NPR - The Legal Case For Impeachment

Thanks for that OP, I appreciate the context.

His opinions on Taylor are exactly as expected them to be, Political Theatrics. He looked convincing, intelligent and composed, every they had hoped for at the Mueller hearing, which was an incoherent babble of sorts.

As for his views on the Dems case, he is essentially saying that there simply isn't enough to prove a crime and impeachable offense, the premise is too narrow in other words, they have no case.

As Steve Bannon said recently, this is the start of their 2020 Political Campaign.

a reply to: Gryphon66
Trump still resides at 1600 Pennsylvania ave; mueller got squat.
She lost to a reality tv star.
Nancy took the required vote.

In reality you understand very little and babble idly a lot.

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Lumenari

More seriously though ... damning all the testimony as hearsay is absurd. The transcript of the call is known and attested to by the White House.

These “non-elected officials” make up the great bulk of the working staff of the United States Government ... so your idea is that they for some reason can’t testify to meetings, conversations, memos, etc. that they have had regarding the subject matter?

That’s absurd.

Attested or not, to say a transcript that is NOT verbatim and is someone’s recollection of a conversation is 100% factual is absurd isn’t it? This whole premise of this charade is in a sense hearsay in many respects.

I’m aware that’s the rhetorical position of those of you whose only intention is to DEFEND Trump. First of all, to point out the obvious again, impeachment is a power given to the House, and the American people elected the Democrats to a majority in the House, and so, they get to wield the impeachment power, not unlike President Trump wields incredible latitude in his authority regarding dealing with foreign powers.

Claiming that the whistleblower (who hadn’t heard the phonecall at the time) was reporting on hearsay had some tiny relevance.

Claiming that these members of the NSC et. al. don’t have knowledge of the situation surrounding the call based on their meetings with principals involved, discussion of the situation via emails and in personal conversations ... is absurd.

Damn right.

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: Gryphon66
Trump still resides at 1600 Pennsylvania ave; mueller got squat.
She lost to a reality tv star.
Nancy took the required vote.

In reality you understand very little and babble idly a lot.

Perhaps.

But then you’re right there trying to babble along after me.

Say, out of curiosity, did you have an opinion about the presentation from NPR this morning on the impeachment process?

originally posted by: Arnie123
Thanks for that OP, I appreciate the context.

His opinions on Taylor are exactly as expected them to be, Political Theatrics. He looked convincing, intelligent and composed, every they had hoped for at the Mueller hearing, which was an incoherent babble of sorts.

As for his views on the Dems case, he is essentially saying that there simply isn't enough to prove a crime and impeachable offense, the premise is too narrow in other words, they have no case.

As Steve Bannon said recently, this is the start of their 2020 Political Campaign.

Then they’re off to a really dumb start.

IMO.

a reply to: Gryphon66
Oh I heard it live.
I agree it is the most narrow attempt in history.
Folly imo.
It will ensure the dems losing in 2020.

Strategically stupid, unfair in process, and lacking evidence of a crime.
The us voting public will not tolerate it imo.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Just trying to keep you on your twinkle toes.
Stay smart and healthy.

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: Lumenari

More seriously though ... damning all the testimony as hearsay is absurd. The transcript of the call is known and attested to by the White House.

These “non-elected officials” make up the great bulk of the working staff of the United States Government ... so your idea is that they for some reason can’t testify to meetings, conversations, memos, etc. that they have had regarding the subject matter?

That’s absurd.

Attested or not, to say a transcript that is NOT verbatim and is someone’s recollection of a conversation is 100% factual is absurd isn’t it? This whole premise of this charade is in a sense hearsay in many respects.

Claiming that the whistleblower (who hadn’t heard the phonecall at the time) was reporting on hearsay had some tiny relevance.
.

No way you typed that with a straight face. Tiny relevance? This whole impeachment process is based on the “whistleblower” or one of them anyways, LOL, would be nice when they figure that out.

Claiming that these members of the NSC et. al. don’t have knowledge of the situation surrounding the call based on their meetings with principals involved, discussion of the situation via emails and in personal conversations ... is absurd.

Is it? Why would I or anyone believe a group of known extremely left biased and very likely CIA ops gov employees involved in a very obvious coup, have an ounce of credibility in what they were collectively able to muster as an opinion of a memorized recollection of a transcribed memorandum of a call that once again, isn’t verbatim or recorded. To believe that BS is absurd as it gets and honestly I’m baffled as to how so many people are buying it as anything close to resembling the absolute truth. Believe what you want I guess but putting your trust in these people thinking they’re honest and not deceiving the public is being gullible and ignorant.

a reply to: Lumenari

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said tonight that he will not put President Trump on trial based on HearSay evidence. The House needs to do better, or drop the witch-hunt.

a reply to: Lumenari

THAT WAS A GREAT MEME! The entire Dim effort in one photo. Awesome.

a reply to: mtnshredder

Yeah, I often read what other posters write and shake my head. Welcome.

See, that’s the thing. Some folks have seemed to retreat even further into a bubble where all input other than their chosen ideological programming is ignored. Bureaucrats aren’t leftists, they’re usually authoritarian. Perceiving a threat to the focus of the current cult-of-personality, Mr. Trump, doesn’t justify the complete denial of reason and logic seen on the part of his zealous groupies.

Use of the word “coup” in any way other than metaphorical regarding this sht-show is in my opinion merely a laughable repetition of partisan BS talking points. Kind of a tip-off or tell as it were to one’s real motivations lie.

Believe what you want as well, of course. For my part, I want to see less belief and more analysis.

Belief is what has gotten us into this mess. Best.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Lumenari

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said tonight that he will not put President Trump on trial based on HearSay evidence. The House needs to do better, or drop the witch-hunt.

Actually, for a refreshing change, McConnell has made it clear that the Senate will pursue its Constitutional role in the process. I guess we will see if he knows the difference in direct testimony and hearsay, since it’s apparent few do.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: mtnshredder

Yeah, I often read what other posters write and shake my head. Welcome.

See, that’s the thing. Some folks have seemed to retreat even further into a bubble where all input other than their chosen ideological programming is ignored. Bureaucrats aren’t leftists, they’re usually authoritarian. Perceiving a threat to the focus of the current cult-of-personality, Mr. Trump, doesn’t justify the complete denial of reason and logic seen on the part of his zealous groupies.

Use of the word “coup” in any way other than metaphorical regarding this sht-show is in my opinion merely a laughable repetition of partisan BS talking points. Kind of a tip-off or tell as it were to one’s real motivations lie.

Believe what you want as well, of course. For my part, I want to see less belief and more analysis.

Belief is what has gotten us into this mess. Best.

Did you say something?

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: mtnshredder

Yeah, I often read what other posters write and shake my head. Welcome.

See, that’s the thing. Some folks have seemed to retreat even further into a bubble where all input other than their chosen ideological programming is ignored. Bureaucrats aren’t leftists, they’re usually authoritarian. Perceiving a threat to the focus of the current cult-of-personality, Mr. Trump, doesn’t justify the complete denial of reason and logic seen on the part of his zealous groupies.

Use of the word “coup” in any way other than metaphorical regarding this sht-show is in my opinion merely a laughable repetition of partisan BS talking points. Kind of a tip-off or tell as it were to one’s real motivations lie.

Believe what you want as well, of course. For my part, I want to see less belief and more analysis.

Belief is what has gotten us into this mess. Best.

Did you say something?

Nah. Just making reasonable observations in front of a block wall.

It’s all good!

originally posted by: Gryphon66

originally posted by: mtnshredder

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: mtnshredder

Yeah, I often read what other posters write and shake my head. Welcome.

See, that’s the thing. Some folks have seemed to retreat even further into a bubble where all input other than their chosen ideological programming is ignored. Bureaucrats aren’t leftists, they’re usually authoritarian. Perceiving a threat to the focus of the current cult-of-personality, Mr. Trump, doesn’t justify the complete denial of reason and logic seen on the part of his zealous groupies.

Use of the word “coup” in any way other than metaphorical regarding this sht-show is in my opinion merely a laughable repetition of partisan BS talking points. Kind of a tip-off or tell as it were to one’s real motivations lie.

Believe what you want as well, of course. For my part, I want to see less belief and more analysis.

Belief is what has gotten us into this mess. Best.

Did you say something?

Nah. Just making reasonable observations in front of a block wall.

It’s all good!

K

Removed for content.

originally posted by: Gryphon66
a reply to: mtnshredder

Aww ... it’s okay sweetie ... don’t cry ...

Another important part of the OP demonstrates that outside of the right-wing echo chamber, Americans see what’s really going on ... Turley points out:

And so they made a lot of progress in establishing that the view of virtually everyone involved was that there was a quid pro quo connecting the military aid to an investigation of the Bidens. And also, I think they also made a nice connection at the very end of the hearing, when Chairman Schiff said that it's true that the military aid was indeed given to Ukraine without those demands being fulfilled. But it actually occurred 48 hours after it became known that the IG report involving this whistleblower had gone to Congress, and so the White House was aware that this was about to blow open into the public sphere.

NPR

Oops. I wonder why they waited so long to send the aid to the Ukraine ... every day of delay probably cost Ukrainian lives, huh?

Oh, it happened AFTER the whistleblower complaint went public? Ohhh.

originally posted by: Arnie123

As for his views on the Dems case, he is essentially saying that there simply isn't enough to prove a crime and impeachable offense, the premise is too narrow in other words, they have no case.

Correct.

It is a legal argument. Prosecutors often throw dozens of charges at a target in the hopes that one or more will survive scrutiny of trial and they will get a conviction.

I think the author has a point to a degree, BUT this is not a legal proceeding, but a political process in form of a legal proceeding.

AND the author talks about how broad past impeachment indictments have been, but the truth is to date, no president has been removed from office by impeachment and conviction.

So the possibility exists that past impeachment efforts failed because they were overly broad and not narrowly focused, just the opposite of what the author proposes.

Either way, we get to find out if the strategy makes sense in historical real-time.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Known to schiff 48 hrs before more like it because he made it up.