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.
 
Última edición:
Even if there was no quid pro quo, even if there is a treaty between the US and the Ukraine to help with criminal matters, it's still massively inappropriate and an abuse of his office to ask the Ukraine for help digging up dirty on his main political rival. How hard is that to understand?
So if you're a political rival of the president, you can't be investigated? Seems suspicious.
 
Even if there was no quid pro quo, even if there is a treaty between the US and the Ukraine to help with criminal matters, it's still massively inappropriate and an abuse of his office to ask the Ukraine for help digging up dirty on his main political rival. How hard is that to understand?

Yes. Lets give politicians absolute immunity from potential crimes.

Are you fucking insane?

So if you're a political rival of the president, you can't be investigated? Seems suspicious.

Yeah...like how Trump wasn't investigated for two years over a fucking /pol/ post....LIKE THAT WILL EVER HAPPEN
 
Even if there was no quid pro quo, even if there is a treaty between the US and the Ukraine to help with criminal matters, it's still massively inappropriate and an abuse of his office to ask the Ukraine for help digging up dirty on his main political rival. How hard is that to understand?
What if all his political rivals are doing the same thing though? I mean there's a point where the only way to play fair is by cheating too.
 
Even if there was no quid pro quo, even if there is a treaty between the US and the Ukraine to help with criminal matters, it's still massively inappropriate and an abuse of his office to ask the Ukraine for help digging up dirty on his main political rival. How hard is that to understand?

"Even if it was perfectly ok and explicitly legal, it was completely and utterly wrong and totally illegal. How hard is that to understand?"
 
"Even if it was perfectly ok and explicitly legal, it was completely and utterly wrong and totally illegal. How hard is that to understand?"
Since he was asking for something for the sole purpose of helping his own reelection campaign, it goes from a normal part of his job to being soliciting for an illegal campaign contribution by a foreign power, which is illegal
 
Since he was asking for something for the sole purpose of helping his own reelection campaign, it goes from a normal part of his job to being soliciting for an illegal campaign contribution by a foreign power, which is illegal
Can you prove he was asking it for the sole purpose of helping his own reelection campaign?
 
...he was asking for something for the sole purpose of helping his own reelection campaign...
I think that's only been inferred at this point by those that have been calling for impeachment since before he even took office. I'm not saying he's not done anything impeachable. I'm saying show me something tangible.
 
Since he was asking for something for the sole purpose of helping his own reelection campaign,

You have no way to prove that.

it goes from a normal part of his job to being soliciting for an illegal campaign contribution by a foreign power, which is illegal

I don't agree with your reading of the relevant statues here, either. Even if it were solely gathered with the intention of helping his campaign, "campaign contribution" is defined narrowly enough that I'm not sure "proof of corruption" counts.
 
Even if there was no quid pro quo, even if there is a treaty between the US and the Ukraine to help with criminal matters, it's still massively inappropriate and an abuse of his office to ask the Ukraine for help digging up dirty on his main political rival. How hard is that to understand?
Only thing I don't get is why Giuliani is involved in any way. I'd figure Barr and the JD should be taking the reigns on an actual investigation into an ex-vp spiking a foreign country's investigation, not his personal attorney. Just makes it look less official and more shady.
 
Even if there was no quid pro quo, even if there is a treaty between the US and the Ukraine to help with criminal matters, it's still massively inappropriate and an abuse of his office to ask the Ukraine for help digging up dirty on his main political rival. How hard is that to understand?
So, what you're saying is that I can rape you while running against Trump, and that I should be immune from prosecution?

rapeface.PNG
 
Even if there was no quid pro quo, even if there is a treaty between the US and the Ukraine to help with criminal matters, it's still massively inappropriate and an abuse of his office to ask the Ukraine for help digging up dirty on his main political rival. How hard is that to understand?
I agree; the Steele dossier was wildly inappropriate on the part of the Obama administration
 
The Australian connection is interesting because I recall the EFF throwing a tantrum over a law the Aussies passed last Christmas, that basically gives them carte blanche to break into any digital device and to demand manufacturers and programmers install 'backdoors' for them.

And the law also allows for Aussie data gathering to be 'rented out'. Like, say, if the U.S. came calling asking for info on someone of interest.

I'm no fan of this law myself, but this has the potential to be VERY entertaining if the right rocks get upended.
 
Impeachment hashtags back on Twitter with #ImpeachmentIsComing. I gotta say, for all their doom and gloom about racism, the environment and so on they're pretty goddamn optimistic. Or deluded. You know what, let's go with deluded.
 
Obama isn't president, Trump is.
Obama did it while he was president though. You're just denying reality because orange man bad.

just admit it. you hate trump and everything he stands for and want it all to burn. At least then I can respect your position on the fact that you're honest to yourself and others instead of being snakier than lucifer in eden.
 
dd0a9007d08f1d089cfca3e5c74cb3f2.png

927f070c5c83024d18d0f306ed73d7af.png


Alright, now things are getting unusual if you're willing to dig between the lines a little. As usual, your local MSNBC journalist slammed their foot down on a really interesting fact, but still managed to completely miss the point. The May 2018 form contained an explicit warning that second-hand or hearsay information wouldn't be accepted and processed for submission through the ICWPA. The "whistleblower" explicitly stated that his information was second-hand in their actual complaint, but in the form they filled out they insisted that they possessed both first and second-hand information.

That turned out to be completely untrue, though. The WB even admitted several times they had no first-hand information, and a lot of what they were told by all of these third parties turned out to be completely wrong. The thing is, according to the IC IG, this complaint was filed using the original form, and it seems like it was just sat on until the rule allowing the second-hand information could be changed, and oddly enough this seems to have been changed because of this complaint.

(Also I glossed over this part last time. Nice excuse to try and make these two, totally-not-random people recuse themselves lol)

19654abd787be3d3c952a492008b1320.png

ca652c940932784a3211ab8301fa3e9c.png


So in essence the ICIG office is admitting that it changed the form in August without notice, and eliminated the guidance requiring first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. You'd think that right about now I'd be fuming and demanding to know how this happened, but it actually makes me wonder if something else is happening. The press was apparently so interested in this story that they were harassing the ICIG endlessly about it, but...

How would the press have known about the complaint so early, and what do you think the odds are that the way was intentionally cleared for this complaint to make it out into the public? After all, it would have been really, really easy for them to just look at the transcripts, compare the transcripts to the complaint, and figure out that all of it was completely bunk. Yet somehow, no one's mentioned that, and now the ICIG is admitting that they essentially just opened the door and let the complaint walk straight through without any contest.

It's almost like someone just wanted it to get out there, even though it was easily, provably false. The real question is which side of the fence does that someone fall on? Was this done for the obvious, anti-Trump sentiment, or was this done to bait a trap?
 
dd0a9007d08f1d089cfca3e5c74cb3f2.png

927f070c5c83024d18d0f306ed73d7af.png


Alright, now things are getting unusual if you're willing to dig between the lines a little. As usual, your local MSNBC journalist slammed their foot down on a really interesting fact, but still managed to completely miss the point. The May 2018 form contained an explicit warning that second-hand or hearsay information wouldn't be accepted and processed for submission through the ICWPA. The "whistleblower" explicitly stated that his information was second-hand in their actual complaint, but in the form they filled out they insisted that they possessed both first and second-hand information.

That turned out to be completely untrue, though. The WB even admitted several times they had no first-hand information, and a lot of what they were told by all of these third parties turned out to be completely wrong. The thing is, according to the IC IG, this complaint was filed using the original form, and it seems like it was just sat on until the rule allowing the second-hand information could be changed, and oddly enough this seems to have been changed because of this complaint.

(Also I glossed over this part last time. Nice excuse to try and make these two, totally-not-random people recuse themselves lol)

19654abd787be3d3c952a492008b1320.png

ca652c940932784a3211ab8301fa3e9c.png


So in essence the ICIG office is admitting that it changed the form in August without notice, and eliminated the guidance requiring first-hand knowledge of wrongdoing. You'd think that right about now I'd be fuming and demanding to know how this happened, but it actually makes me wonder if something else is happening. The press was apparently so interested in this story that they were harassing the ICIG endlessly about it, but...

How would the press have known about the complaint so early, and what do you think the odds are that the way was intentionally cleared for this complaint to make it out into the public? After all, it would have been really, really easy for them to just look at the transcripts, compare the transcripts to the complaint, and figure out that all of it was completely bunk. Yet somehow, no one's mentioned that, and now the ICIG is admitting that they essentially just opened the door and let the complaint walk straight through without any contest.

It's almost like someone just wanted it to get out there, even though it was easily, provably false. The real question is which side of the fence does that someone fall on? Was this done for the obvious, anti-Trump sentiment, or was this done to bait a trap?
Alright I'm sold.
Impeach now.
I want to see all these 4D chess moves come to fruition.
A solid year of Trump using the trial to drop nukes on the Dems culminating in a humiliating failure a few weeks before the 2020 election.
This'll make an incredible movie someday.
Too bad Hollywood would never make that movie.
 
American campaign law prohibits American political campaigns from taking "a contribution or donation of money or any other thing of value" from foreigners. Receiving dirt on opposition would count as a contribution of a "thing of value." Why are you not concerned that our elections, one of the most important and sacred institutions of our country, might be influenced by outside forces? I'm not talking about Russia hacking our election or absurd claims like that, I'm pointing to the president admitting he asked for foreign investigations into a political rival.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo