Dr. Hill directly addressing and taking down Nunes conspiracy theory. "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.”
Man, I hear what you're saying and the prospect of another 4 years of chump unhindered by re-election concerns is terrible. The counterpoint I'd offer is this - if they do the investigation and do not submit articles of impeachment, doesn't that get paraded by Trump as capitulation? There will be the same cries of hoax, witch hunt, etc. There was no half measure available on the table. The only real choice was (i) investigate, impeach, and senate doesn't remove, or (ii) do nothing, don't investigate, complain in the press about corruption, and deal with democrat infighting about why the House is not doing its constitutional duty. I legitimately share your extremely valid concern about this turning into a real boon for chump trump. The dems were in a tough spot no matter what.
I do understand that and I agree at this point I'm just saying we need to be realistic about outcomes. I've made this point before, but I genuinely believe that a huge chunk of America has moved to where they would be fine with autocratic rule as long as the autocrat was part of their team. I don't believe charges like this resonate with a big portion of America anymore. I talk to conservatives all day every day and they don't parrot what the politicians say. Most of them say some version of "Of course he probably did it but so what?" If you read Facebook you will see that most conservatives on Facebook simply don't care about the allegations regardless of whether they are true or not.
I agree with you... In July it seemed as if Trump was a shoe in for 2020; but now.. hmmm With the way that the voting has gone in predominately red states, man it's crazy.... The only think that could really help Trump is for him to convince Hillary to run again.. I just don't think he can beat Biden, Warren, Buttigieg or Sanders.... It would be real close with the other nominees.. T_Man
Bolton has to testify. I hope major part of america that is interested in this topic listens to the hearing rather than finding what happened thru their favorite cable news channels.
Epistemic closure was called out by liberals a long time ago. But there's something to be said for being in the epistemology that closely aligns with the way the world really is - vs. the crowdstrike crazy town one, and there's no middle ground to cede. We simply can't function in a 'post facts' world. The only thing we can do is do is to continue to do the right thing.
It's a data-point, but I don't think it kills it. DoD announced that it cleared the money on June 18, so by July 25 it's quite reasonable that Zelenskiy is getting impatient about it not showing up. And perhaps he gets a little more concerned when his request to buy missiles is rebuffed. So he asks his people to check up about the money. It doesn't have to be because he got an indication that it's not coming, just due diligence because he's anxious about it. Even so, from other testimony and other reporting, it seems to me Ukraine believes there is a hold in early August. Alexandra Chalupa, like Hunter Biden, is a distraction from the purpose of the hearings. Republicans are trying to muddy the waters about what Trump might have done by talking about possible bad acts by other people. I actually don't like seeing Republican Reps totally shut down on this, even though I think that line of inquiry is bs. But, if there is any place for the House to investigate what Ukraine, Crowdstrike, Chalupa, and Biden allegedly did to try to undermine Trump's 2016 election, these impeachment hearings aren't it. Open a separate docket to investigate those issues. Probably should have done that instead of asking a foreign government in a country with a history of corruption to conduct it. But, an even more appropriate organ would have been the FBI. As to whether this goes to the Senate, it's a foregone conclusion imo. You can't put the country through all this and then say, no we don't have enough of a case. When the House voted to stop the closed-door depositions and have open hearings, they showed they were confident they had what they needed for impeachment charges. And then turn around and complain about how corrupt Washington is. We are all so ****ed.
A "pragmatic" or "political realist" approach isn't the same thing as Trump support. I've read most of Corrosion's posts. There's nothing wrong with being a pragmatic person.
Its a huge mistake to not have Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton, Pence and Trump testify. They should have subpoenaed them and have the courts rule on this. Trump under oath would be the best thing ever.
Trump testifying would lead to a second impeachment inquiry over perjury from all lies he'd inevitably spew under oath.
Circumstantial evidence is every bit as important as any other type of evidence. People are convicted every single day on circumstantial evidence. The vast majority of convictions I have had in my career have been on circumstantial evidence, especially when dealing with racketeering or a criminal enterprise. It is poorly framed to the extent that it does not cut off other evidence or other basis for conclusion. The questioned was asked that way because that is the only way he could ask that question and get the conclusion he wants. First, no it wouldn't be easy to convict him as it would require strong Republican support in the Senate and that is not going to happen. It is a strong case, it is very similar to all the racketeering cases I have tried. It isn't a criminal trial though so it all comes down to politics. The vast majority of Republicans in the Senate do not give a damn what Trump has done criminally unless there are election consequences. Likewise the vast majority of Democrats would not be so hot to impeach the President if he were not a Republican. This is all politics at this point. That does not mean that one side doesn't have a stronger position, but it is all politics. I have stated that I do not know if the President should be removed from office. What I do know is that he has surrounded himself with compromised or morally questionable people. The President does not have clean hands but that does not necessarily mean he should be removed from office. I tend to agree with you that the removal of a President from office should be an extreme measure. This is a red herring. The Mueller investigation and the impeachment proceedings are not simply based on people disliking him. He has skirted the line on at a minimum in interfering in a federal investigation and in his dealings with the Ukraine. I will buy someone stating they believe that the President has not conducted himself as he should, BUT it hasn't risen to the level of removal from office. However Trump has not been an innocent spectator in this whole matter.
I'm not being critical here I'm simply expressing my opinion on the world we are in. You say we can't function in this world, but the reality is we are IN this world. I don't think "Western Values" (I'll avoid using liberal democratic because of stupid people) really matter to large chunks of Americans anymore. When these career diplomats go before Congress and talk about democracy being under attack, our values, etc. the conservatives on Facebook are literally mocking them for it and saying they don't want these people in the government. I just don't know how we move forward. I'm not saying Democrats shouldn't be doing what they are doing, I'm saying it won't create an outcome and people should understand that. The Republicans are going to acquit Donald Trump in the Senate, 100%, no matter what any one testifies to. Mike Pompeo could flip, go before the Senate and say that Trump told him that if he didn't get the investigation into Biden he would order the US military to gang rape the wives and daughters of every US Senator and they'd STILL acquit him. Because that what their political future dictates. It's not because of Trump, it's because of the voters. Our society is fracturing and we are in a post facts world. I don't know how any of it gets fixed.
Not trying to appear self-important, but I would really like to see the Republican/Trump camp response to what I posted last night (in response to the argument that Trump's "no quid pro quo" statement is magic and powerful "direct evidence"). @bigtexxx @TheresTheDagger @bingsha10 TheresTheDagger said: ↑ I believe you mean its as relevant as any TYPE of evidence...? If so, I couldn't disagree more. It's not as relevant as direct evidence and furthermore, there is circumstantial evidence pointing to Trumps innocence as well that is compelling.. Click to expand... I believe what you are attempting to argue is direct evidence is more probative (i.e., should be given more weight) than circumstantial evidence (not that it is more relevant, which means it pertains to a subject). This is not a trial at the courthouse governed by the rules of evidence, but some general evidentiary principles apply here because they make sense. The probative value of someone's statement (Trump saying no quid pro quo) is impacted by many things. A non-exhaustive list includes: - the credibility of the person - the motive of the person - the veracity of the statement in light of the remainder of the body of evidence. The Republican case rests on two primary pillars: (i) Trump said no quid pro quo - the magic "direct evidence"; and (ii) trump was worried about Ukraine corruption, and his ask for the announcement of the investigation was to advance the policy of making sure Ukraine was not corrupt, and any political benefit is a side show. The Democrats have a clear response: Trump's actions belie the words: He said the words no quid pro quo. What actually happens? WH visit is withheld - fact. Aid delayed - fact. Demand/request for announcement on burisma repeatedly pushed at Trump's request - fact. Aid released only after the whistleblower complaint comes out - fact. - Trumps alleged worry about Ukranian corruption is a fabrication - all agencies agreed aid to Ukraine was appropriate and the new Ukrainian regime was not corrupt. These are bi-partisan agencies. The reality is the Republican's best defense of Trump is the intent argument - Trump was worried about corruption in Ukraine and that's why he withheld the money. The magic "direct evidence" statement of "no quid pro quo" carries little to no weight in light of the actions which actually occurred. (It's like a mob boss says "hey, we do nothing illegal ok boys?", and his goons go around to each neighborhood business and collect protection money.) What if Trump had a dual intent: He withheld aid because of worry about corruption and he wanted dirt on the Bidens. That could be true. But are we really to believe that getting dirt on the Bidens was not a motive at all? Is there a single Trump supporter who is willing to say with a straight face that Trump asking for an announcement regarding an investigation Burisma had literally nothing to do with damaging Biden's candidacy as the then-lead candidate in the Dem primary (and viewed as most likely among Dems to beat Trump). Do you Trump supporters, who regard Trump as the tough business man, really believe this tough guy wouldn't want to go get dirt on Biden? The point is this - Trump's magic "no quid pro quo" statement is absolutely belied by the specific actions taken to pressure Ukraine into an announcement of an investigation. Trump had power, means, and motive to pressure the Ukrainians by witholding WH visit and aid, and golly gee whiz, that's what exactly happened. That is the probative circumstantial evidence that dramatically outweighs trump's "no quid pro quo" statement. This is a long post, but I would dearly love for a Trump supporter to respond to this in any meaningful way. I am more than willing to engage in a civil dialogue about this. @bigtexxx @TheresTheDagger @bingsha10 edit: At no time do I cite Sondland's testimony that he thought there was a quid pro quo. It's really not even necessary. edit: adding @dachuda86, who does not necessarily believe he is a Trump supporter but often has views on this.
This is our reality. Trump's election ushered in the age of this post facts world. Just wait until the politicians of way more corrupt countries understand how to weaponize social media. George Costanza was truly ahead of his time.
This 100%. In a lot of senses this isn't a popularity contest either. The majority of Americans can believe Trump is corrupt and an ineffective President and it won't matter. It all comes down to who votes and where they vote. People in Pennsylvania, Ohio, Florida, Wisconsin and Michigan, Colorado and Nevada are going to decide this election. People in Pennsylvania and Ohio and Wisconsin and Michigan are culturally different that people in California, New York and other massive urban areas.
most people don't think impeaching a impeaching a president when there is minimal chance he gets removed is doing there job and fulfilling their duties. A lot of people will look at it as a waste of time and resources and that's not just republicans.
Why do you think Independents are such stupid people? Why do you think independents will believe anything Trump says? Name on democratic candidate who wants open borders. You are just trolling now.
