Separating fact from fiction at Trump's impeachment hearings Associated Press HOPE YEN and CALVIN WOODWARD ,Associated Press•November 13, 2019
WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump has been fulminating for weeks over the impeachment inquiry, which he sees as a persecution cooked up by Democrats and "Never Trumpers."
In reality, a collection of witnesses that includes Still Trumpers, Once Trumpers and the apolitical civil service has put together a largely cohesive account of a president exerting pressure on a foreign power for political benefit at home.
On Wednesday, with the opening of historic public hearings, Republicans in the House are primed to defend him while Democrats lean in to make their points before a presumably big TV audience.
Here's a guide to separating fact from fiction on subjects likely to be heard in the hearings:
NO PRESSURE?
Republicans seem disinclined to echo Trump's description of his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy as "perfect." But they do suggest it was harmless.
A Republican staff memo, laying out talking points for the hearings, asserts that the rough transcript of the call "shows no conditionality or evidence of pressure."
In fact, Trump clearly exerted pressure in the phone call. As well, he made his request for a Ukrainian investigation of Democrats right after Zelenskiy raised the subject of U.S. military assistance.
When Zelenskiy told him Ukraine was "almost ready" to buy more anti-tank missiles from the U.S., Trump responded: "I would like you to do us a favor, though."
Trump did not state explicitly that he would hold back military aid or benefits to Ukraine unless he got what he wanted.
But he repeatedly stated that both his attorney general and personal lawyer would follow up with phone calls about the investigation he was seeking, and "we will get to the bottom of it."
Moreover, Trump's people were engaged in a systematic effort behind the scenes for months to get Ukraine to probe Joe and Hunter Biden and other Democrats. According to closed-door testimony, U.S. military aid was not to be resumed until Ukraine made a public statement committing to an investigation.
___
THE 'RABBIT HOLE'
Trump's statements about Ukraine rest on two arguments, which House Republicans are echoing to varying degrees despite scant evidence behind the allegations.
One is that Joe Biden used the vice presidency to protect his son Hunter, who was doing business in that country. The other is that Ukraine colluded with Democrats to the disadvantage of the 2016 Trump campaign.
The first argument has this much going for it: Hunter Biden's position on the board of a Ukrainian energy company, while his father was serving as an emissary to that country, looked bad. Yet no wrongdoing by either Biden has been substantiated.
The second argument hangs on a fevered conspiracy theory that even some Trump officials have tried to bat away.
Trump's first homeland security adviser, Tom Bossert, said Trump was told by his staff that the theory was "completely debunked" well before the president pressed Ukraine to investigate it.
The theory resurfaced from GOP lawmakers in the closed impeachment hearings, exasperating Fiona Hill, an intelligence official from the Bush and Obama administrations who served as special assistant to Trump on the National Security Council until she resigned in the summer.
"It is a fiction that the Ukrainian government was launching an effort to upend our election," Hill testified. "I'm extremely concerned that this is a rabbit hole that we're all going to go down in between now and the 2020 election, and it will be to all of our detriment."
___
A RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS
It's been a familiar refrain from Republicans throughout the impeachment inquiry: The proceedings are an illegal "sham" and a "coup," and Trump has a right to confront his main accuser, an anonymous whistleblower.
"Fake Hearing (trial) in the House, as they interview Never Trumpers and others, I get NO LAWYER & NO DUE PROCESS," Trump tweeted recently.
Trump is off the mark.
The House is conducting a hearing, not a trial, so no constitutional rights are being violated here.
Nor is there any illegal takeover afoot —the impeachment process is unfolding as outlined in the Constitution, which gives the House the sole power to impeach and the Senate the sole power to remove a president from office.
Trump is correct that he and his legal team are excluded from the public hearings beginning Wednesday, but he hasn't been charged with anything and has no constitutional right to be represented by a lawyer in this proceeding.
The hearings led by the House Intelligence Committee are akin to the investigative phase of criminal cases, generally conducted in private and without the participation of the person under investigation.
In future House Judiciary Committee hearings that presumably would result in the drafting of impeachment articles, Trump would be invited to attend and his lawyers could question witnesses and object to testimony and evidence, similar to the process in the impeachment proceedings against Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.
If there is a Senate trial, Trump's legal team would defend the president against impeachment articles approved by the House in an environment that would look like a typical trial in some respects.
___
WHERE'S THE CRIME?
The hearings may feature debate over what constitutes a crime for purposes of impeachment. If so, that may be beside the point.
Under the Constitution, impeachment involves a political judgment about whether public officials have abused their office to the detriment of the country and therefore should be removed from that office.
A crime may establish that condition. But a president could still be subject to impeachment even if the conduct is not a crime.
Soliciting or accepting election help from a foreign entity is illegal. But it's not clear that the overseas investigation sought by Trump qualifies as an illegal campaign benefit. It does not need to qualify as one if Congress renders the judgment that it's an abuse of office.
___
'SHIFTY SCHIFF'
Expect Rep. Adam Schiff, the public face of Democrats' impeachment inquiry who will open the hearings, to be a frequent target of Trump and Republican lawmakers. Trump has even called on the intelligence committee chairman to be made to testify as a witness subject to cross-examination.
In the president's eyes, "Shifty Schiff" is guilty of almost everything: fabricating Trump's conversation with Ukraine's president, writing the whistleblower's complaint himself, treason. None of that is true.
"Didn't he pick the Whistleblower?" Trump tweeted Nov. 2.
"It's a scandal he knew before. I go a step further. I think he probably helped write it," Trump told reporters Oct. 2.
The whistleblower did speak to staffers on the House Intelligence Committee on procedural issues before filing the formal complaint that would trigger the impeachment inquiry. But Trump and his GOP allies are taking a big leap in asserting that Schiff schemed with the whistleblower to lodge the complaint.
Patrick Boland, a spokesman for Schiff, said that committee staff advised the person to contact an inspector general and to seek counsel, but that the committee did not get an early look at the complaint.
The whistleblower's lawyer, Mark Zaid, said the person had never met or spoken with Schiff about the matter.
Trump also has repeatedly claimed that Schiff "illegally made up a FAKE & terrible statement" about his Ukraine phone call, sometimes asserting that the California Democrat was then caught in "a total lie" after Trump released a rough transcript of the call. Trump has branded Schiff's acts treason.
Trump is exaggerating the episode and botching the timeline.
Schiff delivered what he called a parody of Trump's remarks in the president's July 25 phone call with Ukraine's leader.
Schiff did so after the White House released a rough transcript of the call, not before. So people who read the official account knew Schiff was riffing from it, not quoting from it.
Trump loosely throws around accusations of treason, extending it, for example, to Democratic immigration policy and negative newspaper coverage.
Under the Constitution, treason occurs when a U.S. citizen, or a noncitizen on U.S. territory, wages war against the country or provides material support to a declared enemy of the United States. It is defined narrowly as part of an effort by the framers to prevent the government from using it as a reason to suppress political speech. No one has been convicted of treason since the aftermath of World War II.
___
THE 'NEVER TRUMPERS'
Trump says the arguments against him are "made up garbage by Shifty Schiff and the Never Trumpers!"
His point misrepresents the breadth of the testimony heard in the closed-door hearings. The witnesses are not all hostile to the president or part of a cabal against him.
Problematic testimony has come from people who worked assiduously to get Ukraine to do what Trump wanted. Among them: Gordon Sondland, a wealthy donor to Trump's 2016 campaign whose loyalty was rewarded with his appointment as U.S. envoy to the European Union.
Reversing a key point of his testimony, Sondland said he had conveyed to a Ukrainian official that the country's leadership would need to announce an investigation of the Bidens and Democrats as a condition of getting the military aid that Trump had frozen.
Don't blame the clown for acting like a clown. Ask yourself why you keep going to the circus.
The only way republicans can claim Victory is if they didn’t watch the hearing.
Last edited by Swish; 11/13/1906:14 PM.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
jordan failed miserably, and then took a massive L when the Dem who spoke after him called out the person who started it all, TRUMP lololololol
it was sad. and the counsel they had doing the questioning during the 45 minute round was terrible. seriously bro, YOU couldve asked better questions than him.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Posting the disgraceful Jim Jordan to make that point is a big mistake! Jim Jordan will do anything to keep his job... protect and keep the secrets of pedophiles and crooks... that's good by Jim. If I had to pick one person in the house for a micro meteor to strike while he was on the toilet, it would be Jordan. I would feel no guilt. He makes me ashamed to be from Ohio.
Last edited by OldColdDawg; 11/13/1911:02 PM.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Some of the lame crap you post makes you look so bad, yet you remain clueless to what it makes you look like.
Adam Schiff is single handedly handing the GOP it's ass right now and the best you or they can do is a 'Bozo' meme? Pathetic. Just like Trump's defense and the lapdogs trying to put that over on America. Pathetic.
Last edited by OldColdDawg; 11/14/1903:42 AM.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
You did it again... you actually "liked" your own post.
That would be embarrassing- if you possessed even an ounce of pride or shame.
You probably don't realize it, but every time you "like" yourself on the internet, it's the equivalent of making the rest of us witness you jerkin' your gherkin on the subway at rush hour. Decent, normal people ain't tryna see that mess.
Perhaps my 'painting a pic with words' escapes you. Perhaps you're a "visual learner." Cool.
This is what you look like to the rest of us:
Dude: Don't be "Self-congratulatory Obama." You're better than that.
Hey, everyone! SuperBrown "likes" himself. In public. Every day. In front of all of us.
Let's all give him a hand... or perhaps not. [shudder]
This is comical. I saw NOTHING today that is actual evidence that proves Trump did anything. I'll keep saying it,
"Testimony alone is NOT enough to convict someone of a crime"
If you had 20 people testify that you murdered your coworker, and zero evidence exists that you commited such a crime, do you really think your going to be convicted in court? Hell no! not if you have an attorney with half a brain you won't.
I mean that's what this whole impeachment is. This whole thing is flawed.
the entire case is 100% based on "The reliability of the witness with no other evidence" You can't convict someone soley on the good faith alone that someone isn't lying. Thats not how the justice system, even the impeachment process works.
If you can convict Trump on this, then they can remove any President they want in the future for any reason they want regardless of party.
Furthermore, Since the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will be running this trial in the senate, much of this so called "testimony" will probably be inadmissible and not allowed to be used. Grand Juries indict people all the time, and later evidence used to indict is not admissible in trial.
This case is so easy for Trump to defend it isn't even funny due to the waste of tax dollars and time. Trump WANTS THIS to go to the Senate, there is nothing he wants more. He will beat this easy, peasey, lemon squeezey.
After he wins, the Dems have ZERO chance of winning the 2020 election, and they are also going to lose pretty much every seat they have up for re-election in both houses.
As I said before, If Trump done something illegal, by all means fry him, but give the people some damn proof.
PROVE he used his office for financial, political, or person gain.
PROVE he asked the Ukrainian President about Biden in any other context other than corruption investigation. (the fact Trump had his Attorney General get in touch with them proves it was an investigation that is within his autority)
PROVE he with held aid or threatened to(considering they got the aid, good luck)
PROVE he pressured Ukraine for politcal reasons (Despite the Ukrainian President saying that didn't happen)
After what I saw today, it still stands:
There is no way in hell they can prove this case to a conviction in the Senate, even if it was 52 Repubs and 48 Dems, Trump would still walk on this case easy.
Why can't the Dems work on finding an electable candidate instead of trying to impeach someone.
the fact Obama won't endorse anyone is HUGE. Obama doesn't even recognize his own party anymore. Folks also don't realize that the increased border security was actually Obama's idea. Obama Told Trump he needed to do this kinda stuff on the southern border during the damn transition as it was getting out of hand, but the news media won't tell you that.
Enough Said, Obama wouldn't even have the support of the DNC nor the average Democratic Voter today, he isn't "liberal enough" he doesn't want open borders, he doesn't want free health care.
Obama never wanted free 100% coverage healthcare, he wanted people to pay a fair share for it. What is a fiar share is debateable, but Obama nver wanted it to be 100% free He was pretty clear on that being simply unsustainable. After exploring every avenue, he knew he had to work with health insurance companies and make some kinda compromise because there is no way in hell your going to raise an extra 3.5 trillion per year in taxes to cover it with improverishing most of the population, taxing the heck out of food, etc.
the democratic party has lost its way completely, it is no longer the party of the working american, it is no longer the party of the unions, steel workers, factories, etc...it is the party of open borders, socialism, deficit spending, and taxation.
Don't get me wrong, the Republicans are FAR from from perfect, but they atleast allow me to keep more of my yearly earnings than the Democrats, they at least take "less". They still need to get their spending in order, but the economy is doing much better than it was under Obama largly due to corporate tax cuts, tax cuts on Americans, etc that lead to increased consumer spending and more jobs = higher GDP.
whatever, this whole thing is a fiasco and when its all set and done it will cost us about 300 million in tax payer money to chase a rabbit down a hole that doesn't exist.
This is not a legal trial. There does not have to be a proven crime, just his skeevy behavior and tendencies to commit crimes is MORE than enough to impeach him.
Your feelings and opinions do not add up to facts.
Exactly. He doesn’t even realize the actual trial is in the senate. Where they’ve already said they won’t quickly dismiss the articles of impeachment.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Common decency, decorum and simply acting like a civil adult went out the window the day Trump became the President.. There is nothing about him that is right.
Except the things that are alt-right.
LOL OK
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.” Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe." Damanshot
This is comical. I saw NOTHING today that is actual evidence that proves Trump did anything. I'll keep saying it,
"Testimony alone is NOT enough to convict someone of a crime"
If you had 20 people testify that you murdered your coworker, and zero evidence exists that you commited such a crime, do you really think your going to be convicted in court? Hell no! not if you have an attorney with half a brain you won't.
I mean that's what this whole impeachment is. This whole thing is flawed.
the entire case is 100% based on "The reliability of the witness with no other evidence" You can't convict someone soley on the good faith alone that someone isn't lying. Thats not how the justice system, even the impeachment process works.
If you can convict Trump on this, then they can remove any President they want in the future for any reason they want regardless of party.
Furthermore, Since the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will be running this trial in the senate, much of this so called "testimony" will probably be inadmissible and not allowed to be used. Grand Juries indict people all the time, and later evidence used to indict is not admissible in trial.
This case is so easy for Trump to defend it isn't even funny due to the waste of tax dollars and time. Trump WANTS THIS to go to the Senate, there is nothing he wants more. He will beat this easy, peasey, lemon squeezey.
After he wins, the Dems have ZERO chance of winning the 2020 election, and they are also going to lose pretty much every seat they have up for re-election in both houses.
As I said before, If Trump done something illegal, by all means fry him, but give the people some damn proof.
PROVE he used his office for financial, political, or person gain.
PROVE he asked the Ukrainian President about Biden in any other context other than corruption investigation. (the fact Trump had his Attorney General get in touch with them proves it was an investigation that is within his autority)
PROVE he with held aid or threatened to(considering they got the aid, good luck)
PROVE he pressured Ukraine for politcal reasons (Despite the Ukrainian President saying that didn't happen)
After what I saw today, it still stands:
There is no way in hell they can prove this case to a conviction in the Senate, even if it was 52 Repubs and 48 Dems, Trump would still walk on this case easy.
Why can't the Dems work on finding an electable candidate instead of trying to impeach someone.
the fact Obama won't endorse anyone is HUGE. Obama doesn't even recognize his own party anymore. Folks also don't realize that the increased border security was actually Obama's idea. Obama Told Trump he needed to do this kinda stuff on the southern border during the damn transition as it was getting out of hand, but the news media won't tell you that.
Enough Said, Obama wouldn't even have the support of the DNC nor the average Democratic Voter today, he isn't "liberal enough" he doesn't want open borders, he doesn't want free health care.
Obama never wanted free 100% coverage healthcare, he wanted people to pay a fair share for it. What is a fiar share is debateable, but Obama nver wanted it to be 100% free He was pretty clear on that being simply unsustainable. After exploring every avenue, he knew he had to work with health insurance companies and make some kinda compromise because there is no way in hell your going to raise an extra 3.5 trillion per year in taxes to cover it with improverishing most of the population, taxing the heck out of food, etc.
the democratic party has lost its way completely, it is no longer the party of the working american, it is no longer the party of the unions, steel workers, factories, etc...it is the party of open borders, socialism, deficit spending, and taxation.
Don't get me wrong, the Republicans are FAR from from perfect, but they atleast allow me to keep more of my yearly earnings than the Democrats, they at least take "less". They still need to get their spending in order, but the economy is doing much better than it was under Obama largly due to corporate tax cuts, tax cuts on Americans, etc that lead to increased consumer spending and more jobs = higher GDP.
whatever, this whole thing is a fiasco and when its all set and done it will cost us about 300 million in tax payer money to chase a rabbit down a hole that doesn't exist.
A nice try, but you have seemed to ignore the fact that the White House has ignored subpoenas associated with the paper trail or witnesses (Mulvaney, Barr, Bolton, Rudy) that would have first hand evidence.
That letter from the White House lawyer was the biggest joke ever prepared under a lawyers name.
There is a lot on the periphery, and none of the participants have testified.
Rudy testifying would truly be popcorn worthy.
There will be no playoffs. Can’t play with who we have out there and compounding it with garbage playcalling and worse execution. We don’t have good skill players on offense period. Browns 20 - Bears 17.
It is comical. They obstruct the investigation by not allowing anyone with first hand knowledge from testifying by circumventing subpoenas, then scream that nobody with first hand knowledge is testifying. You couldn't make that crap up if you tried.
Intoducing for The Cleveland Browns, Quarterback Deshawn "The Predator" Watson. He will also be the one to choose your next head coach.
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Trump campaign raised $3.1M from impeachment hearing: manager
Trump 2020 had set a goal of $3 million in 24 hours.
THANK YOU!!!
Brad Parscale
@parscale
When Dems & media go nuts @realDonaldTrump’s campaign gets stronger!
In 24 hours after #HearsayHearing:
$3.1M in small dollar donations
One of our best fundraising days ever... again!
Dems just don’t get it. They are filling our bank and improving our turnout every day! 6,952 9:33 AM - Nov 14, 2019
When the Democrats 2 star witnesses are told the Ukrainian President stood before the World Press and consistently, repeatedly, over and over again said, "I have no knowledge of military aid being withheld meaning no quid pro quo, no pressure, no demands, no threats, no blackmail, nothing corrupt, do you have evidence that President Zelensky LIED to the World Press about those things?
Answer: Duh, Uh, no.
Then they are asked where in that phone call they find evidence of an impeachable offense by our President? Go ahead, just shout it out!
Answer: Duh, Uh, ..............................
They watched it with Russian Collusion. They watched it with the Kavanaugh hearings. They see it here with the impeachment sham.
The American People are not stupid. They see right through this new "Now we got him" Circus.
Trump campaign raised $3.1M from impeachment hearing: manager
Trump 2020 had set a goal of $3 million in 24 hours.
THANK YOU!!!
Are you saying that because some people are dumb enough do donate, we should stop the impeachment proceedings?
You tell us. Did he SAY that? No.
Dang, you and pit are intolerable with the stupid questions.
A fact was stated. And you go off and ask if we should stop the impeachment proceedings - which, as we're told, is an "inquiry"????
Where'd you come up with that?
I'm happy for the dems doing this. They are showing desperation and grabbing at straws. First collusion, then russian interference, lies, now bribery. What's next?
On a personal level, I hope that at some point the dems "get their guy", because I try to like and respect other people. But come on, after 3 years of fishing, nothing yet?
Hey, get his tax returns. Maybe that will be the mantra next week?
Honestly, for a day 1 hearing, having their best resources testify in what we were told would be a blockbuster moment..........we got "well, I heard someone say something at some point."
When point blank asked if there were any impeachable offenses committed, one witness said nothing.
Let me try YOUR tactic: Are you saying that because the Schiff show is on tv, that we should all eat hamburgers tonight?
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
“To announce that there must be no criticism of the President, or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American public.”
Posting the disgraceful Jim Jordan to make that point is a big mistake! Jim Jordan will do anything to keep his job... protect and keep the secrets of pedophiles and crooks... that's good by Jim. If I had to pick one person in the house for a micro meteor to strike while he was on the toilet, it would be Jordan. I would feel no guilt. He makes me ashamed to be from Ohio.
![[Linked Image]](http://www.dawgtalkers.net/uploads/PortlandDawg/banner.jpg)
