The Trump Impeachment Thread

[jjaisli]

Sonderland's testimony must be pretty chilling for congressional Republicans.

https://www.npr.org/2019/11/20/7786...peachment-witness-headlines-wednesday-hearing

He just directly tied Trump, Pence, Pompeo & Guiliani to the overall campaign to pressure Ukrainian officials. There is both smoke and fire and I think this could be the tipping point where some of them start to see the handwriting on the wall and I think we may be seeing the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency. I think it's pretty clear from what we heard today (and democratic majority in Congress) means a vote for an impeachment trial is inevitable. And if it gets to that point, we're going to finally see some real deal cutting from the President that he portrays himself to be the master of. Only it will be saving his own skin.

I've been wrong before but I can't see him escaping the the slowly closing rope around his neck. It's just a matter of time now.

 

[PocketZeven]

No it's not a big deal. Biden should be investigated for corruption. I would argue there was no quid-quo-pro because Ukraine got their military aid even though they never opened an investigation after Trump's call.

Thats not the facts though. The aid was released after it was known about the whistleblower. First account witnesses have confirmed that aid was withheld.

If Biden should be investigated then why not let the DOJ handle it? Instead he sent his personal lawyer. The Ukranian Proscecuter General has stated there is no evidence of wrongdoing. What kind of corruption do you think Hunter Biden is guilty of?

 

[Danoff]

He just directly tied Trump, Pence, Pompeo & Guiliani to the overall campaign to pressure Ukrainian officials. There is both smoke and fire and I think this could be the tipping point where some of them start to see the handwriting on the wall and I think we may be seeing the beginning of the end of the Trump presidency. I think it's pretty clear from what we heard today (and democratic majority in Congress) means a vote for an impeachment trial is inevitable.

I think a vote on impeachment, and indeed a successful impeachment of Trump has been a foregone conclusion for some time. Right now the House is laying the foundation to try to persuade the Senate that they have no choice. This whole proceeding is to convince Senators to remove him from office.

 

[PocketZeven]

I think a vote on impeachment, and indeed a successful impeachment of Trump has been a foregone conclusion for some time. Right now the House is laying the foundation to try to persuade the Senate that they have no choice. This whole proceeding is to convince Senators to remove him from office.

Do you think an actual recording of the call itself could even persuade Mitch & Co? It seems extremely unlikely.

 

[Danoff]

Do you think an actual recording of the call itself could even persuade Mitch & Co? It seems extremely unlikely.

I think for some in the Senate (and some on this message board), the burden of proof is extreme. The US judicial system has lots of degrees of burden of proof. Such as, more likely than not, preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt (there are others, like probable cause, but it's less applicable). I think what some republicans interpret it as "beyond conceivable doubt" which is not a standard used for any trial for any crime.

I admit at this moment I do not know what the burden of proof is for removal of office, but I the most it could be is beyond a reasonable doubt, and I think that has been met already.

So there is almost no way to convince republicans that the evidence is sufficient to impeach and remove. But what could happen is that the public is convinced that the evidence is sufficient, and then the republicans will turn on trump out of self preservation (I think).


Edit:

Did a little legal research, it turns that the legal standard for burden of proof for impeachment and removal is not defined. It's up to each congressperson to decide what the standard should be and whether it is met. Certainly I would say that the highest standard they should apply "is beyond a reasonable doubt", and even that standard may not be warranted. If you view removal from office as firing someone from a job, certainly employers would not use such an extreme standard.

Edit:

For example, one would imagine that a higher standard should be used for imprisonment of the president than that used for removal of office.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Or they could all die on the same hill with him, which I fear is also likely.

 

[PocketZeven]

I think for some in the Senate (and some on this message board), the burden of proof is extreme. The US judicial system has lots of degrees of burden of proof. Such as, more likely than not, preponderance of the evidence, clear and convincing evidence, beyond a reasonable doubt (there are others, like probable cause, but it's less applicable). I think what some republicans interpret it as "beyond conceivable doubt" which is not a standard used for any trial for any crime.

I admit at this moment I do not know what the burden of proof is for removal of office, but I the most it could be is beyond a reasonable doubt, and I think that has been met already.

So there is almost no way to convince republicans that the evidence is sufficient to impeach and remove. But what could happen is that the public is convinced that the evidence is sufficient, and then the republicans will turn on trump out of self preservation (I think).


Edit:

Did a little legal research, it turns that the legal standard for burden of proof for impeachment and removal is not defined. It's up to each congressperson to decide what the standard should be and whether it is met. Certainly I would say that the highest standard they should apply "is beyond a reasonable doubt", and even that standard may not be warranted. If you view removal from office as firing someone from a job, certainly employers would not use such an extreme standard.

Edit:

For example, one would imagine that a higher standard should be used for imprisonment of the president than that used for removal of office.

With the blind loyalty to the party within the republican party I foresee they will spin every hard evidence into Trump's defence. The narrative is probably going to shift even more to that Trump had the right to withhold aid, to investigate "corruption".

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

No it's not a big deal. Biden should be investigated for corruption. I would argue there was no quid-quo-pro because Ukraine got their military aid even though they never opened an investigation after Trump's call.

Mob defense attorneys would love you on their jury.

 

[Danoff]

The narrative is probably going to shift even more to that Trump had the right to withhold aid, to investigate "corruption".

No doubt, because the evidence that he did it is overwhelming. Beyond a reasonable doubt in my view. That last one is a question of law, is it forbidden for him to "investigate corruption" in this manner, and the answer there is quite clear cut - yes it is forbidden for him to do so. The public may not be as aware of that, but it is clearly laid out.

Given that the evidence that he did it is huge, they will most certainly fall back on "he did it, but it's not a crime", and the answer there is also overwhelmingly "yes it is".

 

[PocketZeven]

No doubt, because the evidence that he did it is overwhelming. Beyond a reasonable doubt in my view. That last one is a question of law, is it forbidden for him to "investigate corruption" in this manner, and the answer there is quite clear cut - yes it is forbidden for him to do so. The public may not be as aware of that, but it is clearly laid out.

Given that the evidence that he did it is huge, they will most certainly fall back on "he did it, but it's not a crime", and the answer there is also overwhelmingly "yes it is".

Hopefully it is enough for the american swingvoters realise what he really is. It is sometimes amazing how many people blindly follow the narrative that the republicans are pushing like @stonesfan129 . It seems to be difficult to look at facts and evidence objectively.

edit:

It is mindblowing how republicans are now trying there best to discredit Trump appointed officials. To everybody else its clear these officials have decided not to go to jail for Trump.

 

[NotThePrez]

Or they could all die on the same hill with him, which I fear is also likely.

I've been listening to/watching today's proceedings on and off since 10 AM this morning, and there are seemingly a healthy number of Republican representatives ready to die on the same hill as the president, which is genuinely terrifying.

That being said, most of the Dems that have been questioning the Ambassador have also been pretty crap. Honestly, 90% of the representatives (on both sides) that are present seem to either be A) Morons, or B) completely incapable of listening and asking good questions. That Maloney character in particular was insufferable.

 

[TenEightyOne]

there are seemingly a healthy number of Republican representatives ready to die on the same hill as the president

I think the reason for that is obvious: if you stand against him and he doesn't fall then he'll immediately use his position (and scintillating personality) to burn you professionally and in the public eye. In fact he'll be doing that during the actual fight.

Even if he does fall he'll still be trying to burn his opponents in the public eye unless he's actually locked in a jail cell (which he won't be). And, even if he survives the Presidency without being impeached, once his time's up he'll still be burning opponents. Opposing Trump is a dangerous game when his fanbase is so focused on his Trump-Truths*.

Opposing him might be the right thing to do if you don't care about your public image or political career. I guess that's another mark of a man who thinks he's bigger than the office of his people.

* The best, yoogest truths, made to order.

 

[Danoff]

This is well said:

 

[TexRex]

Ladies and gentlemen, Liddle' Adam Schiff.

For example, one would imagine that a higher standard should be used for imprisonment of the president than that used for removal of office.

I think this is a good point and a very important distinction. Impeachment and subsequent removal of a federal officer aren't about punishing said officer, but about prevention of further abuses for which said officer has demonstrated a propensity. Further to that, impeachment and subsequent removal does not preclude criminal prosecution and possible imprisonment.

 

[Keef]

Further to that, impeachment and subsequent removal does not preclude criminal prosecution and possible imprisonment.

I wonder if this will be the subject of a future amendment for clarification. A lot has been argued about the "double jeopardy" concept but as you said, impeachment is a simply a removal from office, a forced resignation, which is no more a criminal punishment than firing an employee. When an employee commits a crime, they both get fired and prosecuted. Two different systems.

 

[Biggles]

Actually, I have been very impressed with "Shifty Schiff". His summations have been concise, clear & to the point.

 

[TexRex]

I wonder if this will be the subject of a future amendment for clarification. A lot has been argued about the "double jeopardy" concept but as you said, impeachment is a simply a removal from office, a forced resignation, which is no more a criminal punishment than firing an employee. When an employee commits a crime, they both get fired and prosecuted. Two different systems.

I don't believe clarification is necessary as Article I, Section 3, Clause 7 holds that no punishment may be levied upon the convicted officer beyond that of removal from office, and that removal does not preclude indictment and trial for criminal acts. As the only result of conviction is removal from office, there is no "jeopardy of life and limb" per the Fifth Amendment.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Please resign Trump. For the good of everything. Just....resign. You can even keep harping on your victimhood! You can use it to launch a new reality TV show and go back to the celebrity lifestyle.

 

[DesertPenguin]

So what happened today?

 

[ryzno]

So what happened today?

More testimony, Dr. Hill and Mr. Holmes today. I'm glad we're getting to people who aren't hear say witnesses oh and Schiff is getting a little impatient and testy IMO.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm glad we're getting to people who aren't hear say witnesses

Sondland was a hearsay witness? Hill was a hearsay witness?

 

[Danoff]

I'm glad we're getting to people who aren't hear say witnesses

It's important context, even when you already have a confession from the perpetrator.

 

[Biggles]

So what happened today?

According to the testimony of Fiona Hill, a former White House Russia expert, President Trump disregarded the advice of senior advisers to push a false theory that Ukraine meddled in the 2016 election. Hill described this as a "fictional narrative" that was pushed by Rudy Giuliani. She also criticized Republican congressmen:

"Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country - and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did"

"This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves."

 

[Liquid]

This is well said:

Excellent video.

 

[ryzno]

Sondland was a hearsay witness? Hill was a hearsay witness?

I was referring to day 1 testimony.

And like I said @Danoff, I want to hear everything... I've already agreed with you.

 

[TenEightyOne]

According to the testimony of Fiona Hill, a former White House Russia expert...

...and a County Durham lass, not the type to be frightened of gobby fellas with spray tans.

 

[UKMikey]

Perhaps someone could explain this one to me. Isn't 0 days supposed to be better? Because that means Schiff followed the rules today.

 

[TexRex]

Perhaps someone could explain this one to me. Isn't 0 days supposed to be better? Because that means Schiff followed the rules today.

They're, uh...they're not very smart.

Edit: If ever a "heh" response is warranted, it is here.

...

Heh.

 

[UKMikey]

They're, uh...they're not very smart.

Edit: If ever a "heh" response is warranted, it is here.

...

Heh.

A marginally more charitable assessment is that perhaps they deliberately worded the sign in a way designed to make certain people viewing at home think that Schiff had done something wrong.

 

[ryzno]

Well it did say 7 yesterday, but hey, let's ignore that...
Edit:
*Ignore this post, brain fart moment.*