WATCH LIVE: Public Impeachment Hearings (Volker/Morrison)

Nearly all of the testimony today moved the needle closer to impeachment. Whether any of the testimony today made removal more likely is another matter. Here is a headline from some of the analysis of today:

How Republicans' star impeachment witness turned on them

 

Why did Volker recognise Rudy in any way in Europe/Ukraine? That question was not put to him and should have been. Hopefully, someone will put it to Sondlands. Why were they all dancing to Rudy's tune?

 

There are proper channels to request cooperation with an ongoing investigation from a foreign country with whom we have that treaty. And while the President can make such a request personally (something they could have done without the treaty), the reason that such is not the "proper channel" is explicitly because of the potential for an appearance of conflict of interest. That appearance becomes almost blaringly difficult to ignore where, as is the case here, the President's ONLY requested target for investigation is a domestic political rival and the allegation is based on a debunked theory that is not even being investigated by a domestic investigative agency.

As to the firing of Shotkin, there isn't much more to say beyond the fact that he was viewed as a pivotal impediment to the country making improvements against corruption and the decision to remove him was the result of US and International Organizational policy making.

 

Link no worky.

 

Wasn't a link, just the headline. But that's fair, here's the link itself.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/19/politics/kurt-volker-house-impeachment/index.html

 

"That appearance becomes almost blaringly difficult to ignore where, as is the case here, the President's ONLY requested target for investigation is a domestic political rival and the allegation is based on a debunked theory that is not even being investigated by a domestic investigative agency."

I don't believe that the political rival part is that important given that Biden brought this on himself. How many of the witnesses acknowledged that Burisma was Blatantly corrupt? So all of those low level people knew that Burisma was horribly corrupt so Biden must have know too yet Hunter still ends up on that well known corrupt company? Biden doesn't distance himself from his son joining a well known corrupt company thats under investigation then sometime after Biden joins this well know corrupt company the investigation ends. Hunter himself said he got this job because of his name, yet people still say buzzwords like "debunked" and "not credible".

As far as the prosecutor part all that may be the case but, 1 it's pretty convenient and 2 like i said the entire country is corrupt per testimony so seems to me there'd have to be something else than corruption to make that prosecutor stand out

Look the way Trump went about this may have been improper and even politically motivated but since Biden allowed/didn't distance himself from his son and Ukraine he's given Trump the ammo to do this imo. Also i really find it hard to believe that Republican Senators will convict over improper.

Mulvaney, Guilani, Sondland, the acting Director Vought and possibly Pompeo might be in trouble but I don't think Trump will be convicted.

 

Lights out. Curtains close. End of story.

POTUS does not get to leverage US taxpayers money for his own personal domestic election advantage.

QED.

 

and whether its 1 person or 20 mentioned as long as it's along the lines of corrupt I'd think technically it'd be permissable. Fisa's were issued of members of a opposition parties campaign why? Because there was some little kernal of truth in there to allow it. Same with Biden

 

"personal domestic election advantage"

Still haven't proven that..... Your proving your case to Republican held senate btw

 

Almost. There sure is a prima facie case in my view. What happens in the Senate (if it gets there) will determine whether the USA gives a stuff about corruption in the White House.

 

Yes that'll be one interpretation

 

Yes. But it is very interesting, isn't it? The 100% thrust of the Republican defence is that all Trump cared about was generic widespread corruption in Ukraine, yet his sole focus is said to be of alleged corruption....Burisma. Gee, I wonder why he singled Burisma out?

Mate, there are strong indications of corruption in the White House, but, I am not yet getting the rope out.

 

Fundamental difference there is that the FISA was issued after presenting evidence from a US domestic investigative agency to a US federal judge.

 

Plus the point that is always ignored here that Page was no longer on the Trump campaign when the FISA was obtained...

 

ALL Trump had to do on the call to be safe was use the phrase 'general corruption', and we aren't here.. that's all.. no WB, no concern by the NSC, no anything...

He couldn't do it..

 

When you're a Whistle blower against Clinton... "bureau’s raid on the residence of a whistleblower who reportedly disclosed information about the Clinton Foundation and the Uranium One transaction."

 

Title 1 FISA allows the FBI to spy on anyone associated with Page two steps away, basically anyone he talked to associated with Trump and more.

 

Yet there’s no evidence that happened

 

I think the testimony is clear regarding Biden. The people being i interviewed have no information about Biden having corrupt dealings in Ukraine.

Maybe there were no corrupt dealings. Maybe we just aren't talking to the right people. Who knows.

 

You mean like there was no evidence of Trump Russia collusion?

 

Oh there was lots, just not enough to prove a criminal conspiracy

 

On other words. Not guilty!
You can either convict or you're not guilty.
There is no middle ground.

 

Agee, but there was evidence

 

For legal purposes not enough evidence is the same as no evidence.

 

This forum is not a court of law. Your claim of no evidence is demonstrably false.