own right. We cannot have a President simply flip the bird to Congressional oversight like this.

I mean...lulz

So why is it "lulz" to be frustrated that the GOP demands the Constitution be upheld when it serves their purpose and wipes their ass with it when it serves their purpose?

In all seriousness, can someone show me one primary GOP politician on these committees that hasn't been a complicit performer in this obvious bullshit?

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 5:09 pm

DCHawk1 wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 4:33 pm

twocoach wrote: ↑Wed Dec 04, 2019 4:30 pm Honestly, the stonewalling of the Congressional investigation should be an impeachable offense in its own right. We cannot have a President simply flip the bird to Congressional oversight like this.

I mean...lulz

So why is it "lulz" to be frustrated that the GOP demands the Constitution be upheld when it serves their purpose and wipes their ass with it when it serves their purpose?

In all seriousness, can someone show me one primary GOP politician on these committees that hasn't been a complicit performer in this obvious bullshit?

I was just admiring your defense of constitutional process, violations of which you probably didn't notice for a second from, say, January 20, 1993 to January 20, 2001 and January 20, 2009 to January 20, 2017.

I mean...what if the House majority party wanted to hold the Attorney General in contempt of Congress for refusing to turn over subpoenaed documents and the minority party walked out of the House en masse?

Or what if the majority party voted to hold the White House Counsel and Chief of staff in contempt for the same thing? Would that piss you off?

Cuz Eric Holder, and (W. Bush's) Harriet Miers and Josh Bolten say hi.

Whataboutism.
Trumps defense eloquently presented by his defender.