The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (2 Viewers)

[Andrus]

By Laura Bassett

After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

“Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

Read the Full Story - InStyle

 

[samiam5211]

As a former prosecutor most of my cases were a collection of witnesses and evidence to connect a criminal to a crime. I would have to explain to juries that I don’t have a video of the person smiling at the camera during the robbery. Such is the nature of bad deeds, the person committing the crime is doing everything he can not to get caught, conceal his acts and not leave a trail of evidence.

Trump knew what he was doing was wrong. He doesn’t use email. He has been obviously careful in a very transparent attempt to give him plausible deniability if he were to get caught.

The Republicans are insisting on an impossible burden of proof what amounts to a video of Trump admitting on camera holding up aid to Ukraine. That won’t happen.

There is more than enough evidence for an impartial jury to find Trump withheld aid for political pruooses. But we don’t have an impartial jury, we have a partisan jury. Sad as it sounds, I don’t think today changed a thing.

The house will impeach Trump. The Senate will acquit him. All we can really hope for is that the on the fence voters will intellectual integrity will see through the smoke screen and help vote Trump out.

Maybe the realistic goal all along for the democrats is not to have Trump impeached by the Senate with these proceedings, but rather to sway on the fence voters. I hope they are doing that and not swaying them the other way.

I think that you are underestimating the impact of new information that is going to be learned. Already it seems that staffers of witnesses are realizing they have pieces of the puzzle as more of it becomes public.

Eventually, the group of conspirators get caught in a throwing under the bus contest as the truth becomes more obvious. We may have already seen the start of this today with Sondland.

Trump is transactional, and transactional people attract each other. None of them know how to be loyal to another person.

The Republicans in the Senate haven’t had much to say lately.

 

[Beach Friends]

As a former prosecutor most of my cases were a collection of witnesses and evidence to connect a criminal to a crime. I would have to explain to juries that I don’t have a video of the person smiling at the camera during the robbery. Such is the nature of bad deeds, the person committing the crime is doing everything he can not to get caught, conceal his acts and not leave a trail of evidence.

Trump knew what he was doing was wrong. He doesn’t use email. He has been obviously careful in a very transparent attempt to give him plausible deniability if he were to get caught.

The Republicans are insisting on an impossible burden of proof what amounts to a video of Trump admitting on camera holding up aid to Ukraine. That won’t happen.

There is more than enough evidence for an impartial jury to find Trump withheld aid for political pruooses. But we don’t have an impartial jury, we have a partisan jury. Sad as it sounds, I don’t think today changed a thing.

The house will impeach Trump. The Senate will acquit him. All we can really hope for is that the on the fence voters will intellectual integrity will see through the smoke screen and help vote Trump out.

Maybe the realistic goal all along for the democrats is not to have Trump impeached by the Senate with these proceedings, but rather to sway on the fence voters. I hope they are doing that and not swaying them the other way.

I am genuinely curious (not trying a gotcha at all) if your experience in trying cases before juries, and observing others, leaves you with the impression that it is a mistake for an attorney to over promise in his/her opening statement what the evidence will show.

Obviously the reason I ask is that I think what Schiff did was akin to that.

I really think Schiff's conduct has hurt the Democrats, but I admit my perception may be affected by my own bias - I don't care for the man.

I think he has a likability problem and he needed to recognize that and account for it. He would have, IMO, better served his cause if he looked less like he had a cause. If he came across as a more neutral chair of a proceeding looking for the truth wherever that may lead the perception of him would have been much more positive.

I believe with this amount of testimony, perception is critical.

BTW, just as I think Schiff has been the worst thing that has happened for the perception of the Democratic side, I think Trump's tweets during this may be what leaves the most negative perception for his side.

 

[MT15]

Does that compare at all to how the DNC operative Chalupa got Ukraine to announce an investigation into Manafort before the election despite there being no investigation? Then as soon as the election was over they retracted the announcement. I understand that in one case its the DNC and the other case is the President, but otherwise do you see any similarities?

Here‘s the critical difference: the DNC is a political organization and they haven’t taken an oath to uphold the constitution nor are they sworn into public service, only to turn around and use the office they were sworn into service of their country for their own political motives. See the difference?

 

[FullMonte]

I didn't get the watch the hearing, but what was so damming about Sondland's testimony? Did he offer any evidence besides his "own presumption" that's referred to in this video?

Let me put that into perspective for you:

Schiff: Sir, please describe what happened.

Witness: I was walking home at night, and a man jumped out of the bushes. He pointed a gun at me and said, "Your wallet...quick."

Schiff: What do you think he meant when he said that?

Witness: I assumed he meant that if I didn't give him my wallet he was going to shoot me.

Schiff: I yield my time.

Turner: Sir, when the man jumped out of the bushes, did he say "give me your wallet, or I'm going to shoot you?"

Witness: No sir, he did not.

Turner: So you only have your presumption of what he meant?

Witness: Yes sir.

Turner: Did he ever actually tell you to give him your wallet? Did he say "I am robbing you?"

Witness: No sir

Turner: So you only presumed he was robbing you?

 

[MT15]

That’s funny, but also accurate.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Does that compare at all to how the DNC operative Chalupa got Ukraine to announce an investigation into Manafort before the election despite there being no investigation? Then as soon as the election was over they retracted the announcement. I understand that in one case its the DNC and the other case is the President, but otherwise do you see any similarities?

Your article does not support your key assertions here. You are aware of that right?

And the "documents" you frame so nefariously was the black book outlining payments that included unreported income to Paul Manafort, recovered at Viktor Yanukovych's estate that he purchased by way of bleeding the Ukrainian people through his corrupt administration as he fled to Russia in response to a mass protest and uprising as he was conceding core matters of sovereignty to the Russians in between jailing his political rivals, anti-corruption activists, and handing out lucrative contracts to friends and family. The validity of the documents(and the money trail they provide) has been verified time and again. Including in American courts and by American investigators. Do you really want to stand guard outside that conspiratorial rabbit hole? Because I am down.

And in that context, it is not that shocking that the candidate that hired Yanukovych's campaign advisor and was signaling indifference to Russia's invasion of Crimea was viewed skeptically and with hostility by the administration that came after Yanukovych. But also to be clear, your article neither substantiates your allegation that Chalupa "got" Ukraine to do anything, let alone fabricate an investigation that was not happening as you imply. Yanukovych and Manafort's criminality was not in dispute. Plus, much like Hunter Biden crocodile tears, if this was actually a story, why didn't the Republicans investigate it(or Seth Rich, or Uranium One) when they had all branches of government? These half-cocked conspiracies with no apparent anything there only seem to get catastrophized when they need convenient distractions.

 

[samiam5211]

Let me put that into perspective for you:

Schiff: Sir, please describe what happened.

Witness: I was walking home at night, and a man jumped out of the bushes. He pointed a gun at me and said, "Your wallet...quick."

Schiff: What do you think he meant when he said that?

Witness: I assumed he meant that if I didn't give him my wallet he was going to shoot me.

Schiff: I yield my time.

Turner: Sir, when the man jumped out of the bushes, did he say "give me your wallet, or I'm going to shoot you?"

Witness: No sir, he did not.

Turner: So you only have your presumption of what he meant?

Witness: Yes sir.

Turner: Did he ever actually tell you to give him your wallet? Did he say "I am robbing you?"

Witness: No sir

Turner: So you only presumed he was robbing you?

Jim Jordan: Did you consider the possibility that he had found a lost wallet and wanted to know if it might be yours?

 

[not2rich]

I didn't get the watch the hearing, but what was so damming about Sondland's testimony? Did he offer any evidence besides his "own presumption" that's referred to in this video?

I heard Hannity making the same point in his show earlier, crowing it was "over!" for Democrats. You should watch the entire testimony. Your focus on Sondland's use of the term "presumption" is causing you to ignore the evidence Sondland laid out, which is objectively damning to Trump.

Sondland's "presumption" was not mere unsupported speculation but a reasonable inference from the facts he and other witnesses testified to. That's the very definition of circumstantial evidence, which in court carries as much weight as direct evidence.

 

[st dude]

I am genuinely curious (not trying a gotcha at all) if your experience in trying cases before juries, and observing others, leaves you with the impression that it is a mistake for an attorney to over promise in his/her opening statement what the evidence will show.

Obviously the reason I ask is that I think what Schiff did was akin to that.

I really think Schiff's conduct has hurt the Democrats, but I admit my perception may be affected by my own bias - I don't care for the man.

I think he has a likability problem and he needed to recognize that and account for it. He would have, IMO, better served his cause if he looked less like he had a cause. If he came across as a more neutral chair of a proceeding looking for the truth wherever that may lead the perception of him would have been much more positive.

I believe with this amount of testimony, perception is critical.

BTW, just as I think Schiff has been the worst thing that has happened for the perception of the Democratic side, I think Trump's tweets during this may be what leaves the most negative perception for his side.

I think your post is helpful because it makes it so clear how both sides seem to see things through their own lens. We see the same testimony and evidence, but interpret it differently.

In my opening statements I lay out for the jury a list of things I intend to prove. Then I ask the jury to write it down and hold me to that list. So to your point, I am very careful not to over promise.

From my perspective, Schiff has been outstanding. He has under promised. Today, for example, the ambassador appointed by Trump testified he thinks Trump held up aid to Ukraine for political reasons. That is amazing evidence, yet Trump supporters have some place in their brain that allows them to see this testimonial differently somehow.

Think of it like this. The evidence against OJ was overwhelming, right? The defense floated this theory that the police force conspired to convict a black man. How could this defense win in the face of overwhelming evidence? Well, they had the right jury, people who were predisposed to think police set up black men.

I think the evidence is so clear what Trump did, it’s very hard for me to understand why seemingly bright guys like you and Dads Dream can’t see that. I think you are programmed in a way to not see it.

But I have to be careful and ever aware my brain might just as well be programmed. There are many things I would have bet my life were true as a young man, but now I have changed my mind. So this is a reminder for me to constantly challenge my own views, as I have done with Trump.

All reasonable evidence tells me he is a bad person, motivated purely by self interest. He is a serial liar and it frustrates me friends of mine can’t see that.

So I know I rambled, but I think Schiff has done great and will soon be mentioned as a presidential candidate. I find him calm, collected and professional. But I do try to be aware I have built in biases too that can impact my judgment.

 

[Ayo]

So I know I rambled, but I think Schiff has done great and will soon be mentioned as a presidential candidate. I find him calm, collected and professional. But I do try to be aware I have built in biases too that can impact my judgment.

I don't really care for Schiff at all. And I didn't think he would do well here. He's a quirky fellow. Offbeat relative to some of the other people we've gotten used to seeing. I like his bookish-ness, but that's not something that I thought would translate well. All in all, I had some pretty sizeable reservations.

And I think he's done a very, very good job. Maybe that's also relative to my expectations, which weren't that high to begin with. Regardless, I think he's been meticulous and measured and his GOP foils (aside from Ratcliffe, I guess) have made him look even more professional and calm and organized, because they've been a meandering mess for much of the proceedings.

So even if he wasn't very good in an absolute sense, Jordan and Nunes and Stefanik would make him look good. But the fact is that he has been very good and they've only made him look even better.

 

[bdb13]

I don't really care for Schiff at all. And I didn't think he would do well here. He's a quirky fellow. Offbeat relative to some of the other people we've gotten used to seeing. I like his bookish-ness, but that's not something that I thought would translate well. All in all, I had some pretty sizeable reservations.

And I think he's done a very, very good job. Maybe that's also relative to my expectations, which weren't that high to begin with. Regardless, I think he's been meticulous and measured and his GOP foils (aside from Ratcliffe, I guess) have made him look even more professional and calm and organized, because they've been a meandering mess for much of the proceedings.

So even if he wasn't very good in an absolute sense, Jordan and Nunes and Stefanik would make him look good. But the fact is that he has been very good and they've only made him look even better.

I agree with this. Not a fan of Schiff but I like how he's handled this from two days of listening to the proceedings.

 

[st dude]

I don't really care for Schiff at all. And I didn't think he would do well here. He's a quirky fellow. Offbeat relative to some of the other people we've gotten used to seeing. I like his bookish-ness, but that's not something that I thought would translate well. All in all, I had some pretty sizeable reservations.

And I think he's done a very, very good job. Maybe that's also relative to my expectations, which weren't that high to begin with. Regardless, I think he's been meticulous and measured and his GOP foils (aside from Ratcliffe, I guess) have made him look even more professional and calm and organized, because they've been a meandering mess for much of the proceedings.

So even if he wasn't very good in an absolute sense, Jordan and Nunes and Stefanik would make him look good. But the fact is that he has been very good and they've only made him look even better.

I really know very little about Schiff, not even his politics. I was looking at the small sample size of how he has conducted himself presiding over the impeachment hearings. I think his demeanor has been very good, he is very calm and measured, but no pushover. This is in contrast to Nunes who looks like he is foaming at the mouth.

But I am sure you and others who follow politics more closely than I do probably have a better handle on Schiff than I do. Seriously, I have zero idea where he is on the spectrum. He seems moderate to me, but I don’t know.

He certainly is getting a lot of exposure now and I wouldn’t be surprised to see him run in 2024. I wish someone out of the blue would emerge in 2020 that could unify the party and appeal to those who hold their nose and vote for Trump because the alternative is unacceptable.

 

[not2rich]

"I want nothing. No quid pro quo. Zelensky just needs to do the right thing." Yes, this guy must be impeached.

Pay more attention to the timeline, and less to GOP talking points:

The timeline is key. The call happened more than a week after then Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire informed the White House counsel about the existence of a whistleblower complaint detailing how Trump abused his power by trying to leverage the Ukrainians into doing political favors for him.

Trump’s new "NO QUID PRO QUO" talking point is a trick

Trump claims a phone call with Sondland is evidence of his innocence. It might just be evidence he knew he got caught.

www.vox.com

Trump knew he was busted, so he goes out of his way to emphasize "he wants nothing," and specifically says "no quid pro quo" to make the point. Probably the first time he used those three words in his life. It's as if someone is trying to hire someone for a contract murder, but finds out he's dealing with an undercover cop, so when it comes time to issue the order he proclaims "No way! I don't want you to murder anyone! I don't know you!"

It's completely transparent to anyone who digs even a little bit outside their partisan bubble. It's laughable.

 

[wardorican]

I heard Hannity making the same point in his show earlier, crowing it was "over!" for Democrats. You should watch the entire testimony. Your focus on Sondland's use of the term "presumption" is causing you to ignore the evidence Sondland laid out, which is objectively damning to Trump.

Sondland's "presumption" was not mere unsupported speculation but a reasonable inference from the facts he and other witnesses testified to. That's the very definition of circumstantial evidence, which in court carries as much weight as direct evidence.

It really seems like a lot of the Republican defense is that these career officials, and other political appointees who all seem like intelligent people, were ALL wrong about what their gut/intuition was telling them about the evidence and circumstances they were surrounded with.

I mean, the republicans were questioning the lady from the DoD if Ukraine knew there was a hold vs just knowing that they hadn't received their aid and were wondering what was going on.

I mean, if I don't get paid on Friday, I don't ask why the company or bank has a hold on my money.. I ask, why haven't I gotten my money?

 

[wardorican]

"I want nothing. No quid pro quo. Zelensky just needs to do the right thing." Yes, this guy must be impeached.

What does or can "do the right thing" mean?

I'm not asking for a favor.. he should want to do it.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

It's funny, we have two weeks of testimony from key career civil servants of this country/region(Ukraine) and one unusually involved appointee and despite a fairly cohesive narrative about corrupt acts involving leveraging official acts of the office for private gain, to a man/woman, none of them seem to have been given an official answer for why the aid was upheld? And it's clear from testimony many asked, and asked a lot. But to no avail.

Republicans claim it was a general concern for corruption, but it begs the question why such an above board rationale never got passed down the line? How come that never seemed to be iterated to these key functionaries of American diplomatic statecraft during the relevant period? They all seemed to express concerns, to ask directly why this was happening, and the only conclusion any of them could draw based on the piecemeal answers given was it was related to this bribery scheme about investigations into the DNC/Bidens.

Seems to me that if this were above board, it would be pretty easy to sell to what are by all accounts a group of individuals that were all by and large genuinely concerned in combatting Ukrainian corruption....And yet

 

[N.O.Bronco]

What was Nunes doing there? Helping in part one of this saga by manufacturing dirt on Mueller and chase people that would prop up debunked conspiracies to exonerate Manafort to the Fox News crowd.

I hope Parnas is subpoenaed just to see Nunes have to deal with this.

 

[The moose]

What was Nunes doing there? Helping in part one of this saga by manufacturing dirt on Mueller and chase people that would prop up debunked conspiracies to exonerate Manafort to the Fox News crowd.

I hope Parnas is subpoenaed just to see Nunes have to deal with this.

Yeah just read that was coming back to post it.

Crazy stuff right there. Looking for the oranges! Ha ha