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:
Holy fucking shit, they DMCA'd the President of the United States of America.

1570092238744.png



 
Última edición:
EF9p-mJX0AACKqx.jpg EF9p-mJXkAEqX9t.jpg

House GOP Leader McCarthy just passed this letter to Pelosi requesting that she halt the (still unofficial) impeachment inquiry until all of his questions have been answered. It's a bit on the dry side and it's not technically anything more than a paper-based chiding, but it does raise a lot of interesting points in that all of these rules applied to the previous three Presidential impeachments, leaving no reason that they shouldn't be applied in this one as well, if she's going to actually muster up the courage to finally pull that trigger.
 
Just curious, what does Trump have to do to make you guys stop supporting him? Because asking a foreign country (with the incentive of withholding their aid money) to meddle in American election affairs seems like a pretty big deal to me. But it’s okay because a conservative is the one doing it?
 
Just curious, what does Trump have to do to make you guys stop supporting him? Because asking a foreign country (with the incentive of withholding their aid money) to meddle in American election affairs seems like a pretty big deal to me. But it’s okay because a conservative is the one doing it?
Because it doesn't seem like he did that mostly.
 
Honestly I'm more alarmed by how you don't seem think that any of these Senators running for office should recuse themselves from the Senate. Don't you think that they have a massive conflict of interest in their position given that they politically benefit if they succeed in impeaching their biggest political rival? Why should they be allowed to investigate the President if they themselves directly benefit if he's found guilty?

Any judge or jury member would be immediately barred from serving in the court if they were able to obtain a direct benefit from the guilty verdict of the person they were putting on trial, so how is it absolutely nobody has ever mentioned the massive conflict of interest generated by all of these actively-serving senators both running for political office whilst running the investigation for their largest opponent?

Kinda' funny how no one in the media's mentioned that yet, isn't it?
I think everyone understands politics is an explicitly player vs. player game and it's impossible not to have a vested interest in another politician being taken down.

Just curious, what does Trump have to do to make you guys stop supporting him? Because asking a foreign country (with the incentive of withholding their aid money) to meddle in American election affairs seems like a pretty big deal to me. But it’s okay because a conservative is the one doing it?
For some of us there's nothing he couldn't do. But I disagree with your framing of this situation given what facts are actually on hand. I'm really not sure what to think here for sure, so I'll just reiterate my earlier position. Either Trump and Biden are both in the wrong here or neither of them are.
 
Just curious, what does Trump have to do to make you guys stop supporting him? Because asking a foreign country (with the incentive of withholding their aid money) to meddle in American election affairs seems like a pretty big deal to me. But it’s okay because a conservative is the one doing it?
Have someone make an actual argument supported by legitimate evidence proving that he did something measurably, quantifiably illegal and then have that proven in a court of law. The argument you're making has already been thoroughly discussed and disassembled in this thread more than a dozen times over. It's not even remotely as powerful an argument as whatever media outlets you read are leading you to believe.

The Ukrainians didn't know that any aid money was being withheld at the time until a month after the phone call, so no pressure was being applied there. It wasn't even mentioned during the call. Trump only brought up Biden during the call because Biden himself was running around and bragging about how he strong-armed a Ukrainian prosecutor out of his station, and even then he only asked because it "sounded horrible" to him. I'd wager that you're not a fan of American intervention in foreign governments, so how is it that it's not upsetting that Biden used his position as the Vice President to drive out a member of a foreign government in a way that would significantly impact their politics, especially given that it would have been an internal political affair, not one that was affecting the U.S.?

Trump made no demands; Biden did. What Trump was asking them to look into hasn't been done yet, what Biden demanded that they do already happened. All that being said, why does running for office mean that Biden would be afforded immunity from an investigation? He himself went in front of a camera and bragged about doing this, which is more than enough to warrant an investigation. If someone is going to run for the highest office in the country, I would very much like to know whether or not they abused their previous position for personal gain. That seems like important information to me, and I don't remotely see how running for said office would mean that he's not allowed to be investigated.

Trump is going to be running for office in 2020, has anyone in the media complained about the endless investigations that he's being subjected to from all the members of the House who are investigating him whilst running for his office? Have any of them ever said, "Hey since he's running for re-election maybe it wouldn't be fair of us to endlessly launch investigations at him" even though the last 50 of them went exactly nowhere?
 
Just curious, what does Trump have to do to make you guys stop supporting him? Because asking a foreign country (with the incentive of withholding their aid money) to meddle in American election affairs seems like a pretty big deal to me. But it’s okay because a conservative is the one doing it?
Trump has been accused of colluding with foreign adversaries to win elections since before he was elected.

The odd thing about those charges: there's no credible evidence that ever happened. But there is evidence other politicians were conspiring to create false intelligence reports and plant stories in the media.

What does Trump have to do to make you stop supporting his opponents? They have a clear contempt for our Democracy and it seems like treason / sedition to me. Maybe it's okay because they are neoliberal globalists and act in coordination with a sympathetic press.

Trump promised Americans he would Drain the Swamp and appears to be fulfilling that promise. Does it change your opinion if people are actually arrested over Hillary's emails?
 
why stop there? sue them for records tampering. Everything a politician tweets is public record legally so... yeah.

If you look, it's not removed, just disabled from viewing. Normally, they force the delete to be deleted.

Just curious, what does Trump have to do to make you guys stop supporting him? Because asking a foreign country (with the incentive of withholding their aid money) to meddle in American election affairs seems like a pretty big deal to me. But it’s okay because a conservative is the one doing it?

Conservative didn't do it. You're thinking of Congress, when they sent a letter to the Ukraine government, asking them to find dirt on Trump for them.
 
Última edición por un moderador:
Ver archivo adjunto 957845Ver archivo adjunto 957846

House GOP Leader McCarthy just passed this letter to Pelosi requesting that she halt the (still unofficial) impeachment inquiry until all of his questions have been answered. It's a bit on the dry side and it's not technically anything more than a paper-based chiding, but it does raise a lot of interesting points in that all of these rules applied to the previous three Presidential impeachments, leaving no reason that they shouldn't be applied in this one as well, if she's going to actually muster up the courage to finally pull that trigger.

The answer to all of these is no. They will not give him shit. This is a pony show.

Just curious, what does Trump have to do to make you guys stop supporting him? Because asking a foreign country (with the incentive of withholding their aid money) to meddle in American election affairs seems like a pretty big deal to me. But it’s okay because a conservative is the one doing it?

But he didn't? There's no evidence for this. The whistleblower did not have direct knowledge of this. The transcript reveals that nothing happened. Ukraine flatly states that quid pro quo did not happen. So you have no victim and no proof. What is there to impeach?

I don't like Trump. But his opposition is fucking insane. They are terrible human beings and hypocrites who virtue signal and flaunt identity politics. They care more about whitey than poverty, income disparity, unions, jobs, the economy and basic knowledge about healthcare. All I've heard from the Democrats is bitching about every single thing Trump does and crowing constantly about diversity.

I don't give a fuck about diversity. I don't give a fuck about identity politics. I'm not voting for people who put feelings over facts.

The straight-forward fact of the matter is that this is purely a political impeachment. The evidence is so thin, its not even there. The whistleblower is a fucking CIA operative. Anything a CIA officer says should be taken with ten thousand grains of salt. This isn't some intern or some lawyer. This is an intelligence operative who does not have first hand knowledge, but hearsay. This alone should cause massive doubt. And that is literally all there is. Its a dog and pony show for the progressive wing of the party and try to ramp up the base.

The ONLY reason Pelosi did this was pressure from the DNC and the 'squad'. She never would have done this. Impeachment is far more political than legal. Which means there are consequences to this. The Republican party is going to remember this and the retribution will be insane. The Democrats do NOT have the votes to impeach over this. This is a fact. They will lose any impeachment hearing they propose and the political fallout from this will be nuclear to them.

This is also neglecting the fact the country does not want impeachment.
 
Just curious, what does Trump have to do to make you guys stop supporting him? Because asking a foreign country (with the incentive of withholding their aid money) to meddle in American election affairs seems like a pretty big deal to me. But it’s okay because a conservative is the one doing it?
What would it take for you to stop supporting Democrats? Illegally wiretapping opposition campaigns seems pretty bad to me. Leaking classified info to the press for political reasons and getting agents killed is pretty bad.

Plus Trump literally didn't do what you described.

Edit: also Obama put sanctions on Russia for running pro Trump ads. Literally punished them for political reasons.
 
Just curious, what does Trump have to do to make you guys stop supporting him? Because asking a foreign country (with the incentive of withholding their aid money) to meddle in American election affairs seems like a pretty big deal to me. But it’s okay because a conservative is the one doing it?
Trump doesn't have to do anything. Someone has to find actual evidence of wrongdoing, like felony level, and present it. He's such a fucking idiot and commits dozens of crimes daily according to the MSM and his political opponents, so it shouldn't be that hard.
 
Have someone make an actual argument supported by legitimate evidence proving that he did something measurably, quantifiably illegal and then have that proven in a court of law. The argument you're making has already been thoroughly discussed and disassembled in this thread more than a dozen times over. It's not even remotely as powerful an argument as whatever media outlets you read are leading you to believe.

The Ukrainians didn't know that any aid money was being withheld at the time until a month after the phone call, so no pressure was being applied there. It wasn't even mentioned during the call. Trump only brought up Biden during the call because Biden himself was running around and bragging about how he strong-armed a Ukrainian prosecutor out of his station, and even then he only asked because it "sounded horrible" to him. I'd wager that you're not a fan of American intervention in foreign governments, so how is it that it's not upsetting that Biden used his position as the Vice President to drive out a member of a foreign government in a way that would significantly impact their politics, especially given that it would have been an internal political affair, not one that was affecting the U.S.?

Trump made no demands; Biden did. What Trump was asking them to look into hasn't been done yet, what Biden demanded that they do already happened.

Not only that..... Biden didn't just demand they remove the prosecutor; he did exactly what they're accusing Trump of doing; threatened to withhold aid $ unless, and told the Ukrainians to call fuckin' Obama if they didn't take him seriously.

And to suggest that Obama was in the dark about everything is laughable; in high-level politics (or any job, really) you don't just tell someone to call your boss without knowing your boss has your back, or that he/she is unaware of what's going on.... especially if you're essentially acting as their fucking proxy.
 
Atrás
Top Abajo