Double Secret ProbationImpeachment has been passed on Party lines, mostly.
I haven't read the resolution. It's not an impeachment proceedings vote if I understand it, just support for the Star Chamber leak machine.
What I don't know yet is if the resolution authorizes a change in the laws of the House on subpoenas. By law an actual subpoena has to be voted on by the committee, and so far this has not happened, just threatened subpoena letters sent by the Chairman, ( which have zero legal meaning, other than extortion that they may contain )
From what I understand, this was pretty much just a vote to try to legitimize what they have all ready been doing. No real changes in how things are being done. Closed rooms. No defense. No evidence by the defense. No witnesses called by the defense. No questions by the defense.
If we had a Reagan in this generation, I'd far prefer him or her to Donald. But I don't see it.
Alan West? I'd go for Candace Owens for 2024, she'll be 35 & eligible for Senate & Prez. No government experience, but that's proven to be a good thing.
It really depends on what news you choose. I've seen news reports that are pretty much 100% contradictory on these "testimonies". I think what's going on is that people are testifying to their OPINION. When asked how they formed that opinion, it's pretty much just it's what they've heard. One got his opinion from the NY Times.
There are several parts that seem to be missing. The victim claims he didn't even know that the aid was being delayed. It's hard to make the case that this was being used as a lever if the person being pressured didn't even know about the pressure. Then the aid was released within days of this phone call, but without there being anything delivered for the aid.
Then there's the fact that there is a very simple explanation for how all of this happened. Yes, aid was delayed while they got assurances that it wouldn't be wasted on corruption, like what happened previously. Meanwhile, one leader talks to another leader about help in investigating that very corruption.
In a nutshell, they are attempting to impeach Trump for fulfilling his campaign promise of draining the swamp of corruption. Our country is really losing it's way.
Correct, not just prosecution but losing your job. That part applies to Civil Servants, not appointees.
It's not a BAD set of rules, you want people to be able to report corruption, like the Hunter Biden thing, but you also don't want hearsay to be used as a political weapon.
A mediocre analogy would be bribery laws. It's very Hard to prove bribery, and the law is written that way to make sure politicians who take bribes can get away with it if they cross the T's and dot the I's the right way. Which is mostly never outright saying "Give me $500 and I'll vote the way you want me to". It must be, "thank you for your donation and telling me your concerns". See the difference?
Posted on Wednesday, November 13, 2019 - 06:19 pm:
So if I understand correctly, they are planning the impeachment inquisition to last about 6 weeks. I have to assume that they started day 1, with one of their "better" witnesses. Seems like quite a grand failure IMO. I can't wait to see the barrel scrapings a the end of 6 weeks!
Schiff should be impeached for lying as head of a committee. But, unfortunately, Congress would be far more than decimated if dishonesty was grounds for removal.
I don't have a problem with that.
They, however, do.
So it's vote them out, or go Boliva. Since so many admire Venezuela, you'd almost like to pretend they would prefer that form of politics. I think several do, but only if they get to be on the side of the Cuban thugs.
So I find if kind of funny that we are on day 2 of the impeachment, and it's providing enough material that the loonie left around here are spending their time trying to tie Trump to the guy who didn't kill himself. One would think that an impeachment hearing would generate something better than that to beat up Trump on. I guess not.
I was reading earlier, a timeline of the testimony of the ambassador to the Ukraine that Trump fired. There were some weird things that came up. Of course she's claiming that there was no reason for her to be fired. Pissed off that news got to her at 1O am and she was told to be on the next flight back to the US. Of course she said she questioned why and was told due to security concerns? She asked "Her physical security?" The answer was "NO." So if it wasn't concern for her physical security, I have to assume that it was concern for security of information that she had access to as ambassador. Sounds like good reasons to fire her.
Funny thing, but prior to that, I had been hearing on the news about the horrible tweet that Trump had made about the fired ambassador. Apparently he made reference to her poor performance, and this was considered "witness intimidation". I was trying to understand why Trump would have gone so far off topic, as to attack a former ambassador's poor job performance. After reading a bunch of what was discussed in the testimony today, I realized that he was right on target. It was a bunch of testimony about how someone who can be fired at any time for any reason, was fired without her having any understanding of why. What a weird impeachment hearing! I assume that at sometime they will get to things like "high crimes and misdemeanors". I guess not in the first week though.
So I really doubt that Trump was paying any attention to a mid-level state department official who he had never even met. Surely he had trusted people reporting back that this lady was using her position to undermine Trump's foreign policy in the Ukraine. Then she wonders why Trump started going through "back channels", bypassing her, and her getting fired right after the new Ukraine President took power. Or to say it another way, as soon as the previous, known to be corrupt President was out of power. Kind of makes you wonder just how corrupt things were between our state department and the Ukraine. No doubt the Republicans would like to get testimony from those where were reporting her actions back to Trump, but Schiff isn't allowing those sorts of witnesses.
I did have the news on after my afternoon shift, and before heading out for a while, and they were teasing and upcoming segment about information that came out in today's testimony though. Apparently there was a time when she was coached by the BO administration on "what to say about Hunter Biden". I haven't had time to find out the details on that, but it had to be in connection with her position as ambassador to the Ukraine during the administration of the previous Ukraine President. This certainly sounds like the State department was being used for the personal gain for the VPs son. Seems kind of like their investigation is digging up more dirt on the Bidens than on Trump. Go figure.
I really have no clue what the purpose of having this lady testify was today. Reading between the lines just a little bit really gives evidence for deep state actors working against official US foreign policy. Probably not the kind of thing Schiff had in mind when he woke up today.
I really have no doubt that they will impeach Trump. It's a forgone conclusion that has little to do with this kangaroo hearing. They feel they need to put that black mark on Trump. Nothing else matters at this point. Certainly not the truth. It's difficult to imagine that any swayable voters aren't going to see all of this exactly what it is. It's like the Dems have headed down a path to nowhere, and have no idea where to steer this train wreck as election season is bearing down upon them. Oh, and Epstein didn't kill himself.
I liked the joke when a R Congresscritter's series of tweets spelled that out with the first letter of each tweet. I only read the first couple, ( I don't do twits ) I just like the cleverness of the process. Juvenile, sure. Borderline nerdy.
I'm tempted to ignore the circus till it ends it's season. I'm sure I can watch a nicely edited greatest hits video, by pundits of every spin. So why raise my blood pressure? I'm sure there will be ever-growing best snark/outrageous/funniest vids too.
The fired & retired witnesses, who are completely unbiased! Keep getting asked what their boss was thinking when they literally never met or talked to him.
There's an editorial that the reason these State & Intel elites didn't know what Trump was thinking is Trump's fault. Bad communication.
Really? They didn't know what country they were supposed to be working for?