Impeachment hearings: Was it worth it?

[Terry Sampson]

On Friday, my latest former "deep state" heroine, Dr. Fiona Hill told members of the House Intelligence Committee:

• "Based on questions and statements I have heard, some of you on this committee appear to believe that Russia and its security services did not conduct a campaign against our country—and that perhaps, somehow, for some reason, Ukraine did. This is a fictional narrative that has been perpetrated and propagated by the Russian security services themselves.
  The unfortunate truth is that Russia was the foreign power that systematically attacked our democratic institutions in 2016. This is the public conclusion of our intelligence agencies, confirmed in bipartisan Congressional reports. It is beyond dispute, even if some of the underlying details must remain classified.
  The impact of the successful 2016 Russian campaign remains evident today. Our nation is being torn apart. Truth is questioned. Our highly professional and expert career foreign service is being undermined.
  U.S. support for Ukraine—which continues to face armed Russian aggression—has been politicized.
  The Russian government’s goal is to weaken our country—to diminish America’s global role and to neutralize a perceived U.S. threat to Russian interests. President Putin and the Russian security services aim to counter U.S. foreign policy objectives in Europe, including in Ukraine, where Moscow wishes to reassert political and economic dominance.
  I say this not as an alarmist, but as a realist. I do not think long-term conflict with Russia is either desirable or inevitable. I continue to believe that we need to seek ways of stabilizing our relationship with Moscow even as we counter their efforts to harm us. Right now, Russia’s security services and their proxies have geared up to repeat their interference in the 2020 election. We are running out of time to stop them. In the course of this investigation, I would ask that you please not promote politically driven falsehoods that so clearly advance Russian interests."

And yet ...
The MaddowBlog on MSNBC

 

[Revoltingest]

Well there is evidence both for and against a flat earth....

No, evidence is overwhelming against a flat Earth.

so could you be a little more precise? To be crystal clear: you are not prepared to say it's "true" at this moment that Trump used the power of his office to "[pressure] a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort"?

I don't even think Trump himself denies these claims. He only denies that it was inappropriate to do so, and that the $400 million in aid constituted a "quid pro quo".

Once again, I find people willing to use excuses to white wash and obfuscate Trump's behavior that not even Trump agrees with. Again I am reminded of the over-indulgent parent making excuses that the child is unable to come up with in his or her own defense. Not saying that applies to you, but, it's a striking pattern I keep encountering in discussions about Trump. There are people who give him more credit and leeway than Trump even claims for himself, which is fascinating.

I'm neither saying Trump is innocent nor excusing his behavior.
But the issue is the claim that it's "true" he bribed the foreign
leader for the investigation. That is an over-reach.
There is certainly much hatred for & suspicion of Trump.
But feelings don't make facts.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Revoltingest I think you may be a little confused. To recap: you asked "who found what to be true". I then quoted the central accusation in the whistleblower's complaint, and said "we all" found out that was true from several credible witnesses with decades of foreign policy experience testifying under penalty of felony on live TV.

Then I am afraid you equivocated "bigly":

"True" is a high standard.
There is evidence both for & against.

Well there is evidence both for and against a flat earth....so could you be a little more precise?

No, evidence is overwhelming against a flat Earth.

That is a false dilemma, there can be evidence both for and against "X", AND there can be overwhelming evidence against "X". But this is beside the point.

I'm neither saying Trump is innocent nor excusing his behavior.
But the issue is the claim that it's "true" he bribed the foreign
leader for the investigation. That is an over-reach.
There is certainly much hatred for & suspicion of Trump.
But feelings don't make facts.

I am sorry but you are subtly moving the goal posts. The whistleblower complaint does not claim Trump "bribed" anyone.

Please read this again.

“In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort.”

We did not know this was true when it first went public. We now indeed do know that it is "true" - or, if you prefer, there is overwhelming evidence it is true. The call transcript released by the WH and the TV interview the President did a couple days ago and the several witnesses testifying under penalty of felony could have refuted these claims .... but they confirmed them.

 

[Revoltingest]

Revoltingest I think you may be a little confused.

That happens.

Your flat Earth analogy argument is confusing.
I don't see how it makes sense.
Advice....
Analogies are useful to illuminate something complex with something familiar.
But it's dangerous to use one as proof of anything because of differences.

To recap: you asked "who found what to be true". I then quoted the central accusation in the whistleblower's complaint, and said "we all" found out that was true from several credible witnesses with decades of foreign policy experience testifying under penalty of felony on live TV.

Then I am afraid you equivocated "bigly":


That is a false dilemma, there can be evidence both for and against "X", AND there can be overwhelming evidence against "X". But this is beside the point.

I am sorry but you are subtly moving the goal posts. The whistleblower complaint does not claim Trump "bribed" anyone.

Please read this again.

“In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort.”

We did not know this was true when it first went public. We now indeed do know that it is "true" - or, if you prefer, there is overwhelming evidence it is true. The call transcript released by the WH and the TV interview the President did a couple days ago and the several witnesses testifying under penalty of felony could have refuted these claims .... but they confirmed them.

I addressed the claim in post #114, inferring that it was
about the claims of impeachable offenses, particularly
bribery...investigation in exchange for military aid.
Of the quid & the quo, one was missing.
That's significant evidence (albeit not proof) against the charge.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

I addressed the claim in post #114, inferring that it was
about the claims of impeachable offenses, particularly
bribery...investigation in exchange for military aid.
Of the quid & the quo, one was missing.
That's significant evidence (albeit not proof) against the charge.

I am confused. Are you saying post #114, the post you were addressing, is not about the accusations made by the whistleblower? That's how I read it:

Milton Platt: I don't think you can have a whistle blower (anonymous or otherwise) come forward and make the accusations made and not investigate to determine the validity of the accusations.

Jay: But they have investigated it and found it to be true.

Emphases mine.

I do not see the words "impeachable offenses" or "bribery" in post #114 or in the whistleblower's complaint, which is publicly available.

 

[Revoltingest]

I am confused. Are you saying post #114, the post you were addressing, is not about the accusations made by the whistleblower? That's how I read it:

Milton Platt: I don't think you can have a whistle blower (anonymous or otherwise) come forward and make the accusations made and not investigate to determine the validity of the accusations.

Jay: But they have investigated it and found it to be true.

Emphases mine.

I do not see the words "impeachable offenses" or "bribery" in post #114 or in the whistleblower's complaint, which is publicly available.

Then perhaps the poster wasn't addressing what I thought he was.
What do you think was found "true"?

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Then perhaps the poster wasn't addressing what I thought he was.

Ok. Do you think it's fair to say the following claim has been investigated and found to be true? (Or if you prefer: there is very strong evidence it is true)

"In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort."

Emphases mine.

 

[Revoltingest]

Ok. Do you think it's fair to say the following claim has been investigated and found to be true? (Or if you prefer: there is very strong evidence it is true)

"In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort."

Emphases mine.

"Pressure" is a judgement laden word.
What conclusively proves intent to have a foreign interfere with the 2020 election?
After all, that could simply be an investigation into Biden's impropriety.
His being a possible (albeit unlikely) rival doesn't make that the unambiguous motive.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

"Pressure" is a judgement laden word.

Yep, we do need to use our judgment here. We could scarcely ever conclude any white collar malfeasance has occurred - not just in this case but in almost any case of abuse of power or conflicts of interest - if we did not make good use of our judgment. I guess the question is what does your judgment tell you - Ukraine was not pressured to do investigations? I think the word pressure is shorthand for Ukraine desperately wanting X, and X was conditioned upon them doing Y, but maybe you feel a different word like "encourage" or "cajole" would be less "judgment laden" here. I'm all ears.

What conclusively proves intent to have a foreign interfere with the 2020 election?

Well I think a lot of evidence suggests that but let's set that aside, because that is a somewhat normative claim that no evidence can prove or disprove (a jury will have to judge) and intent is always difficult to prove. I was really focusing on the descriptive claim that the president used the power of his office to direct a pressure campaign to get a foreign country to investigate one of his main political rivals. We didn't know that was true before the investigation. Now we do. No?

After all, that could simply be an investigation into Biden's impropriety.

Well if Attorney General Barr, acting in due course of his duties, opened an investigation into Biden, that could arguably "simply be an investigation". But you don't "simply" have the president - particularly this president - pressure a corrupt foreign government to publicly announce an investigation into his chief political rival, re-purposing $400 million in Congressionally approved military aid for that purpose. Did we pay $400 million to Putin to do the Russia investigation? Of course not. To say this was "simply" an investigation into Biden's impropriety is complete nonsense. We have this thing called the US Dept. of Justice which "simply" investigates US citizens.

This was a highly irregular route to achieve that end - so irregular, that I remind you, it seems to have alarmed almost EVERYONE on Trump's own staff (except Rudy).

His being a possible (albeit unlikely) rival doesn't make that the unambiguous motive.

Agreed but again, there exists a route for the administration to investigate its political rivals, if there are legitimate reasons to do so. This wasn't that route.

 

[Revoltingest]

Yep, we do need to use our judgment here. We could scarcely ever conclude any white collar malfeasance has occurred - not just in this case but in almost any case of abuse of power or conflicts of interest - if we did not make good use of our judgment. I guess the question is what does your judgment tell you - Ukraine was not pressured to do investigations? I think the word pressure is shorthand for Ukraine desperately wanting X, and X was conditioned upon them doing Y, but maybe you feel a different word like "encourage" or "cajole" would be less "judgment laden" here. I'm all ears.

Well I think a lot of evidence suggests that but let's set that aside, because that is a somewhat normative claim that no evidence can prove or disprove (a jury will have to judge) and intent is always difficult to prove. I was really focusing on the descriptive claim that the president used the power of his office to direct a pressure campaign to get a foreign country to investigate one of his main political rivals. We didn't know that was true before the investigation. Now we do. No?

Well if Attorney General Barr, acting in due course of his duties, opened an investigation into Biden, that could arguably "simply be an investigation". But you don't "simply" have the president - particularly this president - pressure a corrupt foreign government to publicly announce an investigation into his chief political rival, re-purposing $400 million in Congressionally approved military aid for that purpose. Did we pay $400 million to Putin to do the Russia investigation? Of course not. To say this was "simply" an investigation into Biden's impropriety is complete nonsense. We have this thing called the US Dept. of Justice which "simply" investigates US citizens.

This was a highly irregular route to achieve that end - so irregular, that I remind you, it seems to have alarmed almost EVERYONE on Trump's own staff (except Rudy).

Agreed but again, there exists a route for the administration to investigate its political rivals, if there are legitimate reasons to do so. This wasn't that route.

What cannot be called "true" was that there was a quid pro quo.
It wasn't proven, & thus cannot be called "true".
You may reasonably argue that it's possible though.

As for staff concern, even if there were no quid pro quo,
it's appropriate just for appearances sake.
As I've said, he might be guilty of bribery.
One cannot leap from possibility or probability to certainty.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What cannot be called "true" was that there was a quid pro quo.
It wasn't proven, & thus cannot be called "true".
You may reasonably argue that it's possible though.

Well, again, you're kind of dancing around because I specifically asked you about Ukraine being "pressured". That was the word used in the whistleblower complaint that we are discussing, not quid pro quo. By ignoring what I asked and now talking about quid pro quo, it feels like you are moving the goalposts ... again.

Which is a shame because I can't be expected to play soccer as well as a Scotsman even when the goalposts are sitting still.

So again: are you saying it's too incautious to regard it as "true" that Ukraine was pressured?

As for staff concern, even if there were no quid pro quo,
it's appropriate just for appearances sake.
As I've said, he might be guilty of bribery.
One cannot leap from possibility or probability to certainty.

Apologies, I am not sure what this means. Can you please clarify?

 

[Revoltingest]

Well, again, you're kind of dancing around....

I'm trying to directly address your posts, but
something is apparently amiss betweens us.

...because I specifically asked you about Ukraine being "pressured". That was the word used in the whistleblower complaint that we are discussing, not quid pro quo. By ignoring what I asked and now talking about quid pro quo, it feels like you are moving the goalposts ... again.
Which is a shame because I can't be expected to play soccer as well as a Scotsman even when the goalposts are sitting still.

So again: are you saying it's too incautious to regard it as "true" that Ukraine was pressured?

Apologies, I am not sure what this means. Can you please clarify?

"True" is "incautious".
You're offering an unproven opinion.
Although on a place called "Religious Forums", I suppose
that unproven beliefs are commonly called "true".

Note that I'm not saying the belief is wrong.
Only the leap to certainty is wrong.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

What do you think was found "true"?

Oh it seems I neglected to answer your question. This was found to be true:

"In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort."

 

[Revoltingest]

Oh it seems I neglected to answer your question. This was found to be true:

"In the course of my official duties, I have received information from multiple U.S. Government officials that the President of the United States is using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country in the 2020 U.S. election. This interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the President’s main domestic political rivals. The President’s personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, is a central figure in this effort."

This is still opinion, not "true"....particularly so in the underlined portion.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

This is still opinion, not "true"....particularly so in the underlined portion.

I’m confused. Are you saying Ukraine isn’t a foreign country?

 

[Revoltingest]

I’m confused. Are you saying Ukraine isn’t a foreign country?

Yes, it's a county in New Jersey.
Really?
No.
"Interference" is the over-reach, ie, a reasonable opinion to have, but not "true".

How long are we going to keep up this revolving exchange?
I'm run'n out'a gas here.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Yes, it's a county in New Jersey.
Really?
No.
"Interference" is the over-reach, ie, a reasonable opinion to have, but not "true".

How long are we going to keep up this revolving exchange?
I'm run'n out'a gas here.

Well yes that's a normative claim. It is therefore impossible to prove true or false. Even if the White House wasn't obstructing the investigation and we had access to all the evidence.

It's the part I highlighted in bold, the descriptive claim, that we have learned is true.