The Impeachment Inquiry

[Gaius Octavius]

Fem men = frustration when their waifus inevitably reject them because deep down all women hate feminine men and crave masculine men. Not counting lesbians ofc.

Rejected men and society becoming increasingly hostile towards men is a recipe for terrorism. Look up the incel phenomenon and MGTOW movement.

Stronger more masculine men tend to be on average more conservative. Prog politics is pushing an anti-male narrative. The shifting attitudes toward men is playing a significant role in skyrocketing suicide rates among young men.

[Skyweir]

I dont really know what a Fem Man is that the Dems seek?

#wonders if they cleared this surreptitious plan to emasculate all men ... with the men in the party

[Gaius Octavius]

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/cia- ... -sl8p8klfr

[Avatar]

The quid pro quo is the malfeasance Nihilo, right?

No, that's how governments work.

That's how governments work, sure. But it's not how political campaigns are supposed to work, surely?

--A

[TheFallen]

Skyweir, in the Social Media thread you recently wrote the below, which I am quoting in this thread, because the subject matter would seem to be more pertinent here:-

On corroboration and hearsay for those who may not understand.

The whole ... its just hearsay and wouldnt be admissible in a court of law thing is incorrect .. hearsay is often admitted as circumstantial evidence.

And the same rules apply to hearsay that apply to circumstantial evidence. Hence the role of supporting corroboration.

brianmathiaslaw.com/legal-resources/201 ... ce-hearsay

I do not believe that the matter of admissibility of hearsay is as simple as you make out.

Firstly - as you've correctly mentioned before - the Impeachment Enquiry is not a trial. Therefore the standard of what's admissible will obviously be more lax.

Secondly and going to the matter of "corroboration", what seems to be being done - so far at least - is ass about face. Clear hearsay - and in fact double hearsay (see the linked article at the bottom for a definition of this) - are both being allowed... BUT as the core crux of things. That's weird.

In a trial, hearsay can in certain circumstances be used corroboratively, so to support a separately made claim or allegation that is being made on the basis of more secure evidence. However, in the Impeachment Enquiry (so far at least), what seems to be taking place is that hearsay or double hearsay is being presented as the core of the "case", rather than in corroborative support of more robust evidence.

Or to put it more bluntly, hearsay/double hearsay is being presented as the central plank of the claim - and presumably those looking to impeach will look to provide some level of corroboration to that hearsay. In a trial, when admissible, hearsay should merely be used supportatively and corroboratively. Hence in the Impeachment Enquiry, things are being done ass about face.

If you want to enlighten yourself more on how hearsay is applied under US law, I very strongly recommend that you read and digest the following article.

Wikipedia on Hearsay in US Law.

[Skyweir]

TF nothing is ever simple ... my sole intent was to make it simple as practicable.

For the purpose of countering the common myth of the inadmissibility of hearsay. And to clarify that hearsay may be admitted as circumstantial evidence. As the link attached explains.

And yes this is not a trial ... it is an investigation in which all forms of evidence are collected.

Following the investigation is the trial and THEN the House will need to ensure they have more than circumstantial evidence, right?
As much as there are broad principles each case has to be taken on a case by case basis.

Ok lets look at the Impeachment inquiry ... the purpose and issue under address as explained by Schiff as the public hearings opened

Whether President Trump sought to condition official acts, such as a White House meeting or U.S. military assistance, on Ukraines willingness to assist with two political investigations that would help his re election campaign?

Trump is accused of breaking the law by pressuring Ukraine's leader to dig up damaging information on his political rival.

A rough part transcript of the call later revealed that in fact shows Trump urging President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former US Vice President Joe Biden and his son.

Here is a small snippet of the transcript.

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike... I guess you have one of your wealthy people...

The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation..I think you surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they. say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, its very important that you do it
if thats possible.

......

The other thing, Theres a lot of talk about Bidens son, that Eiden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it.

And for context, 1. about a dozen people are reported to have listened in on the conversation, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. 2. Trump asks Zelensky to look into his political opponent and his son. 3. Trump indicates that Giuliani AND Barr will be in contact with the Ukrainian government 4. Giuliani confirmed his initiative to seek Ukrainian assistance looking into the Bidens.

So whatever we are hearing now is to substantiate the assertion that the above lays bare.

So its going to be a mix of some hearsay, some first hand witnesses etc.

Apparently Trump is indicating that he is planning to release the unabridged, unredacted actual transcript.

[TheFallen]

Sky, sticking exclusively to what's actually evidenced by the snippet you quoted up above, all that "lays bare" is that Trump made two requests of Zelensky - and nothing more.

Nowhere in that particular snippet alone is there any hard evidence of conditionality or pressure coming from Trump. And as you know, it's apparently that conditionality or pressure that it is claimed needs to be proven in order to give grounds for impeachment.

In fact looking at the transcript as released so far, although there would be some grounds on which to assert that there's a fair bit going unsaid but implied, in my view there's enough plausible deniability in there.

Maybe that'll change if a full and unredacted transcript is ever released (as Trump does seem to have promised)... but then again, he wouldn't release this if it could be used to build a watertight case against him, would he?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

And yes this is not a trial ... it is an investigation in which all forms of evidence are collected.

This is an impeachment. The House of Representatives does not need testimony, or evidence, or anything in order to impeach. All they have to do is sit down with a quorum and hold a vote; since Democrats have a majority in the House they can vote to impeach Trump today, right now even.

Why haven't they done it? They don't need to "prove" anything or sell it to voters. If they wanted to impeach they would do it. They don't do it because they don't have anything on Trump.

Either impeach him today or sit down and shut up.

[TheFallen]

Hashi, as I am sure you are aware, if they impeached Trump today (which as you rightly say, the HoR could have done at any time), the Dems would lose the opportunity of hours of media airtime and reams of column inches in which allegation after allegation could be made against Trump.

The Dems are operating on the principle that, if they spend enough time throwing enough mud, maybe some of it will end up sticking to the POTUS in the minds of some more undecided voters - even if eventually not established as substantiated. So why pass up on that opportunity?

What they're either ignoring or dismissing of course is the more than faint possibility of a completely counter-productive backlash amongst voters to their eternally negative campaigning. They may well end up bolstering support for Trump.

[Skyweir]

Sky, sticking exclusively to what's actually evidenced by the snippet you quoted up above, all that "lays bare" is that Trump made two requests of Zelensky - and nothing more.

Nowhere in that particular snippet alone is there any hard evidence of conditionality or pressure coming from Trump. And as you know, it's apparently that conditionality or pressure that it is claimed needs to be proven in order to give grounds for impeachment.

In fact looking at the transcript as released so far, although there would be some grounds on which to assert that there's a fair bit going unsaid but implied, in my view there's enough plausible deniability in there.

Maybe that'll change if a full and unredacted transcript is ever released (as Trump does seem to have promised)... but then again, he wouldn't release this if it could be used to build a watertight case against him, would he?

Yes ... and what were those two requests

1. To find info re the Mueller Investigation

2. To look into the Bidens

Think TF ... you claim to be an intelligent human

Why?

1. The Mueller Investigation is just a thing Trump cant let go .. tis personal to him now. But thats not really the crux of the complaint is it?

2. To look into the Bidens. To the benefit of the USA ... or to the personal benefit of Trump?

That IS the entire complaint. Trump seeking dirt on HIS political opponent. For the benefit of the USA? The foolhardy dirt has been now roundly debunked but Trump bought into a plan to remove a candidate from the running that Trump saw as his key threat. Why I dont know ... Bidens a complete liability imv.

But none of THAT matters .. Trump believed that the Bidens in a previous lifetime were up to no good ... and if he could find out about that no good that could help him in 2020.

Every witness, every testimony after that simply substantiates Trumps request to Zelensky.

That IS the point.

Its an abuse of his office to seek personal benefit from his office WHILE IN office.

[Skyweir]

Hashi, as I am sure you are aware, if they impeached Trump today (which as you rightly say, the HoR could have done at any time), the Dems would lose the opportunity of hours of media airtime and reams of column inches in which allegation after allegation could be made against Trump.

The Dems are operating on the principle that, if they spend enough time throwing enough mud, maybe some of it will end up sticking to the POTUS in the minds of some more undecided voters - even if eventually not established as substantiated. So why pass up on that opportunity?

What they're either ignoring or dismissing of course is the more than faint possibility of a completely counter-productive backlash amongst voters to their eternally negative campaigning. They may well end up bolstering support for Trump.

All speculation and BS.

The Dems has no intent to hold public hearings at this juncture if at all. The Pubs demanded public hearings after storming the closed door hearings ... of which there were Pub representatives on the Inquiry Committee.

So the Dems relented and now are holding public hearings.

You cant have it every which way.

Giuliani practically boasted about his idea of getting the Ukrainian government to look into the Bidens. All those appearing are simply substantiating what has been established in the transcript AND by Giuliani AND Trump himself.

[TheFallen]

Yes ... and what were those two requests

1. To find info re the Mueller Investigation

2. To look into the Bidens

Think TF ... you claim to be an intelligent human

Why?

It's very obvious why. But unlike you, I don't think that making a self-interested request - regardless of motive - is necessarily impeachable at all. What particular statute has been transgressed by a POTUS merely making a self-interested request that the request-receiving party is free to act on or ignore at it chooses? Please quote it.

What without a doubt would be impeachable - as Hashi's recently said - would be "bribery or extortion". In fact it was Pelosi who very recently brought this issue up - and indeed if applicable, it *would* finally be something that an impeachment could legitimately be hung upon, from what I understand - and which I suspect is exactly what Pelosi's realised and why she's now raising it.

So a POTUS applying overt conditionality or overtly exerting positive or negative pressure in an attempt to get his self-interested requests acted upon would indeed be impeachable.

In my view, legally speaking (from what I understand of the process) THAT is the entire complaint.

In my view, legally speaking (from what I understand of the process) THAT is the point.

Separately...

All speculation and BS.

Wind your neck in dear... it's my opinion - and one I am at liberty to hold. Sure, you may not agree with it, but probably best not to instantly work yourself into a vituperative, swivel-eyed and frothing rage... it's bad for your blood pressure.

The Dems has no intent to hold public hearings at this juncture if at all.

You know this for a fact, do you? You've presented it as one... but I strongly doubt that you do. In fact, were I a less calm individual, I might have knee-jerkishly screamed that this groundless statement was mere "speculation and BS"... but as I'm not, I won't.

So the Dems relented and now are holding public hearings.

The Dems "relented", did they? Why? Because they are nice and caring guys, perhaps? In my opinion, no political party - whether Dem or Pub - ever does anything at all, unless it either:-

a) considers it on balance in its better interests to take a particular course of action, or

b) considers it on balance to be more damaging to its interests not to take a particular course of action, or

c) no longer has a viable choice as to what particular course of action to take.

Dems "relenting"... Yeah, because the US political arena isn't uber-polarised, uber-divisive, uber-fanatical and uber-pantomime at all, is it?

I suspect that my view re political parties as expressed above is just a tad less naive than yours.

[Gaius Octavius]

https://www.bitchute.com/video/FqqI2afl5ro/

[Skyweir]

Its still all speculation and BS regardless of being your opinion.

Since when were bribery and extortion NOT crimes. There are in Criminal Laws at both State and Federal levels

But more importantly bribery is a Constitutionally prescribed impeachable offence AS WELL AS being a crime.

You seem to be conflating a consequential personal benefiting from the office of POTUS with an impeachable personally benefiting from the office of POTUS ..

The writing, the substantiation of THE CALL ... that it actually occurred is now well established. The claim that congressionally approved aid was withheld is also established and unchallengeable now.

Though the hold re the aid did not follow established protocol for holding. As BAU is that REASONS are recorded for WHY aid is delayed... in this case however, I understand that no reasons were included ... in writing ... against the Ukrainian Aid file. So not surprising ... there is an absence of that particular paper trail. THAT is not BAU nor established protocol.

The personal favours have been established.

What is occurring now is further corroboration and substantiation continues of all those elements currently established per those called in to testify in the closed and now the public hearings, David Holmes, Yovanovitch, Sondland, Taylor ... they are just providing the context behind what has already been established.

You may or may not be relying too heavily on Pub talking points and Trump sound bytes

Trump. No quid pro quo
Mulvaney. No quid pro quo
Mulvaney. Well there was quid pro quo, its just BAU.

Trump. It was a great phone call.
Trump. It was a perfect phone call.

Its not only meaningless it completely detracts from the actual issue. Bribery, the plan to get the Ukraine gov to look into the Bidens, Giuliani, his two Ukrainian Russian homeys, the trips to Ukraine, Barrs role, those present for the phone call, those aware of the bribery etc.

Its about the personal favour. Its about the bribery. Its about what you dont do .. when in government, you dont blackmail an aid recipient for the sole purpose of getting dirt on your electoral opponent, to better your personal chances at the ballot box. Thats verboten. Its Misuse of office and power of a POTUS.

If you get up to this kind of no good ... you want to be very sure youre not going to get caught.

[Skyweir]

Also this

nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/11/impeach ... mpaign=nym

With an eye on the Stone conviction we again see Trump surrounds himself with the shiftiest ... not the bestest ... as he assured the American people he would

Draining the swamp? No ... more like adding to the swamp and making it swampier

[Savor Dam]

Not so much draining it as regrading it to drain in their direction, but that still qualifies as draining it...in some sense of the term.

[Skyweir]

Id say thats most definitely debatable.

[TheFallen]

Sky, for then love of GOD will you PLEASE FUCKING READ what people take the time to type before posting your responses????

The blatant irrelevance of your replies are incredibly irritating and also your continual thoughtless responses are very ironically almost Trump-esque in their kneejerkism. I'm sure that's a standard you wouldn't want to aspire to.

Direct case in point:-

What without a doubt would be impeachable - as Hashi's recently said - would be "bribery or extortion". In fact it was Pelosi who very recently brought this issue up - and indeed if applicable, it *would* finally be something that an impeachment could legitimately be hung upon, from what I understand - and which I suspect is exactly what Pelosi's realised and why she's now raising it.

So a POTUS applying overt conditionality or overtly exerting positive or negative pressure in an attempt to get his self-interested requests acted upon would indeed be impeachable.

Since when were bribery and extortion NOT crimes. There are in Criminal Laws at both State and Federal levels

But more importantly bribery is a Constitutionally prescribed impeachable offence AS WELL AS being a crime.

Erm...

Yes dear, I know. I'd only just said the self-same thing prior to your response


Furthermore:-

You seem to be conflating a consequential personal benefiting from the office of POTUS with an impeachable personally benefiting from the office of POTUS.

Not in the least. I pointed out that merely asking a self-interested favour was not impeachable (do feel free as multiply requested to point out any statute showing that merely doing this is in fact impeachable).

Anyhow...

My take on this whole kerfuffle is now this:-

The Dems have undoubtedly been frantically digging for months, if not years, looking to find a viable hook upon which to hang Trump. As I've said, I personally think that they would have been better served looking to make themselves more electable, instead of relying on literally nothing but divisive and negative campaigning. Also, this Dem strategy further damages their credibility by making them appear as obsessional "little boys who cried wolf".

The first attempt - the whole fiasco of the Mueller Report - turned out to be a busted flush and resulted in nothing.

Up until Thursday two days ago, the latest Dem attempt to reverse 2016 and dethrone Trump was exactly the same - effectively a trial looking for a crime. It failed to establish its validity on any basis.

HOWEVER things have changed - which is why Dem supporters are newly energised and all excited (and busily trying to draw a veil over the last many months of obsessional witch hunts). Pelosi FINALLY came up with viable grounds for impeachment - namely "bribery and/or extortion".

Now this whole sad pantomime so far has been groundless - BUT NOW the enquiry seems to be at least justifiable in some part. It's now going to require the Dems to prove - and please note, non-circumstantially - that Trump exerted leverage that was only available to him in his capacity as POTUS for his own personal political gain. I would say that NOW the impeachment enquiry has finally become justified.

But there are a number of ongoing problems for the Dems.

Do I think that this can be proven to sufficient standard? I seriously doubt it - there'll be sufficient plausible deniability.

Even if it were proven to sufficient standard - and bear in mind as Hashi keeps saying, nothing needs to be proven at all for the HoR to impeach - would the Senate then vote to remove Trump from office? I seriously doubt it.

Three final opinions from me - and partly in answer to Brinn's posed question

Do I personally believe Trump is guilty of using his presidential powers to leverage personal political gain? Yes I absolutely do, but doubt it's sufficiently provable.

Do I personally believe that this sort of leveraged quid pro quo-ing goes on all the time under all administrations? Yes I do. That doesn't make it right of course, but I'd bet it's the norm.

Do I personally think that on balance and as a whole the US would be better served at the moment by a Dem in the White House, given the potential candidates and their potential manifestos/policies/ideologies? Actually no, I don't - and that is what is so eternally depressing and shocking.

It's also why I keep insisting that the Dems spend less time on the fanatical offensive and sort out their own shit. They need to be seen as viably electable - and they simply aren't, no matter how impeachable Trump may or may not be.

[Brinn]

Three final opinions from me - and partly in answer to Brinn's posed question

Do I personally believe Trump is guilty of using his presidential powers to leverage personal political gain? Yes I absolutely do, but doubt it's sufficiently provable.

Do I personally believe that this sort of leveraged quid pro quo-ing goes on all the time under all administrations? Yes I do. That doesn't make it right of course, but I'd bet it's the norm.

Do I personally think that on balance and as a whole the US would be better served at the moment by a Dem in the White House, given the potential candidates and their potential manifestos/policies/ideologies? Actually no, I don't - and that is what is so eternally depressing and shocking.

It's also why I keep insisting that the Dems spend less time on the fanatical offensive and sort out their own shit. They need to be seen as viably electable - and they simply aren't, no matter how impeachable Trump may or may not be.

This is a very reasonable, and in my estimation, intellectually honest appraisal of the situation. Thanks for answering my question.

[Zarathustra]

Do I personally believe Trump is guilty of using his presidential powers to leverage personal political gain? Yes I absolutely do, but doubt it's sufficiently provable.

But there are two possibilities here. "Using his presidential powers" could have been limited merely to asking a foreign leader to do him a favor, OR he could have "bribed/extorted" by withholding the aid. The former would be rather innocuous, right? The latter might be more serious, but it's not literally bribery/extortion as others are saying. These have legal definitions, and withholding aid doesn't fit either. We use our aid as a carrot/stick all the damn time. This is one of our tools to get countries to do what we want. We only call it "bribery/extortion" when Trump is the one doing it.

Do I personally believe that this sort of leveraged quid pro quo-ing goes on all the time under all administrations? Yes I do. That doesn't make it right of course, but I'd bet it's the norm.

Why exactly is it wrong? I honestly think people view this as wrong only when Trump does it, and because they don't like Trump. As I've noted elsewhere, Biden thought so little of the moral implications, he openly bragged about a similar act on camera! And no one in the media batted an eye. Are we *sure* it's wrong? Or did we just suddenly decide that it was by groupthink?

People keep focusing on the "personal political gain" angle, but what if Biden actually did something wrong? After all, Trump can only benefit from this if Biden actually did something wrong. Let's set aside any ambiguity here. Imagine that Biden sold top secret national security info to the Russians. That's wrong, without a doubt. Now, imagine that Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate it. Are we still going to be appalled that he might benefit from this politically? At what point do we allow the President to investigate a political rival?? The Dems have investigated Trump his entire presidency, but for some reason we don't see any political gain in that at all. Why are they the only ones allowed to investigate their rivals and retain moral purity??

For most people in this debate (besides Brinn, apparently), they are only imagining that Trump is wrong because they assume that Biden did nothing wrong. As soon as you admit that he *might* be guilty of something serious, then there's nothing wrong about Trump wanting to investigate it--no more than the Dems wanting to investigate him.