US President Donald J. Trump Impeachment Megathread - Democrats commit mass political suicide

On September 24th, 2019, Nanci Pelosi did what everyone expected was some exceptional political posturing -- initiating a formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

The initial "charge," such as it was, was "betraying his oath of office and the nation's security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain." This, amusingly, was after it was discovered and widely reported on that the DNC had contacted the very same foreign power to attempt to tarnish Trump.

Specifically, this was all based on a rumor that Trump had asked the Ukraine to investigate how a prosecutor investigating Joe Biden's son for corruption had gotten fired, and withheld foreign aid until they had agreed. (He did ask the leader of the Ukraine to investigate what happened with the prosecutor, but did not hold up any foreign aid nor threaten anything of the like.)

Around this time, Trump did something they could not, and still cannot, understand: He publicly turned over all the documents. The transcript of the phone call they claimed showed him committing the crime of blackmailing the Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden for him was released, showing that Trump did nothing wrong. The only reaction the radical left had was arguing over the definition of "transcript" and spouting off a conspiracy theory about official state documents being edited.

At the same time, old video evidence of Joe Biden publicly bragging about blackmailing the Ukraine into NOT investigating his son came to light. Yes, this is exactly what they're accusing Trump of doing. The left is nothing if not subtle. Right after this, evidence came to light that Pelosi, Kerry, and Romney's kids had similar fake jobs in the Ukraine, getting paid ungodly amounts of money and embezzling US foreign aid to the Ukraine -- all things that Trump's Attorney General has openly discussed investigating.

By releasing the transcripts, the DNC was tripped up. Instead of being able to leak information from their secret investigation until November 2020, they were forced to play their hand publicly.

And they had no hand to play. The impeachment accusations came from second and third hand sources -- watercooler talk from Unelected Deep State Analysts with Trump Derangement Syndrome, outraged that President Trump refused to obey them when they felt they had a better idea as to how to run Foreign Affairs. Other allegations included that supposedly, the telepathic DNC members working in the state department knew what Trump was thinking (despite him literally saying the exact opposite) or could tell that Trump would do something even worse -- maybe something actually illegal -- in the future, and boy howdy, the imaginary Trump in their minds was a right bastard.

(As an aside, the name of the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, has been censored across pretty much all social media, a test run of whatever censorship they're going to enact in the next few months to try and swing the election.)

At the same time, the DNC performed significant amounts of partisan political fuckery to do this all publicly, but unofficially -- preventing the GOP from bringing forth witnesses or questioning the DNC's witnesses, or even reading the double plus secret evidence the DNC supposedly had. Those GOP that did get access to the evidence have confirmed it's a 3 pound 5 ounce nothingburger.

The charges have since mutated, with them initially being changed to "bribery" -- as "bribery" focus groups easier and is easier to spew out on Twitter.

On December 18th, 2019, along party lines and with bipartisan opposition, they finally drafted their articles of impeachment -- first for "Abuse of Power" and second for "Obstruction of Congress." Neither are actually crimes nor are they impeachable offenses, even if they were true -- which the DNC has provided no evidence of, explaining that it's the Senate's job to investigate and find the evidence.

Narrator: It is not the Senate's job to investigate and find the evidence.

The "Obstruction of Congress" charge is particularly egregious, as they are claiming that Trump, by reaching out to the courts to act as mediators in his dispute over the rules with Pelosi, was obstructing her. In other words, Pelosi's stance is that the President must obey her, even if she's being a batshit insane drunk. Many legal scholars, including Alan Dershowitz, have pointed out that this is absolute bullshit.

The latest development as of this writing on December 21th, 2019, is that Pelosi is demanding that the GOP recuse itself, allowing the DNC to reshape the Senate in order to make the process "fair" -- by creating a Kangaroo court. The GOP is refusing outright, as the Senate's role during this is very specifically to take the charges and all the evidence gathered from the house -- which is none -- and vote yes or no on impeachment. They need 2/3rd majority to vote yes, and the DNC does not have the votes.

Pelosi is refusing to send over the articles of impeachment until the GOP allows her to stack the Senate against Trump, an act that Dershowitz as well as Noah Feldman, the DNC's own star legal expert witness, has said is unconstitutional and "a problem," as Trump isn't impeached until the articles have been filed. Meanwhile, the DNC has put the House on vacation until the new year, while the Senate is exploring options including forcing the articles over without Pelosi's ok. Trump and the Senate have both went to the SCOTUS to ask them if any of this is constitutional.

tl;dr: Trump may have found where the Swamp was embezzling US Foreign Aid. Many politician's children working fake jobs for huge amounts of money in the Ukraine, blatantly selling influence. This caused the DNC to freak out and try and headshot Trump. They missed. The Democrats appear to have committed political suicide, making Trump a Martyr and only realizing in the aftermath that they didn't actually get rid of him or even weaken him in any way. They also appear to realize they fucked up and are trying to slow walk it back, keeping the "he's impeached!" victory while not actually having to let anyone read the evidence or have a trial on it.


@Yotsubaaa did a great writeup here with links to various winner posts: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/nancy...kraine-phone-call.61583/page-135#post-5606264

And @Yotsubaaa did a new version very late on the 21st of December: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/presi...chment-megathread.61583/page-260#post-5754920

Which are too big to quote here.



https://archive.fo/oVGIv

WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday that the House would initiate a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump, charging him with betraying his oath of office and the nation’s security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain.

Ms. Pelosi’s declaration, after months of reticence by Democrats who had feared the political consequences of impeaching a president many of them long ago concluded was unfit for office, was a stunning turn that set the stage for a history-making and exceedingly bitter confrontation between the Democrat-led House and a defiant president who has thumbed his nose at institutional norms.

“The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the Constitution,” Ms. Pelosi said in a brief speech invoking the nation’s founding principles. Mr. Trump, she added, “must be held accountable — no one is above the law.”

She said the president’s conduct revealed his “betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.”

Ms. Pelosi’s decision to push forward with the most severe action that Congress can take against a sitting president could usher in a remarkable new chapter in American life, touching off a constitutional and political showdown with the potential to cleave an already divided nation, reshape Mr. Trump’s presidency and the country’s politics, and carry heavy risks both for him and for the Democrats who have decided to weigh his removal.

Though the outcome is uncertain, it also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump could become only the fourth president in American history to face impeachment. Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached but later acquitted by the Senate. President Richard M. Nixon resigned in the face of a looming House impeachment vote.

It was the first salvo in an escalating, high-stakes standoff between Ms. Pelosi, now fully engaged in an effort to build the most damning possible case against the president, and Mr. Trump, who angrily denounced Democrats’ impeachment inquiry even as he worked feverishly in private to head off the risk to his presidency.

Mr. Trump, who for months has dared Democrats to impeach him, issued a defiant response on Twitter while in New York for several days of international diplomacy at the United Nations, with a series of fuming posts that culminated with a simple phrase: “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!” Meanwhile, his re-election campaign and House Republican leaders launched a vociferous defense, accusing Democrats of a partisan rush to judgment.

“Such an important day at the United Nations, so much work and so much success, and the Democrats purposely had to ruin and demean it with more breaking news Witch Hunt garbage,” Mr. Trump wrote. “So bad for our Country! For the past two years, talk of impeachment had centered around the findings of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who investigated Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections and Mr. Trump’s attempts to derail that inquiry. On Tuesday, Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California, told her caucus and then the country that new revelations about Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, and his administration’s stonewalling of Congress about them, had finally left the House no choice but to proceed toward a rarely used remedy.

“Right now, we have to strike while the iron is hot,” she told House Democrats in a closed-door meeting in the basement of the Capitol. Emerging moments later to address a phalanx of news cameras, Ms. Pelosi, speaking sometimes haltingly as she delivered a speech from a teleprompter, invoked the Constitution and the nation’s founders as she declared, “The times have found us” and outlined a new stage of investigating Mr. Trump.

At issue are allegations that Mr. Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to open a corruption investigation of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and his son. The conversation is said to be part of a whistle-blower complaint that the Trump administration has withheld from Congress. And it occurred just a few days after Mr. Trump had ordered his staff to freeze more than $391 million in aid to Ukraine.

Mr. Trump has confirmed aspects of his conversation with the Ukrainian leader in recent days, but he continues to insist he acted appropriately.

The president said on Tuesday that he would authorize the release of a transcript of the conversation, part of an effort to pre-empt Democrats’ impeachment push. But Democrats, after months of holding back, were unbowed, demanding the full whistle-blower complaint and other documentation about White House dealings with Ukraine, even as they pushed toward an expansive impeachment inquiry that could encompass unrelated charges.

President Trump’s personal lawyer. The prosecutor general of Ukraine. Joe Biden’s son. These are just some of the names mentioned in the whistle-blower’s complaint. What were their roles? We break it down.

Ms. Pelosi told fellow Democrats that Mr. Trump told her in a private call on Tuesday morning that he was not responsible for withholding the whistle-blower complaint from Congress. But late Tuesday, the White House and intelligence officials were working on a deal to allow the whistle-blower to speak to Congress and potentially even share a redacted version of the complaint in the coming days, after the whistle-blower expressed interest in talking to lawmakers.

Although Ms. Pelosi’s announcement was a crucial turning point, it left many unanswered questions about exactly when and how Democrats planned to push forward on impeachment.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
No I'm not shitposting, not trying to stir anything. My questions were genuine, and memberpizzas answer was informative.
By both sides I meant the pro and anti impeachment people in the news, not people here.
The basic thing is that quid pro quo deals are generally referred to as "diplomacy" when they happen between nations, and in no way is it illegal or even slightly inappropriate to investigate potential criminal misconduct. The whole impeachment thing is absolute, utter nonsense being spewed out into the population to make stupid people stupider, and to cover for the extensive CIA activity in Ukraine, one of the hottest spots on Earth for really ugly government fuckery.
 
The basic thing is that quid pro quo deals are generally referred to as "diplomacy" when they happen between nations, and in no way is it illegal or even slightly inappropriate to investigate potential criminal misconduct. The whole impeachment thing is absolute, utter nonsense being spewed out into the population to make stupid people stupider, and to cover for the extensive CIA activity in Ukraine, one of the hottest spots on Earth for really ugly government fuckery.
Yeah, that seems backed up from what I've read elsewhere.

Obviously deals wouldn't work if there wasn't a give and take. The accusation is the benefit Trump got was a personal one, rather than one for the US.

It seems like the Democrats need to do a little more to make that accusation stick. That CNN headline was just taking someone out of context like other people here pointed out.

I don't traditionally like the gop, but I also don't like lying. I find myself conflicted.
 
Obviously deals wouldn't work if there wasn't a give and take. The accusation is the benefit Trump got was a personal one, rather than one for the US.

Which is itself an interesting double-edged sword, innit? Even were that the issue at hand, and even if there was an explicit or implicit QPQ, it can only benefit Trump... if he's right, and Biden is corrupt and abused his power. If not, Trump just looks like a fool.

I don't traditionally like the gop, but I also don't like lying. I find myself conflicted.

I'm not. I may vote Republican more often than not in federal elections, but I have no love for the GOP itself. It's everything wrong with itself. But this whole mess is a bad farce, an international embarrassment, a waste of taxpayer money, and preventing anything meaningful from getting done by either party.
 
Ostatnio edytowane:
Yeah, that seems backed up from what I've read elsewhere.

Obviously deals wouldn't work if there wasn't a give and take. The accusation is the benefit Trump got was a personal one, rather than one for the US.

It seems like the Democrats need to do a little more to make that accusation stick. That CNN headline was just taking someone out of context like other people here pointed out.

I don't traditionally like the gop, but I also don't like lying. I find myself conflicted.
When you find you are conflicted, take in sources from many different outlooks if you are looking for the truth to the situation. Most sources tend to pander to a bias that only a certain side is interested in hearing, as both sides usually show they feel they can never co-exist or work together. If you are looking to keep a steady and stable mindset, you have to analyze and ask people to prove their worth, not by their words or loyalty, by their words turned into actual actions, never out of benefit, out of factually showing their right.

Opinions are opinions, people who live on opinions live in bubbles, the truth/facts is something that does not matter or suit their world view, these are people you want to distance yourself from, they will only drag you in and ditch you when they find they have no more need for you, they don't want to be your friend, they want to use you to reach their goals. It is the animalistic response to keep their ideals alive, even if that ideal is more harmful than it's worth. That's what the media is due to keep alive, because they know when their lies to benefits their own goals actually harms the world, they will shrivel up with whatever malnourished uninformed stubborn individuals decide to stick around.

Learn to stop who is manipulative when there is educated evidence going against their words.
 
I don't traditionally like the gop, but I also don't like lying. I find myself conflicted.
The sword of truth is just another weapon. Business as usual has been going on for the past 20 years all based on a bunch of polite fictions. Trump is shredding them, selectively of course, to his own benefit, but also to everyone's benefit to some extent.

If you want to get up to date quick, I can't recommend this video enough.
 
ee6f3b5ee628ca9e7cc62ac52fe1e0e9.png

If it was a formal impeachment inquiry then you'd be able to go to the courts and demand that they comply with these "subpoenas" under threat of being held in contempt of court, leading to monetary sanctions or potential imprisonment. There's a reason that you can't take any of these denied "subpoenas" to the courts, though, isn't there? I wonder what that reason could be.

If you're not lying through your dentures and what he and his administration is doing is legitimately unlawful, why aren't you doing anything about it other than just bitching on Twitter? Do you think that coming across as complacent and powerless is inspiring to the people you're roping along with this sham of an inquiry? If he is actually, legitimately a rogue President committing a nearly-constant stream of criminal acts, why have you not sent a single "subpoena" to the courts in order to hold them in contempt?

You've already lost.
 
Twitter is the new court of public opinion, sadly. She's just following Queen Hillary's lead and spewing out whatever on Twitter in hopes that it'll snowball directly into being perceived as an actual on the record official statement from the blue side of the House, instead of her shitposting.

What she is forgetting is that she's head to head with the king of shitposting.

On another tack, Lindsay Graham said today that he felt that if there was something there then yes Impeachment should go forward. Was it talking heads taking him out of context, is he playing some 87th Dimension Chess, or is he starting to hedge his bets to protect his career? IOW, does he see something there and is getting worried?
 
Sometimes I think that this sham of an inquiry ISN'T just to punish the Orange Bad Man, but rather to really hang a noose over who may run after him.
 
On another tack, Lindsay Graham said today that he felt that if there was something there then yes Impeachment should go forward. Was it talking heads taking him out of context, is he playing some 87th Dimension Chess, or is he starting to hedge his bets to protect his career? IOW, does he see something there and is getting worried?
I think it depends on inflection.

Because *IF* there is something there, then yes, the president should at least face an impeachment investigation. The question is whether he thinks there’s actually something there, or this is him taking a hypothetical and saying “do it, faggot.”
 
Lindsey is just doing his usual good ol' boy act. He's well known for not liking any of the personalities involved.

He's just doing the old shuck and jive.

Miss Lindsey is up for re-election in 2020 and I suspect impeachment is very unpopular in South Carolina. I’m guessing he’s hedging his bets: looks impartial but is reasonably confident that Trump will be vindicated. His ass is covered either way, which is the only thing he cares about.
 
Twitter is the new court of public opinion, sadly. She's just following Queen Hillary's lead and spewing out whatever on Twitter in hopes that it'll snowball directly into being perceived as an actual on the record official statement from the blue side of the House, instead of her shitposting.

What she is forgetting is that she's head to head with the king of shitposting.

On another tack, Lindsay Graham said today that he felt that if there was something there then yes Impeachment should go forward. Was it talking heads taking him out of context, is he playing some 87th Dimension Chess, or is he starting to hedge his bets to protect his career? IOW, does he see something there and is getting worried?
I took it as him being a smart ass. "Oh sure, I'm all for impeaching the president, assuming he committed a crime."

He's pointing out that very logical condition for impeachment has not been met. It sounds a lot nicer than "yeah sure morons, I'll impeach Trump for no reason".
 
... So has anyone else noticed that the "Whistleblower" has just completely fallen out of every single headline over the last few days? Wasn't that guy kind of like, important? Where'd he go?
 
... So has anyone else noticed that the "Whistleblower" has just completely fallen out of every single headline over the last few days? Wasn't that guy kind of like, important? Where'd he go?

Sadly, Adam Schiff is still a member of Congress. I don't see any reason to believe there was ever an actual whistleblower.
 
Wstecz
Top Na dole