The Trump Impeachment Thread

[Groundfish]

till waiting on that defense

Uh???
Guess you are waiting for something that will never arrive.
Kinda like President Trump getting removed from office and the federal govt getting abolished and free men laying down arms

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

The sad thing is that lies repeated over time and propoganda create strong belief systems within peoples minds that lead to division of society as a whole in the USA.
It’s the mental toxins that have been ripping the country apart for years.
This whole thing since before Mueller to now with the impeachment sham is only really showing that now there are greater numbers of numbnuts and they love nothing more than ganging up on anyone who does not openly express hate for the President.
This effect of reinforcement of belief by numbers that has occurred has spread like a virus.
It prevents progress in society as a whole.
It has gotten quite brazen over the last several years.
Things like this impeachment are just meaningless political stunts.
It’s got nothing to do with justice for gods sake.
The real losers are the people.
It’s difficult to have civil communications anymore.
I have to say just looking at the last 30 years the country has gone in the garbage.
This impeach is just another nail it what was once a great nation.

There are credible accusations with a healthy amount of evidence that the President abused his power to attempt to bribe a foreign country to benefit himself. And yet you say the impeachment has nothing to do with justice?

Even if you don't think he did it, would you suggest that congress just not follow up on that? What kind of bar does that establish? Congress should just not be interested in the behavior of the president? Isn't that explicitly their job? Whether or not the removal from office is something you agree with, to say that the impeachment investigation is a sham is to say that congress is not legitimate.

 

[Danoff]

Uh???
Guess you are waiting for something that will never arrive.
Kinda like President Trump getting removed from office and the federal govt getting abolished and free men laying down arms

Yea, you've got nothing. Nobody does, he's guilty. Principles man.

 

[Dotini]

In this video Senator Paul touches upon some issues that give this impeachment the appearance of procedural impropriety, so obviously partisan that it isn't being taken seriously and is sure to have very negative effects. Not least of which is a surge of Trump support in swing states.

 

[jjaisli]

This whole thing since before Mueller to now with the impeachment sham is only really showing that now there are greater numbers of numbnuts and they love nothing more than ganging up on anyone who does not openly express hate for the President...Things like this impeachment are just meaningless political stunts..

* Roger Stone, a longtime Trump adviser and confidant, has been convinced on multiple counts.

* Michael Cohen, Trump’s former lawyer and business associate, is in prison.

* Paul Manafort, Trump’s former campaign chairman, is in prison.

* Rick Gates, Trump’s former campaign vice chairman, has been convicted and is awaiting sentencing.

* Michael Flynn, Trump’s former White House national security advisor, has been convicted and is awaiting sentencing.

* George Papadopoulos, Trump’s former campaign advisor on foreign policy, has already served his prison sentence.

* Alex van der Zwaan, a lawyer who worked with Manafort and Gates. has already served his prison sentence.

What, are they all innocent too? Are their convictions just political stunts? Trump is the KING of rats. He's at the center of it all. The Muller report basically laid bare that Trump was guilty of obstruction of justice. And he's continued to thumb his nose at the rule of law. Many of his supporters wanted a 'businessman' well you got one--the worst kind. He's trying to run the country like a business alright. A corrupt one. The man admitted his guilt. There's no denying it.

At this point, the only travesty will be if the Senate acquits him.

 

[Danoff]

In this video Senator Paul touches upon some issues that give this impeachment the appearance of procedural impropriety, so obviously partisan that it isn't being taken seriously and is sure to have very negative effects. Not least of which is a surge of Trump support in swing states.

I'll watch in a minute. If it's the 6th amendment, it doesn't apply to impeachment. In this particular case, the accuser is the american people, or perhaps congress. Not the whistle blower. Also the provision doesn't apply to tons of legal proceedings, including impeachment.


Edit:

Oh, no, he's just trying to reframe the act of bribery as a legitimate political strategy against congress, which is beyond nonsense since it's way outside of his power.

Anyway I don't have a comment for now on the use of subpoena power to obtain phone records. I'd need to research it.

 

[Dotini]

"impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”

- Nancy Pelosi​

 

[Danoff]

"impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country. And he’s just not worth it.”

- Nancy Pelosi​

It's inexplicable that it's not bipartisan because it is compelling and overwhelming. I love how you're not remotely trying to claim that he didn't do it. You're just conceding that point left and right. Yea, he's guilty. Totally did it. And yes it's explicitly written as being impeachable... but other stuff!

Stand up for your principles. Are we a nation of laws or of men?

 

[TexRex]

Guess you are waiting for something that will never arrive.

There are credible accusations with a healthy amount of evidence that the President abused his power to attempt to bribe a foreign country to benefit himself.

Fixed. He actually solicited a bribe. Done and dusted. That he wasn't taken up on the solicitation doesn't render it an attempt. It was executed fully and then not accepted by the solicited party.

But then it's also likely to simply go unanswered,

In this video Senator Paul touches upon some issues that give this impeachment the appearance of procedural impropriety, so obviously partisan that it isn't being taken seriously and is sure to have very negative effects. Not least of which is a surge of Trump support in swing states.

Nailed it!

Any participation in discussion by making an honest effort to explain will demonstrate the absence of an explanation, and that's precisely why he makes no effort. Inb4 he again accuses others of not wanting to participate in discussion.

Seems he's now devolved into the sort to just embed videos. I won't miss the vague, unsubstantiated notions, thesaurus words and GoT quotes if that's truly the case.

At this point, the only travesty will be if when the Senate acquits him.

Fixed. The GOP is Trump. They're all-in. It's not a matter of him being who they've ended up with and they're just tolerating him. He is who they are now.

 

[Dotini]

It's inexplicable that it's not bipartisan because it is compelling and overwhelming. I love how you're not remotely trying to claim that he didn't do it. You're just conceding that point left and right. Yea, he's guilty. Totally did it. And yes it's explicitly written as being impeachable... but other stuff!

Stand up for your principles. Are we a nation of laws or of men?

You say it is compelling and overwhelming. I say it isn't. But even if it were compelling and overwhelming, like in the Nixon case, it needs also to be bipartisan, like in the Nixon case. Otherwise it - the case for impeachment - is null and void. So bad that the Senate may not even publicly deliberate it, like in the Clinton case.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

You say it is compelling and overwhelming. I say it isn't. But even if it were compelling and overwhelming, like in the Nixon case, it needs also to be bipartisan, like in the Nixon case. Otherwise it - the case for impeachment - is null and void. So bad that the Senate may not even publicly deliberate it, like in the Clinton case.

According to your logical setup: If the evidence is compelling and overwhelming but not bipartisan...the party resisting it is then clearly and deeply wrong. No?

So if that's true...you're advocating that the party acting in good faith just...let it go? Isn't that tantamount to quite literally giving up on the idea of law?

Answer both directly and concisely please.

 

[TexRex]

I say it isn't.

And that's where your argument ends. Rather than attempting to substantiate it, you deflect.

...

So Rand Paul suggests that the president withheld funds appropriated by Congress because delivering those funds as mandated by the legislative branch weakens national security. Even if you take Paul's assertion at face value, impoundment is still an abuse of power because appropriation of funds is effectively a law that he can't veto. He can appeal to Congress for impoundment (something he didn't do, which itself calls Paul's assertion into question), but failing approval from Congress within 45 days of impoundment efforts (be that effort an appeal to Congress or, as in this case, actual withholding of appropriated funds) requires delivery of funds as mandated.

Rand Paul is a partisan Republican asserting that these impeachment proceedings are partisan. He's correct, but not in the way he's suggesting.

Edit: My mistake. Impoundment depends on offering to Congress the funds to be rescinded before actually doing so, and is then subject to 45 days of continuous congressional session for deliberation. Or not. Congress isn't actually required to consider the appeal as they have control of the purse.

It's actually Nixon's fault that the president can no longer withhold funds appropriated by Congress. Prior to 1974, the president could do so at will. But Nixon's abuse of this power for matters of policy rather than national security resulted in the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

 

[Biggles]

.

But your comments about Trump, I can't figure out at this point if you're just trolling this thread, or if you really believe the crap you're spewing. .

Trolling.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

Pardon my skepticism, but this crap has been going on nearly three years. And it is not just the Democrats it is also the press who reported on inauguration day that Trump had ordered the bust of MLK Jr removed from the Oval Office.

Here is a quick question for those of you who know he is guilty. When was the Ukrainian money withheld?

 

[Keef]

In this video Senator Paul touches upon some issues that give this impeachment the appearance of procedural impropriety, so obviously partisan that it isn't being taken seriously and is sure to have very negative effects. Not least of which is a surge of Trump support in swing states.

"smacks of abuse of power"

You mean the power of subpoena? Which Schiff has? Fortunately for Republicans, Congress has pissed away its power to arrest those in contempt of Congress because Republicans simply ignored many of those subpoenas, knowing that Congress would not arrest (which they have the power to do) and the DOJ is Republican.

So who is abusing power, the guy who has the power of subpoena and issues them, or the guy(s) who purposefully ignore those subpoenas not because they have the power to but because they know it won't be enforced? That would be like a witness ignoring a court-ordered subpoena because they're friends with the police chief. *That* seems like an abuse of power to me.

"What really threatens democracy is if we start impeaching every president because we don't like their tone or we don't like their demeanor"

I'm not so sure this is what the impeachment is about. The Articles very clearly state what the impeachment is about and it's not simply because Trump is disliked so this argument is totally irrelevant. However, I do know one thing which threatens our democracy, and that is making backdoor deals with our enemies, and disregarding other laws, like when he suggested he's "going to look into" remaining president for longer than 8 years. I'm pretty sure he wasn't joking.

not remotely trying to claim that he didn't do it.

I believe this is a major point of the Republican defense. At no point during any of the testimonies - and I watched all of them because I have nothing better to do - did Republicans actually refute the accusations. They attempted to bring other things up, as if saying "well it doesn't matter that he did that because he also did this, and this was good". Their favorite defense, especially from Jim Jordan, was that Ukraine got the aid and the investigations took [never] place, which both nullify the supposed bribe.

Most of America is aware that attempted crimes are still crimes. Literal 5 year olds are taught that trying to do a bad thing is still bad whether you do it or not. Hell, even dogs and cats display this knowledge. @Dotini I have no doubt that you know this and I assume you're being cautious/devils advocate, whatever. Nothing wrong with that. But those Congressmen...I'm not sure they haven't convinced themselves that attempted crimes are not crimes.

 

[jjaisli]

Pardon my skepticism, but this crap has been going on nearly three years. And it is not just the Democrats it is also the press who reported on inauguration day that Trump had ordered the bust of MLK Jr removed from the Oval Office.

Here is a quick question for those of you who know he is guilty. When was the Ukrainian money withheld?

Are you kidding? As far as I know, that was a mistake, tweeted by Times reporter Zeke Miller. He issued a correction by subsequent tweet and apology like 30 minutes later. So because of that, you believe Trump is innocent of all other charges?

I believe the $400 million in military assistance was approved for release in the 1st quarter of 2019. Vindman reported he first became aware of the hold on July 3rd. Trump's quid pro quo phone call was July 25th. The whistleblower complaint was filed on August 12th. An official house committee investigation began on Sept 9th and the aid was then released on Sept 11th.

 

[Dotini]

According to your logical setup: If the evidence is compelling and overwhelming but not bipartisan...the party resisting it is then clearly and deeply wrong. No?

So if that's true...you're advocating that the party acting in good faith just...let it go? Isn't that tantamount to quite literally giving up on the idea of law?

Answer both directly and concisely please.

It was Nancy Pelosi the Democratic Speaker of the House who said that impeachment is required to be compelling, overwhelming and bipartisan. I agree. Therefore the Dems are in the wrong for proceeding with it without bipartisan support. It is frivolous. It is 100% doomed, the Dems are the big losers and the US people are victims.

That all said, I disagree there is any compelling and overwhelming evidence of anything impeachable. Any treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors must be established legally and factually. Nothing even close to that has happened, IMO.

Procedurally, the process has been defective from the beginning. The Dems have been wanting to remove the President since before he was inaugurated. They ran for election in 2018 on impeaching him. All they needed was the slightest excuse or opportunity. When the Mueller report and subsequent on-camera interview fizzled, they simply found the next best convenient pretext. The judiciary committee, by precedent the scene of impeachment proceedings in the House, barely had the case for one day before Pelosi ordered the articles published. A joke, a kangaroo court, a travesty of justice.

Procedurally, this impeachment is without precedent. It does not give the appearance of fairness or propriety. Witnesses are anonymous. 3rd or 2nd hand hearsay is permitted. Witnesses are not cross examined. Witnesses are not sworn in. The actual recipient of the phone call denies any impropriety occurred. By immediately releasing the transcript of the call, Trump inoculated himself from charges of coverup or obstruction of justice, the principle reason for Nixon's problem.

The framers intended impeachment to be bipartisan. Thats why there's a 2/3 standard for conviction in the Senate. The entire case is so palpably a political vendetta that the Senate may not even hold public deliberations before voting it down. Then the Democrats are going to have to answer to the people.

@Keef Intent cannot be proved.

 

[Groundfish]

But your comments about Trump, I can't figure out at this point if you're just trolling this thread, or if you really believe the crap you're spewing.

Some of us really enjoy an outsider getting in and throwing a wrench into the ‘business as usual’ Washington career politicians and puppets.
I get it though, for people who still believe idealistically about politicians and their true intentions my standpoints might seem strange.
To me it’s self evident what with all the sham investigations and broken rules on fisa warrants and surveillance and this snooze fest political stunt ‘impeachment’
Plus Muellers bs that the American people made a good choice by choosing to elect Donald Trump.
At least you have to give him credit for trying to straighten the mess out.
I respect his courage.
I like a lot of what he does.
Doesn’t mean I am particularly impressed with him relative to some, but he’s a lot better than another next in line career politician.
He’s changed things up.
We actually need much more of that.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

It was Nancy Pelosi the Democratic Speaker of the House who said that impeachment is required to be compelling, overwhelming and bipartisan. I agree. Therefore the Dems are in the wrong for proceeding with it without bipartisan support. It is frivolous. It is 100% doomed, the Dems are the big losers and the US people are victims.

That all said, I disagree there is any compelling and overwhelming evidence of anything impeachable. Any treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors must be established legally and factually. Nothing even close to that has happened, IMO.

Procedurally, the process has been defective from the beginning. The Dems have been wanting to remove the President since before he was inaugurated. They ran for election in 2018 on impeaching him. All they needed was the slightest excuse or opportunity. When the Mueller report and subsequent on-camera interview fizzled, they simply found the next best convenient pretext. The judiciary committee, by precedent the scene of impeachment proceedings in the House, barely had the case for one day before Pelosi ordered the articles published. A joke, a kangaroo court, a travesty of justice.

Procedurally, this impeachment is without precedent. It does not give the appearance of fairness or propriety. Witnesses are anonymous. 3rd or 2nd hand hearsay is permitted. Witnesses are not cross examined. Witnesses are not sworn in. The actual recipient of the phone call denies any impropriety occurred. By immediately releasing the transcript of the call, Trump inoculated himself from charges of coverup or obstruction of justice, the principle reason for Nixon's problem.

The framers intended impeachment to be bipartisan. Thats why there's a 2/3 standard for conviction in the Senate. The entire case is so palpably a political vendetta that the Senate may not even hold public deliberations before voting it down. Then the Democrats are going to have to answer to the people.

@Keef Intent cannot be proved.

The constitution seems pretty agnostic about political parties to me. It certainly wasn't written anticipating a full 2-party hold on the country. Is the term "bi-partisan" in the constitution at all? I'd guess no. But even beside that, what you are saying is that if a political party, for whatever reason (bad intentions included) does not want their president to be impeached, then impeachment will not happen. Can't you see the problem with that? As much as you love Nancy Pelosi, try not to bring her up when answering.

You can't at the same time criticize witnesses as having 2nd and 3rd hand knowledge (though, that's not actually true. Several witnesses do have first hand knowledge, do you not want to remember that? All of that is irrelevant considering we have a transcript of the call that confirms the accusations) while defending the administration's actions to block potential witnesses with 1st hand knowledge from testifying. Congresses actions and powers are lawful, whether you perceive them as fair or not. Trump is obstructing Congress, that much is patently clear.

For the Trump fans out there: I don't understand why you go through all the effort of pretense and deflection. If he's your guy, just own it. It will feel good to say it: "Trump can do whatever he wants because he's the m**** ******* President of the United States! MAGA!"

 

[Groundfish]

The scary thing is in the current world true and open minded and respectful communication is getting much more difficult to have.
The propoganda machine continues to lead the way.
It’s the de evolution of society

 

[Dotini]

The constitution seems pretty agnostic about political parties to me. It certainly wasn't written anticipating a full 2-party hold on the country. Is the term "bi-partisan" in the constitution at all? I'd guess no. But even beside that, what you are saying is that if a political party, for whatever reason (bad intentions included) does not want their president to be impeached, then impeachment will not happen. Can't you see the problem with that? As much as you love Nancy Pelosi, try not to bring her up when answering.

You can't at the same time criticize witnesses as having 2nd and 3rd hand knowledge (though, that's not actually true. Several witnesses do have first hand knowledge, do you not want to remember that? All of that is irrelevant considering we have a transcript of the call that confirms the accusations) while defending the administration's actions to block potential witnesses with 1st hand knowledge from testifying. Congresses actions and powers are lawful, whether you perceive them as fair or not. Trump is obstructing Congress, that much is patently clear.

For the Trump fans out there: I don't understand why you go through all the effort of pretense and deflection. If he's your guy, just own it. It will feel good to say it: "Trump can do whatever he wants because he's the m**** ******* President of the United States! MAGA!"

Actually the framers were obsessed with party. See the 10th Federalist paper.

Clinton refused to answer subpoenas. Did he obstruct congress?

I'm no Trump fan. From the beginning I said he was a loose cannon and lacked the right temperament. But I insist he be defeated fair and square at the polls.

I do think he was on the right track with some of his promises.

 

[DesertPenguin]

These Trump supporters (or more just guilty-denyers) are just like Flat Earthers. They draw a conclusion and then shape the evidence around it to justify it

 

[Chrunch Houston]

I believe the $400 million in military assistance was approved for release in the 1st quarter of 2019.

On January 23, 2018, Biden is on video bragging about extorting the Ukrainian government to get a prosecutor fired. It is later reported that the fired prosecutor had been investigating the company that Hunter Biden worked for. I think it is safe to assume that our net savvy Commander in Chief would be aware of this video.

No one can say for sure why Trump brought up the Bidens in the phone call, but if you have read the transcript of the call you know it wasn't the first thing on the President's mind.

The first thing the President brings up is Crowdstrike. This goes back to corruption from the 2016 election. Crowdstrike is the company that the DNC hired to investigate their hacked server after stolen emails were given to wikileaks. The DNC did not allow the FBI to see the server. Apparently the President believed that the DNC server is in the Ukraine.

You guys can assume all you want that the funds were withheld to force the Ukraine to investigate the President's "political rival", but you can't prove it.

Don't be this guy.

 

[Joey D]

The framers intended impeachment to be bipartisan.

No, they didn't. Political parties weren't really even a thing in the US until 1792. Washington was essentially non-partisan.

What the framers of the Constitution did was make it so an overwhelming majority was needed so one person or small group of people didn't get too much power.

These Trump supporters (or more just guilty-denyers) are just like Flat Earthers. They draw a conclusion and then shape the evidence around it to justify it

That's with all fanatics. Obama's faithful were the same way and completely ignore the fact that he bombed the hell out of a country every single day he was president. I agree it seems like Trump's faithful are somehow worse, but I think that's just because of the demographic that tends to support him.

You guys can assume all you want that the funds were withheld to force the Ukraine to investigate the President's "political rival", but you can't prove it.

So if you really want to take bribery out of the equation, Trump is plenty guilty of abuse of power. Like I've pointed out more than once now his tariff practices are unconstitutional and he overstepped Congress to do it. Also with that stupid wall, he's ignored Congress, judges, and common sense. At the very least he should be impeached on the grounds of ignoring checks and balances.

 

[Dotini]

Apparently the President believed that the DNC server is in the Ukraine.

That's interesting. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and her underling, Mrs Robert Kagan, made it their goal to achieve regime change in Ukraine.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

So if you really want to take bribery out of the equation, Trump is plenty guilty of abuse of power. Like I've pointed out more than once now his tariff practices are unconstitutional and he overstepped Congress to do it. Also with that stupid wall, he's ignored Congress, judges, and common sense. At the very least he should be impeached on the grounds of ignoring checks and balances.

 

[Joey D]

So I guess you're a fan of dictators then? I mean whatever floats your boat but I like my America dictator free.

 

[DesertPenguin]

So I guess you're a fan of dictators then? I mean whatever floats your boat but I like my America dictator free.

According to his profile info he lives in Texas so he may not even think he lives in the same America as you

 

[Keef]

@Keef Intent cannot be proved.

True, but motive can, or at least can be heavily implied. Motive certainly exists in this case and is pretty obvious.

There are also crimes which don't require criminal intent. Unintentional crimes are still crimes. I can't even get out of a speeding ticket by saying I didn't mean to.

 

[Biggles]

On January 23, 2018, Biden is on video bragging about extorting the Ukrainian government to get a prosecutor fired. It is later reported that the fired prosecutor had been investigating the company that Hunter Biden worked for. I think it is safe to assume that our net savvy Commander in Chief would be aware of this video.

From PolitiFact:

Biden did want Shokin fired, but western leaders had widely criticized the prosecutor general as corrupt and ineffective. Biden was leading a widespread consensus in asking for removal. A former Ukrainian official said the investigation into Burisma was dormant under Shokin.

Biden assumed a lead role in U.S. diplomacy toward Ukraine after a popular revolution in early 2014 that led to pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych fleeing the country. Shokin became top prosecutor in 2015, after Yanukovych went into exile. A frustrated Biden in Dec. 2015 threatened to withhold $1 billion unless Shokin was fired, in hopes that a new prosecutor would do more to enforce the law. .

There is evidence that many Western leaders and institutions, as well as Ukrainian anti-corruption activists, viewed Shokin as corrupt and ineffective for failing to prosecute anybody of significance, and for protecting members of Yanukovych’s and Poroshenko’s circles. When Shokin was fired in the spring of 2016, press reports explicitly linked his ouster to corruption.

Steven Pifer, a career foreign service officer who held positions in the Clinton and George W. Bush administrations, previously told PolitiFact that "virtually everyone" he knew in the U.S. government and virtually all non-governmental experts on Ukraine "felt that Shokin was not doing his job and should be fired." All decent people were in favor of Shokin's sacking," Anders Åslund, a resident fellow at the Atlantic Council told PolitiFact. "Biden led a Western/anticorruption consensus."

Vitaliy Kasko, who served as Shokin’s deputy overseeing international cooperation until he resigned in protest, told Bloombergin 2019 that, under Shokin, the investigation into Burisma remained dormant. Kasko said the matter was "shelved by Ukrainian prosecutors in 2014 and through 2015," and Bloomberg reported that documents backed up his account.