Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Why Did Impeachment Hearings Fail?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Why Did Impeachment Hearings Fail?

    OK, so maybe you think they didn't, but something happened.

    Was it Schiff's handling of the thing, being too controlling? (That's my personal choice, given that the made himself judge, jury, chief prosecutor AND media liaison.

    Is, as has been suggested elsewhere on this board, that Americans are just stupid?

    Current polling (and that may change) suggests the Democrats actually LOST ground by having public hearings.

    Didn't they put on their most vigorous prosecution?
    Didn't they call their best witnesses?

    Since impeachment is entirely a political process (in that it's run by politicians, and, in this case, is incredibly partisan) what could the Democrats have done differently to persuade America to support them in their impeachment prosecution, instead, appearing to convince Americans NOT to support impeachment?

    For Bonus Points... well, let's put that in a poll...
    11
    They will give up, having taken their best shot
    9.09%
    1
    They will proceed to a vote on formal impeachment, but will lose
    18.18%
    2
    They will vote on formal impeachment, and will win
    0.00%
    0
    They will impeach, but Senate will not remove
    72.73%
    8
    They will impeach, and Senate will remove
    0.00%
    0
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

  • #2
    Interestingly enough, even Schiff seems to be rethinking impeachment.



    House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-CA) has been the greatest force pushing for President Donald Trump's impeachment. For two years Schiff told us the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. After Special Counsel Robert Mueller delivered his report and found that no collusion took place, Schiff then shifted his focus to Trump's call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. In that call, Trump asked Zelensky to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, for corruption. After all, the vice president was handling international relations with Ukraine on behalf of the Obama administration and, at the same time, his son was being paid $50,000 a month by Burisma, a corrupt Ukrainian gas company. And Hunter had absolutely no natural energy experience.

    Democrats have run with this idea that Trump threatened to withhold military aid to Ukraine unless an investigation into the Bidens took place. The released transcript showed that to be completely false and Zelensky himself said no quid pro quo took place, yet Democrats continued with their impeachment inquiry.

    Now, it looks like Schiff is having a change of heart... or at least on paper.

    During a Sunday morning interview with CNN's Jake Tapper, Schiff said he would have to "discuss this with my constituents and my colleagues" before deciding whether or not the House should move forward with articles of impeachment.
    The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

    Comment


    • #3
      I suppose it depends on what you mean by "failed". If the intent was to find the truth, then they were a resounding success even if the Democrats didn't get the results they wanted (although they're probably going to vote impeach anyway).
      Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
      But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
      Than a fool in the eyes of God


      From "Fools Gold" by Petra

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
        I suppose it depends on what you mean by "failed". If the intent was to find the truth, then they were a resounding success even if the Democrats didn't get the results they wanted (although they're probably going to vote impeach anyway).
        I was posting while you were posting -- sounds like Schiff is setting the stage for announcing "my colleagues have expressed a concern that proceeding with this impeachment may be too damaging for the country, blah blah blah...."

        It will be interesting to see.
        The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
          I was posting while you were posting -- sounds like Schiff is setting the stage for announcing "my colleagues have expressed a concern that proceeding with this impeachment may be too damaging for the country, blah blah blah...."

          It will be interesting to see.
          I don't buy it. They're just trying to sell the impression that they're proceeding slowly and thoughtfully even though I suspect the articles of impeachment were written before the hearings even began.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • #6
            Why Did Impeachment Hearings Fail?
            It's very simple. Their main mode of persuasion is the mainstream media, and Trump has thoroughly discredited Fake News.
            Remember that you are dust and to dust you shall return.

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
              I don't buy it. They're just trying to sell the impression that they're proceeding slowly and thoughtfully even though I suspect the articles of impeachment were written before the hearings even began.
              But that was before they saw the poll numbers swapping. They need the public support to shame their friends and enemies into doing their bidding.
              The first to state his case seems right until another comes and cross-examines him.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                But that was before they saw the poll numbers swapping. They need the public support to shame their friends and enemies into doing their bidding.
                Yup this was all about putting pressure on Republican officials and it didn't work at all. Instead of building something they can call bipartisan support for impeachment what we have instead is bipartisan support against impeachment.

                I'm always still in trouble again

                "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  OK, so maybe you think they didn't, but something happened.

                  Was it Schiff's handling of the thing, being too controlling? (That's my personal choice, given that the made himself judge, jury, chief prosecutor AND media liaison.

                  Is, as has been suggested elsewhere on this board, that Americans are just stupid?

                  Current polling (and that may change) suggests the Democrats actually LOST ground by having public hearings.

                  Didn't they put on their most vigorous prosecution?
                  Didn't they call their best witnesses?

                  Since impeachment is entirely a political process (in that it's run by politicians, and, in this case, is incredibly partisan) what could the Democrats have done differently to persuade America to support them in their impeachment prosecution, instead, appearing to convince Americans NOT to support impeachment?

                  For Bonus Points... well, let's put that in a poll...
                  They didnt fail. They made quite clear what Trump did and how he did it. The question is why are so many people willing to accept a criminal as president.
                  My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                  If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                  This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                    They didnt fail. They made quite clear what Trump did and how he did it. The question is why are so many people willing to accept a criminal as president.
                    Not everyone is like you, happy to toss over 200 years of jurisprudence out the window, just to get someone you despise. Some of us demand actual evidence, not second, third and even fourth hand hearsay. And some of us understand that what little direct evidence and even circumstantial evidence there is tends to exonerate Trump.

                    I'm always still in trouble again

                    "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                    "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                    "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It is likely to be Pelosi rather than Schiff who is in charge of developments. They already know that a Senate trial would elevate Trump and they do not want to give him that victory. He will gloat anyway but damaging material will continue to flow.

                      The story will be developed further in the press. Rudy and Pompeo might end up in deep trouble.

                      The biggest prize of all goes to Putin - a stunning achievement, greater than the ‘atom’ spies.

                      Trump will go on to lift sanctions on Russia, and by doing so, undermine Ukraine’s negotiating position.

                      The United States will bear the shame of this period for decades to come.
                      “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
                      “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
                      “not all there” - you know who you are

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                        Not everyone is like you, happy to toss over 200 years of jurisprudence out the window, just to get someone you despise. Some of us demand actual evidence, not second, third and even fourth hand hearsay. And some of us understand that what little direct evidence and even circumstantial evidence there is tends to exonerate Trump.
                        There is first hand testimony for the criminal offences that Trump committed for the impeachment.

                        https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/78094...nt-inquiry-tes

                        The third day of public impeachment hearings featured testimony from three witnesses who have firsthand testimony about the call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelenskiy.

                        Also, Trump is blocking other furst hand witnesses, slandering and threatening witnesses with retribution for testifying.

                        Also of interest:

                        Source: https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/471849-probe-finds-mulvaney-sought-to-justify-ukraine-aid-holdup-after-the



                        Probe finds Mulvaney sought to justify Ukraine aid holdup after the fact: report

                        Acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and budget officials scrambled to reverse-engineer an explanation for the hold on military aid to Ukraine, according to The Washington Post, citing three people familiar with records of a White House review.

                        White House attorneys have expressed concern about unflattering exchanges discovered in a review of the records, although it is unclear whether they involve any potentially illegal activity. Despite this, some White House officials are concerned the publication of the emails could create political problems, according to the Post.

                        In early August, Mulvaney asked acting Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Director Russell Vought how much longer the aid could be legally delayed and inquired about the OMB’s progress on developing a legal rationale for the hold. Trump had made the decision in July without consulting anyone regarding its legality, according to the Post, citing two White House officials.


                        Vought and other OMB staffers argued for the hold’s legality in the emails with the State Department, and National Security Council officials pushed back, according to the Post, with OMB attorneys arguing it was legally justifiable as long as it was considered a “temporary” hold.

                        On July 25, the day of Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, a senior budget attorney wrote a memo defending a limited hold, according to the Post.

                        The review also includes email conversations between OMB and State officials discussing potential legal issues with the White House holding up nearly $400 million in military aid, according to the Post.

                        Mark Sandy, the only OMB official to testify in the House’s impeachment inquiry thus far, said the aid delay was highly unusual and that he had never known a political official to assume control of an aid package in such a way, according to the Post, citing people familiar with his testimony.

                        © Copyright Original Source

                        Last edited by shunyadragon; 11-25-2019, 07:53 AM.
                        Glendower: I can call spirits from the vasty deep.
                        Hotspur: Why, so can I, or so can any man;
                        But will they come when you do call for them? Shakespeare’s Henry IV, Part 1, Act III:

                        go with the flow the river knows . . .

                        Frank

                        I do not know, therefore everything is in pencil.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by rogue06 View Post
                          Not everyone is like you, happy to toss over 200 years of jurisprudence out the window, just to get someone you despise. Some of us demand actual evidence, not second, third and even fourth hand hearsay. And some of us understand that what little direct evidence and even circumstantial evidence there is tends to exonerate Trump.
                          Again you attack me rather than discuss the issues themselves.

                          Directly hearing a conversation is not hearsay as it involves the content of the conversation. The absurd addition of third and fourth hand as a general qualifier only underscores how flimsy you understand that defense to be.
                          My brethren, do not hold your faith in our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with an attitude of personal favoritism. James 2:1

                          If anyone thinks himself to be religious, and yet does not  bridle his tongue but deceives his own heart, this man’s religion is worthless James 1:26

                          This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; James 1:19

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
                            There is first hand testimony for the criminal offences that Trump committed for the impeachment.

                            https://www.npr.org/2019/11/19/78094...nt-inquiry-tes
                            Are you referring to Kurt Volker, who testified that he saw absolutely no indication that President Donald Trump had conditioned a White House meeting and military assistance for Ukraine on a promise from Zelensky to investigate the Bidens, but then later indicated that he was no longer as sure after hearing the rumors and gossip presented by the non-witnesses?

                            I'm always still in trouble again

                            "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                            "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                            "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                              Again you attack me rather than discuss the issues themselves.

                              Directly hearing a conversation is not hearsay as it involves the content of the conversation. The absurd addition of third and fourth hand as a general qualifier only underscores how flimsy you understand that defense to be.
                              But that's the point. They only heard accounts from other people who themselves were told about it.

                              And the "absurd addition of third and fourth hand" hearsay was exactly what was being offered.

                              For example, George Kent testified that he believed that there had been a quid pro quo based on what William Taylor (who testified that he had no first hand knowledge) told him and who said he heard it from Tim Morrison (who also testified that he has no first hand knowledge) who in turn learned it from Gordon Sondland (who also testified that he had merely assumed it took place but had no first hand knowledge on it). So you have Kent testify about what Taylor said, which was based on what Morrison may or may not have said, based upon what Sondland assumed.

                              IOW, Kent provided hearsay, based on hearsay provided by Taylor, based on hearsay provided by Morrison, based on an assumption of Sondland -- in spite of being directly told by Trump that he wasn't interested in anything in exchange.

                              So the fact is that the only thing absurd here is that this was allowed to be presented as evidence, and that you, in the throes of an ever-worsening TDS, think that it is direct evidence and not third and fourth hand unsupported hearsay.

                              I'm always still in trouble again

                              "You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
                              "Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
                              "Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                              6 responses
                              45 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                              42 responses
                              231 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post whag
                              by whag
                               
                              Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                              24 responses
                              104 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                              32 responses
                              176 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                              73 responses
                              307 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Hypatia_Alexandria  
                              Working...
                              X