Impeachment Hearings Day 5, Dr. Fiona Hill and David Holmes testify (live now). This is the last one!

Jersey_Tom · Nov 16, 2019

hendersonhank said:
What we need is for testimony that Trump, himself, said Ukraine would not get aid until the investigations were done, and/or that the investigations would help his campaign or sink his political opponent. Those would be smoking guns.

We've pretty much gotten that from Holmes though based on his conversation with Sondland.

The GOP defense for why Trump held up aid was because he has sincere concerns about corruption and generally doesn't like giving out foreign aid. While the latter is true, the President doesn't have the right to nullify aid on a whim since the Congress has power of the purse strings, not him.

The former reasoning as was described in Holmes testimony also isn't true. If Sondland confirms Holmes' testimony or the other people who overheard this conversation corroborate Holmes' account it would be the clearest evidence yet that Trump's primary motivating factor in regards to Ukraine was dirt on Biden.

The only other persons of interest here would be Mulvaney, Perry, or Bolton in order to further hammer home the point. But we have direct knowledge of Trump's intent through the closed door testimony yesterday.

Boiled Goose · Nov 16, 2019

hendersonhank said:
But there is nothing on this call about withholding aid. And Trump certainly does not have to go through the State Department.

This testimony makes clear that the supposed "corruption" investigations were a priority for Trump. That's not a smoking gun.

What we need is for testimony that Trump, himself, said Ukraine would not get aid until the investigations were done, and/or that the investigations would help his campaign or sink his political opponent. Those would be smoking guns.

That wouldn't be a smoking gun. That would be direct, not circumstantial evidence

Tahnit · Nov 16, 2019

hendersonhank said:
But there is nothing on this call about withholding aid. And Trump certainly does not have to go through the State Department.

This testimony makes clear that the supposed "corruption" investigations were a priority for Trump. That's not a smoking gun.

What we need is for testimony that Trump, himself, said Ukraine would not get aid until the investigations were done, and/or that the investigations would help his campaign or sink his political opponent. Those would be smoking guns.

if you honestly believe that Trump cares about corruption when it doesnt benefit him you need to do some soul searching. Trump doesnt give a shit about anyone but himself. The investigation was into the Bidens so it would hurt their political campaign and help his. Thats the end of it.

Ithil · Nov 16, 2019

I think people whose knowledge of the law comes from police procedurals should stop throwing out "smoking gun" bullshit.

psynergyadept · Nov 16, 2019

Saya said:

yeah, I was expecting this only to be on Fox/MSNBC/CNN but it was on the prime basic channels that everyone gets like 2/3/4/6/7/8 and youtube there was no escaping this thankfully.

julian · Nov 16, 2019

hendersonhank said:
But there is nothing on this call about withholding aid. And Trump certainly does not have to go through the State Department.

This testimony makes clear that the supposed "corruption" investigations were a priority for Trump. That's not a smoking gun.

What we need is for testimony that Trump, himself, said Ukraine would not get aid until the investigations were done, and/or that the investigations would help his campaign or sink his political opponent. Those would be smoking guns.

hendersonhank said:
You need it to accurately refer to a testimony as a "smoking gun", is what I am saying.

To clarify, no. Neither call Trump released actually discussed "corruption". That's a word they added after the fact to explain his calling for looking into a conspiracy theory and into looking into his political opponent. The July call actually shows Trump praising a known corrupt official and saying it was unfair how he was treated. this is like when they were discussing "adoptions" but were doing no such thing. You're parroting White House talking points and using those to set the bar for what shows abuse of power while ignoring the actual clear evidence already out in the public.

NookSports · Nov 16, 2019

hendersonhank said:
This testimony makes clear that the supposed "corruption" investigations were a priority for Trump. That's not a smoking gun.

Please show me in either transcript where trump talked about corruption? The word isn't mentioned at all and it's just a post-facto excuse they made up

stew · Nov 16, 2019

If this is not enough for you, there will be Sondland's testimony next week. Then Bolton hopefully.

dabig2 · Nov 16, 2019

stew said:
If this is not enough for you, there will be Sondland's testimony next week. Then Bolton hopefully.

Vindman was on the call and involved in the cover-up. So he's an extremely important witness as well, even moreso now since the WH has gotten involved with him by blaming him for the inaccuracies in the call readout. So that will be a very fun one.

Fiona Hill will be great seeing how she has a direct line to Bolton's thoughts in the leadup to the call, and she's clearly the most combative of witnesses against GOP bullshit. Pizzazz factor!

But also regarding others here, the smoking gun is the call itself. Impeachment is all setup for explaining how and why the call happened. Who was involved in making that call happen. Who was involved the shadow government conspiracy in extorting and bribing Ukraine? And why? Who was funding them? And so on.

We're still building up to most these points in these hearings. Witnesses more in the know about that are next week and yet to be scheduled (Bolton, Parnas). But we already have a smoking gun provided by Trump himself. All of this is just due (and much needed) investigation into someone we already know is guilty.

hendersonhank · Nov 16, 2019

nazgul_hunter said:
Please show me in either transcript where trump talked about corruption? The word isn't mentioned at all and it's just a post-facto excuse they made up

The argument is that the investigation into Bidens/Burisma is an investigation into corruption, the conflict of interest in VP Biden ousting a prosecutor ostensibly investigating a company paying his son millions of dollars to do basically nothing.

The mere fact of Trump being overheard asking about the investigations is not a "smoking gun" that it was REALLY just about damaging his political opponent. Nothing he said confirmed his true interest in the investigation.

Pai Pai Master · Nov 16, 2019

hendersonhank said:
This testimony makes clear that the supposed "corruption" investigations were a priority for Trump. That's not a smoking gun.

Why do you act like the call is all that matters, when saying that there's no talk of withholding aid on the call, therefore there's no smoking gun.

But on that same call, Trump doesn't even say the word "corruption." And you say that was his priority. he did say "favor", as well as "Biden's son." And "that woman"

julian · Nov 16, 2019

hendersonhank said:
The argument is that the investigation into Bidens/Burisma is an investigation into corruption, the conflict of interest in VP Biden ousting a prosecutor ostensibly investigating a company paying his son millions of dollars to do basically nothing.

The mere fact of Trump being overheard asking about the investigations is not a "smoking gun" that it was REALLY just about damaging his political opponent. Nothing he said confirmed his true interest in the investigation.

The testimony that you keep saying isn't a smoking gun literally refuted all of that. And you're again just regurgitating the Republican talking point that isn't based on evidence but is just words they came up with after the fact to justify Trump's actions. You don't need a smoking gun to refute a talking point not based on evidence.

dabig2 · Nov 16, 2019

Again, Trump's "transcript" of his perfect call is the smoking gun and has remained so. Everything afterwards is bonus.

This recent testimony is also very much a smoking gun towards revealing Sondland's multitude of lies.

Sondland is caught in about as clear a lie as you will find. He told the committee he never discussed investigating Biden with anyone at the WH or State Dept. According to this testimony, he did both.

Bet that congress is going to use Sondland's perjuries against him to dig more into his conversations and dealings with Trump.

JJAwiiu · Nov 16, 2019

I don't get it, why would Trump ask Ukraine to look into Biden OTHER than to find dirt (something corrupt) on him? A few of you are pointing out he didn't use that word as if it's got some kind of importance?

Jersey_Tom · Nov 16, 2019

JJAwiiu said:
I don't get it, why would Trump ask Ukraine to look into Biden OTHER than to find dirt (something corrupt) on him? A few of you are pointing out he didn't use that word as if it's got some kind of importance?

The argument likely comes from the GOP spin that it's part of his larger "sincere concern" of corruption in the Ukraine. Hence the use of some (poorly) coded language in regards to "investigations."

Thing is, as much as the Republicans keep wanting to harp on how it was a "bad look" that Hunter was on Burisma's board while Joe was VP, they have to equally admit that the optics of the President asking a foreign head of state to investigate the son of his political rival in an upcoming election also isn't exactly squeaky clean either regardless of whether or not his intentions were pure.

III-V · Nov 16, 2019

dabig2 said:
Again, Trump's "transcript" of his perfect call is the smoking gun and has remained so. Everything afterwards is bonus.

This recent testimony is also very much a smoking gun towards revealing Sondland's multitude of lies.

Bet that congress is going to use Sondland's perjuries against him to dig more into his conversations and dealings with Trump.

absolutely and I bet he is shitting himself after seeing stone get dumped for 7/7.

julian · Nov 16, 2019

JJAwiiu said:
I don't get it, why would Trump ask Ukraine to look into Biden OTHER than to find dirt (something corrupt) on him? A few of you are pointing out he didn't use that word as if it's got some kind of importance?

It doesn't, but it's the line Republicans keep repeating. Worse for them, the White House falsely described the first call as including a discussion about corruption, but when it was read aloud in the hearing, it wasn't there at all. I love it. They can't stop lying and they're easily disprovable lies covering up stupidly obvious crimes.

chadskin · Nov 18, 2019

Man, fuck Pompeo.

Binabik15 · Nov 18, 2019

I bet you could just walk into the White House with a suit - and white skin - and so whatever job you want, nobody knows anybody. Remember when Trump was extreme vetting his picks and would use his extreme CEO skills to get only the best people 🤭

Maximo · Nov 18, 2019

chadskin said:
Man, fuck Pompeo.

I don't know all these coffee bois!

julian · Nov 18, 2019

chadskin said:
Man, fuck Pompeo.

"I don't know you, therefore I'm innocent" is certainly an interesting defense.

Lawyer: Janet witnessed Trump murdering Billy in the alleyway.
Trump: I've never heard of this Janet. Can she be trusted?
Lawyer: In fact, multiple others in the area heard the screams and Billy shout, "No, Trump! Don't!"
Republicans: it's possible they misheard.

steejee · Nov 18, 2019

chadskin said:
Man, fuck Pompeo.

This is such a weird defense. While "I don't recall" paints you as a demented old fool, it at least has some use in a legal sense. I'm not sure how "I don't know these people" helps your defense in any way.

Rover · Nov 18, 2019

In the end Trump and Pompeo will claim they don't know each other, it's the only logical end

Midnight Train · Nov 18, 2019

Sobriquet said:
I was reading a bit about him (there's not much info) and it seems he's never been a prosecutor. He has a law degree but his whole career has been as a congressional staffer. Which totally makes sense.

Must have donated some good money to somebody.

cameron · Nov 18, 2019

Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

Our Crazy, Do Nothing (where's USMCA, infrastructure, lower drug pricing & much more?) Speaker of the House, Nervous Nancy Pelosi, who is petrified by her Radical Left knowing she will soon be gone (they & Fake News Media are her BOSS), suggested on Sunday's DEFACE THE NATION....

....that I testify about the phony Impeachment Witch Hunt. She also said I could do it in writing. Even though I did nothing wrong, and don't like giving credibility to this No Due Process Hoax, I like the idea & will, in order to get Congress focused again, strongly consider it!

8:52 AM - Nov 18, 2019

Context:

PBS NewsHour @NewsHour

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited President Trump to testify in front of investigators in the House impeachment inquiry. https://to.pbs.org/2QsIxly

5:58 PM - Nov 17, 2019

Huncho_Houdini · Nov 18, 2019

Trump doesn't even really know Zelensky, how could he have committed wrongdoing?

cakely · Nov 18, 2019

It's still afraid.

cameron · Nov 18, 2019

Bobby Lewis@revrrlewis

On Fox & Friends, Richard Nixon's son-in-law says the impeachment attempt against Nixon was a "completely partisan" power grab by Democrats who wanted to "depose a powerful president ... [and] get back power."

9:40 AM - Nov 18, 2019

Umbrella Carp · Nov 18, 2019

cameron said:
Bobby Lewis@revrrlewis

On Fox & Friends, Richard Nixon's son-in-law says the impeachment attempt against Nixon was a "completely partisan" power grab by Democrats who wanted to "depose a powerful president ... [and] get back power."

9:40 AM - Nov 18, 2019

Ah so now we're into the historical revisionism stage where even Nixon was a victim of a grand Democratic crybaby conspiracy. These assholes are so backed into the corner at this point, they're pretty much curled up in a ball cowering.

raYne_07 · Nov 18, 2019

chadskin said:
Man, fuck Pompeo.

So you can't commit crimes unless people know you? Got it.

cameron said:
Bobby Lewis@revrrlewis

On Fox & Friends, Richard Nixon's son-in-law says the impeachment attempt against Nixon was a "completely partisan" power grab by Democrats who wanted to "depose a powerful president ... [and] get back power."

9:40 AM - Nov 18, 2019

Fox: Re-writing history one day at a time.

III-V · Nov 18, 2019

cameron said:
Bobby Lewis@revrrlewis

On Fox & Friends, Richard Nixon's son-in-law says the impeachment attempt against Nixon was a "completely partisan" power grab by Democrats who wanted to "depose a powerful president ... [and] get back power."

9:40 AM - Nov 18, 2019

Now we want to re-write history!

FFS Fox News is a dangerous propaganda outlet.

cakely · Nov 18, 2019

cameron said:
Bobby Lewis@revrrlewis

On Fox & Friends, Richard Nixon's son-in-law says the impeachment attempt against Nixon was a "completely partisan" power grab by Democrats who wanted to "depose a powerful president ... [and] get back power."

9:40 AM - Nov 18, 2019

Why ... why would F&F do this? There are like two people on the planet that don't think that Nixon shouldn't have been impeached and they're Roger Stone and G. Gordon Liddy.

stew · Nov 18, 2019

cakely said:
Why ... why would F&F do this? There are like two people on the planet that don't think that Nixon shouldn't have been impeached and they're Roger Stone and G. Gordon Liddy.

Why not? If they keep pushing, this might actually work with their viewers.

Bossking · Nov 18, 2019

I guess wiretapping is only bad if Obama (maybe) does it.

julian · Nov 18, 2019

In case anybody had any doubts, my mother-in-law let us know that her office is now getting e-mails claiming the whistleblower has ties to Soros, cause of course!!

DrForester · Nov 18, 2019

cameron said:
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

Our Crazy, Do Nothing (where's USMCA, infrastructure, lower drug pricing & much more?) Speaker of the House, Nervous Nancy Pelosi, who is petrified by her Radical Left knowing she will soon be gone (they & Fake News Media are her BOSS), suggested on Sunday's DEFACE THE NATION....

....that I testify about the phony Impeachment Witch Hunt. She also said I could do it in writing. Even though I did nothing wrong, and don't like giving credibility to this No Due Process Hoax, I like the idea & will, in order to get Congress focused again, strongly consider it!

8:52 AM - Nov 18, 2019

Context:

PBS NewsHour @NewsHour

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited President Trump to testify in front of investigators in the House impeachment inquiry. https://to.pbs.org/2QsIxly

5:58 PM - Nov 17, 2019

Why the hell did Pelosi say they would accept written answers?

JVID · Nov 18, 2019

julian said:
In case anybody had any doubts, my mother-in-law let us know that her office is now getting e-mails claiming the whistleblower has ties to Soros, cause of course!!

have you advised her to report the emails as spam? lol what kind of office job is circulating political emails.

Shard Shinjuku · Nov 18, 2019

Geist 6one7 · Nov 18, 2019

cakely said:
Why ... why would F&F do this? There are like two people on the planet that don't think that Nixon shouldn't have been impeached and they're Roger Stone and G. Gordon Liddy.

You know why.

LukeOP · Nov 18, 2019

JVIDICAN said:
have you advised her to report the emails as spam? lol what kind of office job is circulating political emails.

It's a boomer thing. Before they moved to Facebook they used to forward these emails. I'm actually surprised these emails still exist.

AndreGX · Nov 18, 2019

Am i mistaken or was there going to be another public hearing today? I don't see channels covering it

Doc Holliday · Nov 18, 2019

DrForester said:
Why the hell did Pelosi say they would accept written answers?

Because he's not going to do it anyway so she appears reasonable.

Huncho_Houdini · Nov 18, 2019

Shard Shinjuku said:

That poll has an MoE of 4.8%. But the interesting number isn't the 51%, it's that the other options come nowhere near that number. Relatively few think he did nothing wrong.

I've been following 538's impeachment poll aggregator and right now seems like there has been a bit of a downswing, but I'm expecting it to increase by next week after many of the hearings this week are completed. https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/

Doc Holliday · Nov 18, 2019

AndreGX said:
Am i mistaken or was there going to be another public hearing today? I don't see channels covering it

Tomorrow

stew · Nov 18, 2019

Schedule is in the OP.

raYne_07 · Nov 18, 2019

Shard Shinjuku said:

Booring… How would all these people know, if no one watched the hearings?

/s

AndreGX · Nov 18, 2019

Doc Holliday said:
Tomorrow

Thanks!

Landy828 · Nov 18, 2019

cameron said:
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump

Our Crazy, Do Nothing (where's USMCA, infrastructure, lower drug pricing & much more?) Speaker of the House, Nervous Nancy Pelosi, who is petrified by her Radical Left knowing she will soon be gone (they & Fake News Media are her BOSS), suggested on Sunday's DEFACE THE NATION....

....that I testify about the phony Impeachment Witch Hunt. She also said I could do it in writing. Even though I did nothing wrong, and don't like giving credibility to this No Due Process Hoax, I like the idea & will, in order to get Congress focused again, strongly consider it!

8:52 AM - Nov 18, 2019

Context:

PBS NewsHour @NewsHour

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited President Trump to testify in front of investigators in the House impeachment inquiry. https://to.pbs.org/2QsIxly

5:58 PM - Nov 17, 2019

I'd pay $1k for a pay-per-view of Trump having to answer questions for 2 hours.

JVID · Nov 18, 2019

LukeOP said:
It's a boomer thing. Before they moved to Facebook they used to forward these emails. I'm actually surprised these emails still exist.

Yeah, unless its a small company shit like this seems like a great way to get yourself in trouble. It's a phishing attack waiting to happen.

djplaeskool · Nov 18, 2019

chadskin said:
Man, fuck Pompeo.

For a Sect. of State to not go to bat for their own diplomatic corp is just disgusting
I think Chuck Rosenberg said as much this weekend. His silence is deafening and is likely extremely demoralizing to all of our ambassadors and men and women in the foreign service.

Edit: Found it.

Impeachment Hearings Day 5, Dr. Fiona Hill and David Holmes testify (live now). This is the last one!

Mod of the Year 2006

GameXplain

GameXplain