The Trump Impeachment

[Tero]

The Senate will just have to let Criminal Trump go. No matter the consequences. They will not dare investigate what each one would get if they vote against Trump. Coming from those states, it is still safer to go with Trump. "If Trump is guilty, let the 2020 voters decide."

[L'Emmerdeur]

What is the point of these hearings? Who are they supposed to be talking to? Who are they trying to convince? Just what the actual fuck?

Just go home, you're worthless, and this isn't law.

Unlike say, the Nixon hearings, it seems likely that these hearings aren't going to have much if any impact on the opinions of the American public. Certainly Trumpists aren't going to change their minds. Nonetheless, Congress would derelict in its duty of oversight, its position as part of the system of checks and balances, to shrug off such a clear abuse of the power of the presidency.

[Sean Hayden]

Their job is to mislead each other?

Again, who are they talking to? Why?

It sounds like politics rather than a genuine attempt at discovery.

[Sean Hayden]

The questions I heard were nothing more than attempts to manipulate listeners for the President. To allow such blatant subversion of the hearing's intent is derelict.

But they cannot manipulate each other, or the people really as you've pointed out, so what exactly is the point except to avoid doing their job?

Send their sorry asses home.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Their job is to mislead each other?

Again, who are they talking to? Why?

It sounds like politics rather than a genuine attempt at discovery.

Who is misleading whom? Perhaps you could cite specific instances from this first day of public hearings, since that seems to be what you're referring to.

The discovery phase mostly took place in earlier hearings. The way I've heard it described is that the first closed-door hearings are very roughly equivalent to grand jury proceedings. These public hearings are (again very roughly) equivalent to an indictment hearing. Yes, given that these are politicians and impeachment is by definition a political procedure (not a criminal trial subject to the laws pertaining to such) this is 'politics.' However, this is a means by which Congress may exercise its duty of oversight on the executive branch as laid out in the US Constitution. There is no provision in the Constitution for presidents to be charged with crimes or otherwise held to account for malfeasance in office, other than by impeachment.

I'm not sure what your point is here. Do you think that there should be no impeachment inquiry, or are you just impatient and dissatisfied with the ponderous nature of the hearings?

[L'Emmerdeur]

The questions I heard were nothing more than attempts to manipulate listeners for the President. To allow such blatant subversion of the hearing's intent is derelict.

But they cannot manipulate each other, or the people really as you've pointed out, so what exactly is the point except to avoid doing their job?

Send their sorry asses home.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that you're (at least mostly) referring to the nature of the Republican approach to this hearing. They're allowed to ask any questions they like of the witnesses, or in fact to engage in pure speechifying, as it pleases Representative Jordan to do. If they spend their time trying to do nothing but score political points, so be it. The Democrats on the committee will do what they can to make the case for impeachment regardless of what the Republicans do.

You won't get any argument from me regarding the shameless cowardice, the abject submissiveness to Trump that characterizes the Republican party now, but that's certainly not reason to advocate the abandonment of the duties of Congress entirely.

[Sean Hayden]

Yes, I have been referring to the behavior of Republicans, but it is apparently the nature of the hearing which allows them to behave this way. I think we can at least approach the question of whether or not the method which allows this behavior is best. Even assuming there are many benefits to this particular approach, and I can see several, it may be possible that it is not best, or that it is not being best utilized.

For example, you call it a political process and therefore by definition 'political', but it is specifically the aspect of politics which most resembles campaigning that is the problem. A politician has more to do than win reelection, surely? Leave the campaigning outside gentleman: seems like a perfectly reasonable demand in my opinion.

Their failure to do so, and our inability to make them do so speaks to me of a larger problem in our system than even Trump. Perhaps they should all be sent home to think about it...

[Tero]

Nunes Insults Impeachment Witnesses: Congrats on Passing Democrats’ ‘Star Chamber Auditions’

“Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Kent, I’d like to welcome you here,” Nunes snarked. “I would like to congratulate you for passing the Democrats’ star chamber auditions held for the last weeks in the basement of the capitol.
It seems you agreed witting or unwittingly to participate in a drama. But the main performance, a Russia hoax, has ended, and you’ve been cast in the low-rent Ukrainian sequel.”

Elsewhere in his prepared remarks, Nunes declared that “elements of the FBI, the Departments of Justice, and now the State Department have lost the confidence of millions of Americans who believe that their vote should count for something.” He concluded: “It will take years, if not decades, to restore faith in these institutions.”

[L'Emmerdeur]

Yes, I have been referring to the behavior of Republicans, but it is apparently the nature of the hearing which allows them to behave this way. I think we can at least approach the question of whether or not the method which allows this behavior is best. Even assuming there are many benefits to this particular approach, and I can see several, it may be possible that it is not best, or that it is not being best utilized.

I agree that this is far from an ideal way to deal with malfeasance by the executive. However, there has to be a way for those who would defend the accused to have their voice heard. If those defenders choose (or in this case, are forced*) to depend entirely on making noise, spouting baseless nonsense, and obstructing, so be it.

*Since there is no disputing the plain fact that Trump used the power of his office and his control over lawfully allocated taxpayer funding to bring pressure to bear on a foreign government for his own personal political benefit.

For example, you call it a political process and therefore by definition 'political', but it is specifically the aspect of politics which most resembles campaigning that is the problem.

In the sense that it's not a criminal justice process, and the Constitution requires that it be carried out by politicians in a political setting, yes.

A politician has more to do than win reelection, surely? Leave the campaigning outside gentleman: seems like a perfectly reasonable demand in my opinion.

Ensuring compliance with that perfectly reasonable demand is problematic. I think it would require amending the Constitution, which as you well know it an extremely daunting prospect. Given that we're talking about politicians here, I don't see them agreeing to creating rules for themselves that limit their ability to politicize such an important function.

Their failure to do so, and our inability to make them do so speaks to me of a larger problem in our system than even Trump. Perhaps they should all be sent home to think about it...

It's frustrating, but it's what we have to work with, and sending them home isn't going to produce any results. They're not risking losing office by behaving the way that they are. Partisan hacks like Jim Jordan get reelected regularly.

[L'Emmerdeur]

Nunes Insults Impeachment Witnesses: Congrats on Passing Democrats’ ‘Star Chamber Auditions’

“Ambassador Taylor and Mr. Kent, I’d like to welcome you here,” Nunes snarked. “I would like to congratulate you for passing the Democrats’ star chamber auditions held for the last weeks in the basement of the capitol.
It seems you agreed witting or unwittingly to participate in a drama. But the main performance, a Russia hoax, has ended, and you’ve been cast in the low-rent Ukrainian sequel.”

Elsewhere in his prepared remarks, Nunes declared that “elements of the FBI, the Departments of Justice, and now the State Department have lost the confidence of millions of Americans who believe that their vote should count for something.” He concluded: “It will take years, if not decades, to restore faith in these institutions.”

Reminded again of what a greasy pile of feces Nunes is. Since he's talking exclusively to and about Trumpists, all it will take is for the FBI etc. to investigate some Democrats. The MAGA constituency will be solidly behind that, and the agencies that pursue such investigations.

[Tero]

The Hill
President Trump has reportedly been threatening to fire acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney for weeks over recent missteps amid the House's impeachment investigation.

Three people familiar with the discussions told The Washington Post that the president has griped about Mulvaney's appearance at an Oct. 17 press conference in which he admitted military aid to Ukraine was withheld to pressure Kyiv to launch investigations into 2016 election interference and former Vice President Joe Biden, a chief political rival of Trump's. He later backtracked, clarifying that there was "absolutely no quid pro quo."

[Tero]

Democrats watching the first public impeachment hearing Wednesday laughed after Rep. Peter Welch (D-Vt.) invited President Trump to testify.

“I say to my colleague, I’d be glad to have the person who started it all come in and testify. President Trump is welcome to take a seat right there,” Welch said.

His comment was in response to Rep. Jim Jordan’s (R-Ohio) claim that House Democrats are keeping the “guy that started it all,” referring to the whistleblower, from testifying as part of the hearings.

[pErvinalia]

[Scot Dutchy]

What does Fake News do:

Fox News covers impeachment hearing by defending Trump and gaslighting viewers

As first public hearing begins, president’s favorite network seeks to exonerate him with onscreen banners and Muppet ads

Explosive new testimony on the Trump-Ukraine scandal emerged from the first public impeachment hearing on Wednesday.

That posed a problem for Fox News – Donald Trump’s favorite TV channel and a fervent defender of the president. The network responded accordingly, deploying a heady mix of discrediting commentary and, at points, audience gaslighting as it sought to exonerate Trump from the start.

When Bill Taylor began his testimony, Fox News threw up some text on screen, nominally giving background information on the acting US ambassador to Ukraine.

The source of Fox News’ information on him: Donald Trump.

“President Trump dismissed Taylor as a ‘never Trumper’,” Fox News reminded its viewers. It added: “White House called Taylor’s closed-door testimony ‘triple hearsay’.”

[L'Emmerdeur]

I don't know that Republicans in general will adopt the dubious false dichotomy quasi-defence that the pernicious twerp Ben Shapiro has put forward. It's 'better' to hear it in his fingernails-on-a-blackboard nasal bleating, but only if you're not eating.

Is it illegal or impeachable for the president, for the president to want what he wants investigated, investigated? Not necessarily, I mean, not really. Not unless what you're talking about is the president really attempting to leverage American foreign aid on behalf of his electoral results, purely, purely. Not as a side effect of foreign policy. Purely because he wanted Biden out. And that part, honestly, like, I don't actually see that in Trump's activity. I'm trying to--people won't believe me when I say this, obviously, and you shouldn't, right, I mean, because the fact is I am a conservative, y'know, I'm a Republican.

But the fact is I don't actually see objectively that Trump has ever had the level of intent necessary to do anything. Right? I don't think he's ever had the level of intent to put a--to, to eat a hamburger. I think that it's half accident when he eats a hamburger. Like, like, I, I really, I guess the idea here is that Trump, like a laser beam, focussed in on Joe Biden, and he was like, "I'm gonna withhold military aid to get Joe Biden 'cause Joe Biden is just so dangerous. And I have been following this Burisma think like a hawk." Or, alternatively, he has thoughts, and he vomits the thoughts whenever he is asked about a particular topic. Which one sounds more like Trump to you? Thought vomit Trump, or like a laser beam; 4D chess, planning out every move in the--he's Admiral Thrawn from the, from the post Star Wars trilogy. Yeah, I, I, don't think so, I don't think so.