The Trump Impeachment Thread

[Joey D]

To an extent, the damage was already done, both by Trump directly, by mentioning execution of the Whistleblower, but also by house Republicans for going on an absolute insanity-level push to out this person. That was going to have a chilling effect even if the name was never released. Releasing that name, especially afters those events occurred, is another drastic blow to the concept of whistleblowing, and will have a much deeper chilling effect.

Prosecuting this person (Gohmert) for violation of the Whistleblower Protection Act would help mitigate that effect, but I don't think it could undo it. I'm not an attorney so I don't know whether this technically violates the WPA, but it sure seems like it should, and I hope it does and that Gohmert gets prosecuted for it. It's just damage management though, not fixing it.

Based on what I know regarding the WPA the consequences are "up to and including termination, civil and legal penalties, and loss of licensure." It's probably open-ended of sorts but we're explicitly told if we out a whistleblower then we will face punishment of some sort. It might be a bit different because I'm in healthcare and we have all sorts of other privacy laws, but I have to imagine Gohmert shouldn't walk away scot-free. But all that will happen is he'll get lit up on social media and Trump supporters will revere him.

I just hope the whistleblower doesn't get Epsteined with some unwanted assisted suicide.

.

Well ya when you're not a crook, nothing's illegal. Aaaarooooo!!!

 

[Danoff]

Based on what I know regarding the WPA the consequences are "up to and including termination, civil and legal penalties, and loss of licensure." It's probably open-ended of sorts but we're explicitly told if we out a whistleblower then we will face punishment of some sort. It might be a bit different because I'm in healthcare and we have all sorts of other privacy laws, but I have to imagine Gohmert shouldn't walk away scot-free. But all that will happen is he'll get lit up on social media and Trump supporters will revere him.

I just hope the whistleblower doesn't get Epsteined with some unwanted assisted suicide.

There is possibility that he was told he would be pardoned. Trump has pulled that before.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Trump should just sign an executive order dissolving congress. End of story.

 

[TenEightyOne]

Trump should just sign an executive order dissolving congress. End of story.

Yes, and hire a loon to take the blame for burning down the Senate.

 

[jjaisli]

You know you guys say these things, but I really start to worry.

There are people on this forum who refuse to hold him accountable for crimes he’s already admitted to and are naive enough to believe he’s really the victim in all of this.

And his enablers in the Senate are preparing to acquit without so much as a discussion.

 

[Chrunch Houston]

An interview with Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor Biden got fired in exchange for $1bn in loan guaranties.

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

An interview with Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor Biden got fired in exchange for $1bn in loan guaranties.

I'm sure Republicans will call the always-credible Shokin as a witness during the Senate trial....

 

[PocketZeven]

An interview with Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor Biden got fired in exchange for $1bn in loan guaranties.

Interesting if it is corroborated by any other source then himself.

 

[Imari]

An interview with Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor Biden got fired in exchange for $1bn in loan guaranties.

The thing is, if it turned out that Biden also acted inappropriately that changes nothing about Trump's situation.

It may well be the case that both of them have betrayed the American people. That is an option. This is not either/or, it can be one or the other, or both, or neither. This isn't partisan where you have to pick a team.

Trump's impeachment and potential conviction should proceed on it's own merits. If investigation and consequences are appropriate for Biden, then that should happen too, separately and independently.

I feel like people are setting this up as a what-about situation when it really isn't. There are a lot of potentially corrupt people in politics at the moment, and the thing not to do is to say "well, they're all crooks so might as well let them do their thing". The best thing is to start holding them to account one by one. And that starts with the highest office in the land, the person who should be setting the example for everyone below him to follow.

 

[PocketZeven]

The thing is, if it turned out that Biden also acted inappropriately that changes nothing about Trump's situation.

It may well be the case that both of them have betrayed the American people. That is an option. This is not either/or, it can be one or the other, or both, or neither. This isn't partisan where you have to pick a team.

Trump's impeachment and potential conviction should proceed on it's own merits. If investigation and consequences are appropriate for Biden, then that should happen too, separately and independently.

I feel like people are setting this up as a what-about situation when it really isn't. There are a lot of potentially corrupt people in politics at the moment, and the thing not to do is to say "well, they're all crooks so might as well let them do their thing". The best thing is to start holding them to account one by one. And that starts with the highest office in the land, the person who should be setting the example for everyone below him to follow.

Good unbiased non-partisan observation. Also the quid pro quo accusation is a seperate violation. Trump asking a foreign power to investigate a domestic political opponent is an ethical violation on itself, even without withholding aid. That alone relates to misconduct and could be a reason to impeach on high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

[Groundfish]

 

[PocketZeven]

H. Biden can be the biggest drugaddict in the world. It does not take away anything from Trump or magically make his crimes go away:

- asking a foreign power to investigate and help discredit a domestic political opponent
- not complying to congressional subpoenas
or even:
- bribery
- abuse of office

 

[Groundfish]

H. Biden can be the biggest drugaddict in the world. It does not take away anything from Trump or magically make his crimes go away:

- asking a foreign power to investigate and help discredit a domestic political opponent
- not complying to congressional subpoenas
or even:
- bribery
- abuse of office

Bribery lol no evidence, not one shred, they Dems didn’t even attempt that lie.
abuse of office? You don’t get to fabricate things that are not crimes, unless you are a corrupt Dem in office.
Asking a foreign power about WHERE US TAXPAYERS BILLIONS ARE GOING TO BE SPENT. fify.
Questioning whether to give aid to a KNOWN dirty foreign company is wrong?
Then what’s right?
Oh yeah, and that’s AFTER this administrations large scale efforts to ensure that foreign is not laundered as was done by Joe Hunter and the Obama administration.
Further, why are the Democrats not even united against the President if his crimes are such a foregone conclusion according to the biased folks here?
Why is that? It’s not only NOT bipartisan, NOT EVEN THE DEMOCRATS ALL WANT TO CONTINUE THIS PATHETIC SHAM.
Of course the Democrats WOULD NOT ALLOW the minority in the House to present evidence because there is nothing honest or ethical about this political stunt.
Just watch what happens in the next couple weeks and you will learn something about what is real and what is propoganda.
The intended purpose of this Stalinesque political stunt has completely backfired for the left.

 

[Danoff]

There are people on this forum who refuse to hold him accountable for crimes he’s already admitted to and are naive enough to believe he’s really the victim in all of this.

You mean like this?

Bribery lol no evidence, not one shred, they Dems didn’t even attempt that lie.
abuse of office? You don’t get to fabricate things that are not crimes, unless you are a corrupt Dem in office.
Asking a foreign power about WHERE US TAXPAYERS BILLIONS ARE GOING TO BE SPENT. fify.
Questioning whether to give aid to a KNOWN dirty foreign company is wrong?
Then what’s right?
Oh yeah, and that’s AFTER this administrations large scale efforts to ensure that foreign is not laundered as was done by Joe Hunter and the Obama administration.
Further, why are the Democrats not even united against the President if his crimes are such a foregone conclusion according to the biased folks here?
Why is that? It’s not only NOT bipartisan, NOT EVEN THE DEMOCRATS ALL WANT TO CONTINUE THIS PATHETIC SHAM.
Of course the Democrats WOULD NOT ALLOW the minority in the House to present evidence because there is nothing honest or ethical about this political stunt.
Just watch what happens in the next couple weeks and you will learn something about what is real and what is propoganda.
The intended purpose of this Stalinesque political stunt has completely backfired for the left.

 

[PocketZeven]

Bribery lol no evidence, not one shred, they Dems didn’t even attempt that lie.
abuse of office? You don’t get to fabricate things that are not crimes, unless you are a corrupt Dem in office.
1. Asking a foreign power about WHERE US TAXPAYERS BILLIONS ARE GOING TO BE SPENT. fify.
2. Questioning whether to give aid to a KNOWN dirty foreign company is wrong?
Then what’s right?
3 & 4. Oh yeah, and that’s AFTER this administrations large scale efforts to ensure that foreign is not laundered as was done by Joe Hunter and the Obama administration.
5. Further, why are the Democrats not even united against the President if his crimes are such a foregone conclusion according to the biased folks here?
Why is that? It’s not only NOT bipartisan, NOT EVEN THE DEMOCRATS ALL WANT TO CONTINUE THIS PATHETIC SHAM.
6. Of course the Democrats WOULD NOT ALLOW the minority in the House to present evidence because there is nothing honest or ethical about this political stunt.
7. Just watch what happens in the next couple weeks and you will learn something about what is real and what is propoganda.
The intended purpose of this Stalinesque political stunt has completely backfired for the left.

What newssource do you use sir?


1. Trump did not ask Ukraine where the aid would be spent
2. He did not question wether to give aid or not. Congress made that decision and he had and gave no reason to withhold the aid.
3. Who is Joe Hunter? I assume Hunter Biden?
4. There is no accusation that Obama's administration or H. Biden laundered money through Ukraine
5. The democrats are united that he is guilty. They are devided about the way to impeach him.
6. To my belief they were allowed to present evidence and witnesses and did so. The whitehouse was also allowed and even subpoenad, but refused to.
7. It is one of the media's job to hold people accountable. To believe the narrative , that everything that is anti-trump is "fake news", is the very definition of propaganda.


edit: I have to address the Irony of you profile pic again:

https://variety.com/video/sacha-b-cohens-disgust-at-president-trump-fueled-who-is-america/

 

[TexRex]

Heh..."Joe Hunter". They can't even get the subject of their conspiracy theories straight.

...

Where the notion that the solicitation was regarding investigation of corruption bumps for me--and this is temporarily disregarding that the solicitation itself was an abuse of power--is the funds being released when it came out that they'd been withheld. Also temporarily disregarding the fact that the investigation wasn't ventured through appropriate channels, why were the funds released so promptly upon discovery rather than sticking to the "rooting out corruption" angle?

 

[PocketZeven]

Heh..."Joe Hunter". They can't even get the subject of their conspiracy theories straight.

...

Where the notion that the solicitation was regarding investigation of corruption bumps for me--and this is temporarily disregarding that the solicitation itself was an abuse of power--is the funds being released when it came out that they'd been withheld. Also temporarily disregarding the fact that the investigation wasn't ventured through appropriate channels, why were the funds released so promptly upon discovery rather than sticking to the "rooting out corruption" angle?

That is why they omitted the other articles of impeachment. It is hard to prove they withheld the aid for the purpose of the favour if the whitehouse refuses to deliver on subpoenas for documents and witnesses. Going to court would perhaps delay everything for months or even years.

 

[ryzno]

I'll care when both Bushs, Obama, Hillary and Joe and Hunter get investigated.
They've all abused their power.
And let's start the investigations off a bunch of lies!

 

[PocketZeven]

I'll care when both Bushs, Obama, Hillary and Joe and Hunter get investigated.
They've all abused their power.
And let's start the investigations off a bunch of lies!

No problem. If there is evidence I am all for it. Investigate all of them!

But all that doesnt have anything to do with Trump's crimes at all. It doesnbt make him more or less guilty.

 

[Danoff]

That is why they omitted the other articles of impeachment. It is hard to prove they withheld the aid for the purpose of the favour if the whitehouse refuses to deliver on subpoenas for documents and witnesses. Going to court would perhaps delay everything for months or even years.

No, it's really not hard to prove that. Determining intent is fairly routine within trials, and Trump's own statements are sufficient to demonstrate that. This is not unusual.

I'll care when both Bushs, Obama, Hillary and Joe and Hunter get investigated.
They've all abused their power.
And let's start the investigations off a bunch of lies!

What lies are those?

 

[PocketZeven]

No, it's really not hard to prove that. Determining intent is fairly routine within trials, and Trump's own statements are sufficient to demonstrate that. This is not unusual.

I was referring to the article of bribery. Which would have strenghtened their impeachment. Why would they have omitted that?

 

[Joey D]

Who is Joe Hunter?

Joe Hunter sounds like a generic TV cop from the 70's that drives a Nova and has a witty catchphrase like "I'm taking you down...downtown!"

I'll care when both Bushs, Obama, Hillary and Joe and Hunter get investigated.
They've all abused their power.
And let's start the investigations off a bunch of lies!

Here's the thing, none of them are currently in power and thus can't be impeached. It was probably worth investigating Bush or Obama during their presidency, but unlike Trump, neither of them were stupid enough to run their mouth 24/7. If Trump had not been so full of himself and just shut the hell up, he probably could've gotten away with anything.

Also, I'm not sure how you could've impeached Hillary or Hunter since neither of them held office.

 

[ryzno]

What lies are those?

Hunter Biden hired a Ukrainian prostitute to pee on the bed Trump slept in!
/s

 

[TexRex]

I'll care when both Bushs, Obama, Hillary and Joe and Hunter get investigated.
They've all abused their power.
And let's start the investigations off a bunch of lies!

Translation: "I don't have a reasonable explanation that supports my viewpoint, so I'm going to bring up something else entirely!"

Rinse and repeat.

 

[Danoff]

I was referring to the article of bribery. Which would have strenghtened their impeachment. Why would they have omitted that?

They didn't.

And here's an analysis of how intent is assessed (time coded to start at the relevant point).

 

[UKMikey]

Joe Hunter sounds like a generic TV cop from the 70's that drives a Nova and has a witty catchphrase like "I'm taking you down...downtown!"

 

[TexRex]

Here's the thing, none of them are currently in power and thus can't be impeached.

Elect them so they can be!

 

[ryzno]

Also, I'm not sure how you could've impeached Hillary or Hunter since neither of them held office.

You don't have to be a President to have false accusations claimed against you and an investigation and warrants filed, just to press charges or kill someone that had nothing to do with the initial claim. Something I was trying to explain to PZ in the other thread but I doubt he'll get it or agree.

Translation: "I don't have a reasonable explanation that supports my viewpoint, so I'm going to bring up something else entirely!"

Rinse and repeat.

Hey the guy that ignores people! Did you miss where I said Trump is guilty and admitted it himself or did you ignore that post cause it didn't give you a reason to chime in and feel superior?

Y'all can't take a joke at all. Good god y'all!

 

[PocketZeven]

They didn't.

And here's an analysis of how intent is assessed (time coded to start at the relevant point).

They only proposed 2 articles though.
1. obsturction of congress
2. abuse of power

Why didnt they add bribery?

 

[Danoff]

They only proposed 2 articles though.
1. obsturction of congress
2. abuse of power

Why didnt they add bribery?

The abuse of power article is for bribery.

What the articles of impeachment say
Article I, “Abuse of Power,” focuses on the underlying facts of the Ukraine scandal. It asserts that Trump:

• “Corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations” into his political rival Joe Biden, and into “a discredited theory” that Ukraine interfered with the 2016 election.
• Attempted to condition two “official acts” on this announcement — a White House meeting with Ukraine’s president, and the release of $391 million of blocked military aid for Ukraine.

All this, Article I continues, is abusing the powers of the presidency “by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit.” The article also asserts that Trump “betrayed the Nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.”

The conditioned "official acts" represent intent (see my video link above for further details).