The Trump Impeachment Thread

[Joey D]

Probably the main reason the articles of impeachment are being withheld from going forward is the problem of Joe Biden (and the whistleblower) being subpoenaed to testify at the trial. This could be a real disaster for Joe, as it could easily torpedo and sink his presidential campaign, in which he is currently easily polling as the favorite. This hypothesis leads to two predictions: a near immediate 2nd impeachment of Trump while the 1st treads water, and the resurrection of Hillary Clinton as the Democratic Party's most viable chance of election victory come November.

I doubt that's the main reason. It might be a reason, but applying Occam's Razor, that seems farfetched. The simplest answer is the holiday recess, which ends on January 6th I believe. There's then probably a week or two's worth of getting back into the grove, followed by MLK Day. Then there's district work through the 24th, followed by a Democrat retreat at the end of the month. My guess is we won't see the articles delivered until February.

Also, while Biden is polling decently well, he's pretty much tied with Sanders and Warren is nipping at their heels. Biden is hardly a runaway and I'm not sure a moderate voter really wants him anyway. I know I certainly don't want Biden in the White House because I think he's a creepy old man who's out of touch with reality.

 

[TenEightyOne]

IF there is a trial in the Senate, I would hope that the Republicans would mount the most vigorous and rigorous case possible in defense of the president.

Not act as fair, impartial jurors? Might as well rip that old parchment up if the whole thing's best run as a political **** show.

 

[baldgye]

...he's a creepy old man who's out of touch with reality.

He sounds perfect

 

[TheGeologist]

"You know nothing, Jon Snow"

The impeachment process is not over. The current articles are sitting on Nancy's desk. The process is consummated by sending the articles to the Senate for trial.

In addition to that, the current House could delete, revise or expand the current articles. They could and probably will bring additional impeachments after the current one is completed.

Instead of citing academic support, which I am always condemned for , why don't you try some critical thought?

Look at it this way. Suppose you wanted to impregnate the president instead of impeach him. But you foolishly wear a condom and your seed goes nowhere and you lay the smelly sock on your desk instead. You own that sock, not the president.

Can Donald Trump be "unimpeached" at this point?

No. Therefore impeachment is over.

The only thing that can happen at this point is a trial by the senate which may find him either guilty (and remove him from office) or not guilty, (and he stays in office). Since impeachment can not be revoked, it is foolish to say the process is not over. Trump always will be considered impeached, end of story.

 

[Imari]

Look for a 2nd impeachment to be ginned up in a few weeks.

How would a second impeachment fare any differently to the first? If they are actually intending to hold the impeachment back from the Senate indefinitely, I don't see how a second impeachment strengthens that position.

Require Biden, the whistleblower, Mulvaney, Bolton and everyone else to testify under oath and cross examination under penalty of imprisonment for lying.

What relevant information would Biden bring? His crimes, if there are any, are not on trial here. He wasn't involved in the phone call. What possible information can he have that would be relevant to the guilt or innocence of Donald John Trump?

One assumes that all the parties with relevant information will be required to testify under normal penalties for perjury. You know, like a proper trial where people actually want to find out the truth of what happened.

I remain slightly surprised that the Republican Party/Trump hasn't opened an investigation into Biden's actions. I see no reason why they couldn't, and if the argument is that Biden has done something wrong then that would seem to be the way to address it. I guess there would be the danger of him being found to have acted appropriately (probably not, considering some of the things I've heard) and it no longer being a viable "defence" for Trump. Not that it's a viable defence anyway, but at least "what about Biden?" is something to say to the media.

 

[Dotini]

How would a second impeachment fare any differently to the first? If they are actually intending to hold the impeachment back from the Senate indefinitely, I don't see how a second impeachment strengthens that position.



What relevant information would Biden bring? His crimes, if there are any, are not on trial here. He wasn't involved in the phone call. What possible information can he have that would be relevant to the guilt or innocence of Donald John Trump?

One assumes that all the parties with relevant information will be required to testify under normal penalties for perjury. You know, like a proper trial where people actually want to find out the truth of what happened.

I remain slightly surprised that the Republican Party/Trump hasn't opened an investigation into Biden's actions. I see no reason why they couldn't, and if the argument is that Biden has done something wrong then that would seem to be the way to address it. I guess there would be the danger of him being found to have acted appropriately (probably not, considering some of the things I've heard) and it no longer being a viable "defence" for Trump. Not that it's a viable defence anyway, but at least "what about Biden?" is something to say to the media.

A 2nd impeachment would ideally aim for impeachable offenses which would be easier to prove, and not involve the leading Democratic presidential candidate as a potential witness.

Cautionary Note and Caveat: I don't pretend to know the Republican strategy or exactly what all the facts are. But let's make a few assumptions simply for the sake of discussion.

(I know a lot of my critics are going to jump to the conspiracy angle and I won't appreciate that. Please remember I'm trying to answer a reasonable question and I need to invoke assumptions and as yet not widely known or acknowledged historical narrative. I know some of you are going to be very angry, but please try to be kind to me. It's simply humble speculation, not assertion.)

Spoiler: CAUTION! Forbidden history. Enter at your own risk!

1) Ukraine was and is one of the most corrupt countries on the planet.
2) In aiding and abetting the Euromaidan uprising and subsequent revolution and overthrow of the Ukraine government, the US was very closely involved in X% of what was going on, the planning, financing and operational actions that took place, including killings and determining those individuals who would ascend to power in government, finance and industry.
3) The overall US end of the Ukraine operation was honchoed by the wife (Victoria Nuland) of Robert Kagan, arch-neocon and rabid hater of Russia. Her boss was Hillary Clinton, who answered to Joe Biden and Barack Obama.
4) This cast of characters were up to their hips in everything that went on in Ukraine, including corruption, in which they became active if not fully willing partners by inheritance. Hunter Biden became involved up to his hips as well, though his motives were less "noble".
5) After the rebellion more or less succeeded - albeit with Russia scobbing off with Crimea and several large eastern provinces in tow - it fell to Donald Trump to pick up the shattered pieces.
6) Nobody on the planet, particularly in Europe, wanted to give or loan money to Ukraine because of the corruption.
7) Trump, having pledged to dis-involve the US from foreign wars and regime changes, was faced with a distasteful problem in Ukraine. It stunk to high heaven and he didn't really want anything to do with it.
8) The US, having already bought into the revolution and its finance, had very little leverage except for the corruption issues, and the fact that nobody else on Earth would touch Ukraine. So corruption was his leverage. Unfortunately, there was Hunter and Joe Biden already feasting on their kill and running the shop, their hands dripping in moolah.
9) In order to fund Ukraine and curtail the corruption, Trump and the new Ukrainian president had to gently ease the Bidens out of the picture.
10) When our domestic politics reached peak fury and the Mueller/Russia investigation collapsed, the strident left wing of the Democratic Party had very little left to impeach Trump for. But they were going to do it anyway, come hell or high water.
11) The Democratic left wing, also wanting to grab the presidency in 2020, wanted nothing to do with Joe Biden, vastly preferring those farther to the left. So they willing chose to sacrifice Biden when they decided they had to "make-do" with Ukraine as their reason for impeachment.
12) Republicans, fearing the lefties most of all, do not want to turn the Democratic Party over to the lefties by sacrificing - investigating - Joe Biden who has friends on both sides of the aisle. At least not right now they don't want to sac him.
13) So there is the dilemma. All this dirty laundry is starting to hang out of the basket, and the way forward is murky for all involved.

 

[McLaren]

I mean more in the range of: I like/dislike the person and therefore predetermined my judgment.

Some try, but you have to be careful how you play that angle during the jury selection. Lots of folks like to joke that they won't like the person's race or some other bigoted reason to get out of being selected, but the attorneys present are typically smart enough to call out your reasoning. You can get in some trouble with the court if you're caught purposely being bias for the sake of avoiding being selected, but hey, mission accomplished on dodging jury duty.

There are some other ways though that people prejudge based on the information given. The last jury pool I was selected involved a domestic assault charge against a man who was trying to pick up his son on a court-approved agreement. The mother however, refused entry and told the father to go away. When the father managed to barge in, the door knocked the mother against the wall, hurting her, and she filed the charge. The man was apologetic but was facing complete loss of seeing his son. Before any of these details were known, only that it was a domestic assault case, a woman announced to the prosecutor that she would be biased and likely find the father guilty b/c she was a repeat victim of domestic abuse herself. They went on to pick only 6-8 middle-aged men of different backgrounds, so her bias didn't matter, but it was interesting to see the attorneys hear her out as a legitimate predetermined judgement.

 

[Biggles]

1) Ukraine was and is one of the most corrupt countries on the planet.
2) In aiding and abetting the Euromaidan uprising and subsequent revolution and overthrow of the Ukraine government, the US was very closely involved in X% of what was going on, the planning, financing and operational actions that took place, including killings and determining those individuals who would ascend to power in government, finance and industry.
3) The overall US end of the Ukraine operation was honchoed by the wife (Victoria Nuland) of Robert Kagan, arch-neocon and rabid hater of Russia. Her boss was Hillary Clinton, who answered to Joe Biden and Barack Obama.
4) This cast of characters were up to their hips in everything that went on in Ukraine, including corruption, in which they became active if not fully willing partners by inheritance. Hunter Biden became involved up to his hips as well, though his motives were less "noble".
5) After the rebellion more or less succeeded - albeit with Russia scobbing off with Crimea and several large eastern provinces in tow - it fell to Donald Trump to pick up the shattered pieces.
6) Nobody on the planet, particularly in Europe, wanted to give or loan money to Ukraine because of the corruption.
7) Trump, having pledged to dis-involve the US from foreign wars and regime changes, was faced with a distasteful problem in Ukraine. It stunk to high heaven and he didn't really want anything to do with it.
8) The US, having already bought into the revolution and its finance, had very little leverage except for the corruption issues, and the fact that nobody else on Earth would touch Ukraine. So corruption was his leverage. Unfortunately, there was Hunter and Joe Biden already feasting on their kill and running the shop, their hands dripping in moolah.
9) In order to fund Ukraine and curtail the corruption, Trump and the new Ukrainian president had to gently ease the Bidens out of the picture.
10) When our domestic politics reached peak fury and the Mueller/Russia investigation collapsed, the strident left wing of the Democratic Party had very little left to impeach Trump for. But they were going to do it anyway, come hell or high water.
11) The Democratic left wing, also wanting to grab the presidency in 2020, wanted nothing to do with Joe Biden, vastly preferring those farther to the left. So they willing chose to sacrifice Biden when they decided they had to "make-do" with Ukraine as their reason for impeachment.
12) Republicans, fearing the lefties most of all, do not want to turn the Democratic Party over to the lefties by sacrificing - investigating - Joe Biden who has friends on both sides of the aisle. At least not right now they don't want to sac him.
13) So there is the dilemma. All this dirty laundry is starting to hang out of the basket, and the way forward is murky for all involved.[/SPOILER]

I think you're way overthinking (over interpreting) it.

Ukraine may have a history of corruption, but no more so than many other countries, including, most obviously, Russia.
Trump, it is true, is averse to getting involved in the affairs of foreign countries ... except to the extent that it can directly benefit the US or benefit his own personal or political interests.

Trump has shown NO particular interest in corruption in general, cosying up to Vladmir Putin, probably the most corrupt/powerful person on the planet. He has also cosied up to the MOST corrupt person (albeit not as powerful as Putin) on the planet, Kim Jong Un. To pretend that Trump suddenly had qualms about corruption in Ukraine is laughable. In reality, Trump has demonstrated that he has little knowledge of or interest in the detailed affairs of ANY foreign country.

Rather, Trump, having seen how effective Comey's last minute investigation into HRC's emails was in undermining her chances in the 2016 election, IRRESPECTIVE of the findings, it occurred to him that having Ukraine announce an investigation into Hunter Biden would be a similarly effective way to derail Joe Biden's run for the Democratic nomination.

I think it's really as simple as that. As far as the GOP in general, I doubt they are actively favouring one Democratic candidate over another at this point, since the implications for their control of Congress one way or the other are extremely unclear.

 

[Scaff]

Spoiler: CAUTION! Forbidden history. Enter at your own risk!

1) Ukraine was and is one of the most corrupt countries on the planet.
2) In aiding and abetting the Euromaidan uprising and subsequent revolution and overthrow of the Ukraine government, the US was very closely involved in X% of what was going on, the planning, financing and operational actions that took place, including killings and determining those individuals who would ascend to power in government, finance and industry.
3) The overall US end of the Ukraine operation was honchoed by the wife (Victoria Nuland) of Robert Kagan, arch-neocon and rabid hater of Russia. Her boss was Hillary Clinton, who answered to Joe Biden and Barack Obama.
4) This cast of characters were up to their hips in everything that went on in Ukraine, including corruption, in which they became active if not fully willing partners by inheritance. Hunter Biden became involved up to his hips as well, though his motives were less "noble".
5) After the rebellion more or less succeeded - albeit with Russia scobbing off with Crimea and several large eastern provinces in tow - it fell to Donald Trump to pick up the shattered pieces.
6) Nobody on the planet, particularly in Europe, wanted to give or loan money to Ukraine because of the corruption.
7) Trump, having pledged to dis-involve the US from foreign wars and regime changes, was faced with a distasteful problem in Ukraine. It stunk to high heaven and he didn't really want anything to do with it.
8) The US, having already bought into the revolution and its finance, had very little leverage except for the corruption issues, and the fact that nobody else on Earth would touch Ukraine. So corruption was his leverage. Unfortunately, there was Hunter and Joe Biden already feasting on their kill and running the shop, their hands dripping in moolah.
9) In order to fund Ukraine and curtail the corruption, Trump and the new Ukrainian president had to gently ease the Bidens out of the picture.
10) When our domestic politics reached peak fury and the Mueller/Russia investigation collapsed, the strident left wing of the Democratic Party had very little left to impeach Trump for. But they were going to do it anyway, come hell or high water.
11) The Democratic left wing, also wanting to grab the presidency in 2020, wanted nothing to do with Joe Biden, vastly preferring those farther to the left. So they willing chose to sacrifice Biden when they decided they had to "make-do" with Ukraine as their reason for impeachment.
12) Republicans, fearing the lefties most of all, do not want to turn the Democratic Party over to the lefties by sacrificing - investigating - Joe Biden who has friends on both sides of the aisle. At least not right now they don't want to sac him.
13) So there is the dilemma. All this dirty laundry is starting to hang out of the basket, and the way forward is murky for all involved.

You are aware that repeating ******** doesn't make it true.

Let's pick a few shall we.

The Ukraine doesn't even make the top 40 in terms of most corrupt countries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_Perceptions_Index

The EU and other nations have been providing aid and support to the Ukraine for years.
https://www.europa-nu.nl/id/vju4rbpx9yy7/nieuws/how_the_eu_is_supporting_ukraine?ctx=vi4vbv1tpls3

The US (with bi-partisan support), Europe and others wanted to reduce corruption in the Ukraine, the primary blocker to doing so was the Prosecuter who was removed.

Who wasn't at the time investigating the company Hunter Biden worked for, or for that matter a great deal else.

Who's removal would have made it more, not less likely, that the Bidens would have been investigated.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...orced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/

All of this has been repeatedly stated in this thread, is freely available information.

Yet you repeatedly ignore it, and instead repeatedly trot out what is easily disproven Trump nonsense.

Please don't pretend to be offering any sort of independent stance on this, you position is transparently behind Trump.

 

[Imari]

I think it's really as simple as that.

And this is the problem that Republicans and Trump supporters run into, Occams Razor. Usually what looks like bribery is actually bribery. Anything else is more complex, and thus requires disproving the bribery hypothesis first. And saying "nuh uh, I'm super honest" doesn't count.

Ironically, the people with access to the most information and evidence that would potentially prove that it wasn't bribery are the Republicans and Trump. They can just release historical records and documents supporting their ongoing actions, which if it's a considered and approved government policy there will be hundreds of. This is the sort of evidence that Biden has that supports his actions not being solely in his personal interest.

I still don't think the "But Biden" defense plays any meaningful role for Trump. Trump is answering to his own actions, and two wrongs don't make a right. As the leader of one of the most powerful countries in the world, Trump is expected to be responsible and accountable for his own actions.

 

[baldgye]

Spoiler: CAUTION! Forbidden history. Enter at your own risk!

1) The moon landings where faked
2) The government has alien technology and Area 51 houses it all
3) Atlantis is real and makes up the first line of defence for the crab people that live in the hollow earth
4) The earth is hollow btw
5) The Reptilian Illuminati run the planet and are in a secret war against the crab people
6) Trump plays Tri-dimensional chess
7) 911 was organised by Bush
8) The pentagon was attacked by the crab people and not a plane
9) The ruler os Saudi Arabia is a nice guy
10) The Russians killed JFK
11) Pizzagate was real and the Reptilians helped cover it up
12) FIFA is run by the Crab people
13) Trump has a loving relationship with his wife

Woah!

 

[Dotini]

I have added a simple Poll to the OP.
It's my first one, so be kind, as usual. Suggestions for improvements will be appreciated.

Edit: minor change to Poll

 

[huskeR32]

And it is made infinitely worse from the fact that it is so blatantly partisan and blatantly abusive of the common interest.

Surely the "blatant partisan(ship)" you refer to here is the Republicans saying they'll coordinate with Trump to usher him comfortably unscathed through the trial?

That zero GOP members of Congress have the spine to stand with the truth doesn't render the Democrats "partisan." You keep slapping that label on everything you don't like or agree with, in hopes that it'll help you avoid actually discussing the truth of it. We're not falling for it, so could you just stop it already?

EDIT:

9) In order to fund Ukraine and curtail the corruption, Trump and the new Ukrainian president had to gently ease the Bidens out of the picture.

Waitwaitwaitwaitwait. So in your world, not only is Trump not trying to get someone to investigate his political rival, he was trying to help Biden, until it all blew up in his face? This one takes the cake, man.

 

[Dotini]

Surely the "blatant partisan(ship)" you refer to here is the Republicans saying they'll coordinate with Trump to usher him comfortably unscathed through the trial?

That zero GOP members of Congress have the spine to stand with the truth doesn't render the Democrats "partisan." You keep slapping that label on everything you don't like or agree with, in hopes that it'll help you avoid actually discussing the truth of it. We're not falling for it, so could you just stop it already?

No! Absolutely not!

It is 100% essential to recognize and acknowledge that the process so far has been one-sidedly partisan in favor of the Democrats. Failure to do so would be to abandon all reason and sanity. To understand this, simply look at the votes in the House. All Republicans against, almost all Democrats for. That by any definition is partisan. Next look at the procedures adopted in committee hearings: anonymous witnesses permitted, 3rd and 2nd party hearsay permitted, no cross examination permitted, no witnesses for the accused permitted, no exculpatory evidence permitted. This also is obviously partisan by any definition. I'm not slapping a label on it. That's what it is. Any honest forum would have to agree on this.

In light of the partisan process in the House, what you may justifiably get is a partisan process in the Senate. That has yet to be seen, but is highly possible, even likely. My preference would be for an open bipartisan process that would get to the real truth, and let the chips fall where they may.

Also, if the impeachment had never arisen, it's likely Hunter Biden would be in much less trouble, and Joe Biden certainly would have clearer sailing in his quest for nomination. Trump was not pursuing a vendetta against the Bidens, at least not before he was impeached.

Once again, I'm not a Trump fan and never have been. The record shows that. But it's clear to see he's the victim of partisan anger and partisan process. Since I'm an infracaninophile, I tend to side with the underdog.

 

[Joey D]

It is 100% essential to recognize and acknowledge that the process so far has been one-sidedly partisan in favor of the Democrats. Failure to do so would be to abandon all reason and sanity. To understand this, simply look at the votes in the House. All Republicans against, almost all Democrats for. That by any definition is partisan.

The Republicans literally came out and said they would be 100% partisan with regards to votes. Don't claim the Democrats are the only ones doing it because both sides of the aisle are guilty of it.

ext look at the procedures adopted in committee hearings: anonymous witnesses permitted, 3rd and 2nd party hearsay permitted, no cross examination permitted, no witnesses for the accused permitted, no exculpatory evidence permitted. This also is obviously partisan by any definition. I'm not slapping a label on it. That's what it is. Any honest forum would have to agree on this.

Trump literally admitted what he did. You don't really need a bunch of witnesses when the person in question confesses.

Also, you claim it's partisan and then in the very net sentence say you aren't slapping a label. Calling it partisan is labeling it.

Once again, I'm not a Trump fan and never have been. The record shows that. But it's clear to see he's the victim of partisan anger and partisan process. Since I'm an infracaninophile, I tend to side with the underdog.

Your record shows that you are a Trump fan though, so just own it. While it might not be a popular opinion, tiptoeing around it isn't the answer. And Trump isn't the victim of partisan anger in this instance. While he has been a victim of it throughout his term, with regards to Ukraine he isn't a victim, he's the culprit.

 

[huskeR32]

It is 100% essential to recognize and acknowledge that the process so far has been one-sidedly partisan in favor of the Democrats. Failure to do so would be to abandon all reason and sanity. To understand this, simply look at the votes in the House. All Republicans against, almost all Democrats for. That by any definition is partisan.

Things aren't "partisan" simply because the results come out along party lines. Rather, the word describes actions and motivations. As Merriam-Webster puts it:

partisan(adj.): feeling, showing, or deriving from strong and sometimes blind adherence to a particular party, faction, cause, or person : exhibiting, characterized by, or resulting from partisanship

In other words, calling impeachment "partisan" implies that party warfare was the Democrats' main (or even entire) motivation, rather than a legitimate belief that the president had exhibited harmful and/or illegal behavior.

And while I know that claiming it was, in fact, blind party warfare is the easy way out for Trump supporters who don't want to examine themselves, it doesn't really make a lot of sense. Take a step back; if Trump is removed from office, is Mike Pence an improvement, in any way, for liberals and Democrats? I, for one, would argue he's not. In fact, he might be worse; he's not completely inexperienced and inept at politics, and he'd actually be able to get some stuff done.

So, again, Republicans refusing to stand alongside the Democrats here does not necessarily render the whole thing "partisan."

Next look at the procedures adopted in committee hearings: anonymous witnesses permitted,

I'm as baffled by this as I am about folks decrying anonymous sources. Whistleblowers won't come forward if they fear retaliation from the powerful people they're exposing. Isn't it good to make sure people can and will speak up when they see wrongdoing?

3rd and 2nd party hearsay permitted, no cross examination permitted, no witnesses for the accused permitted, no exculpatory evidence permitted.

Can you provide specific examples of these claims? Have you considered that there simply wasn't any exculpatory evidence?

Once again, I'm not a Trump fan and never have been. The record shows that.

 

[Scaff]

Next look at the procedures adopted in committee hearings: anonymous witnesses permitted, 3rd and 2nd party hearsay permitted, no cross examination permitted, no witnesses for the accused permitted, no exculpatory evidence permitted.

Seriously. Ignoring the fact that this is nonsense doesn't make it a fact.

The hearings followed established rules, cross examination was most certainly allowed, and video evidence of it occurring is freely available.

Witnesses for the accused were permitted, the accused stopped them from testifying.

Exculpatory evidence was permitted, none was presented by the accused.

Given that you have had these facts pointed out to you repeatedly, and links provided to support them, I can only conclude that you are now deliberately posting what you know to be untrue and misleading information.

 

[baldgye]

Given that you have had these facts pointed out to you repeatedly, and links provided to support them, I can only conclude that you are now deliberately posting what you know to be untrue and misleading information.

• You will not knowingly post any material that is false, misleading, or inaccurate.

 

[PocketZeven]

I think Hillary made him do it?

 

[baldgye]

I think Hillary made him do it?

I MeAn iT's cLeAr, tHAt TRumP hAsn'T bEeN iMpeACheD?

 

[Dotini]

Some things were technically permitted but not occur. To my knowledge, Republican lawyers could not cross-exam anonymous witnesses, and it did not seem Republicans could call their own witnesses. The rules were established solely by the Democrats to speed and benefit the process for impeaching the president. In whole, the process was one-sided and partisan. No question about it.

When and if this travesty gets to the Senate, it seems very likely that partisanship will again prevail, but in the reverse direction. A fully bipartisan process run by a Special Prosecutor trusted by both sides should have prevailed. For example, Leon Jaworski in the Nixon impeachment.

I remain slightly surprised that the Republican Party/Trump hasn't opened an investigation into Biden's actions. I see no reason why they couldn't, and if the argument is that Biden has done something wrong then that would seem to be the way to address it. I guess there would be the danger of him being found to have acted appropriately (probably not, considering some of the things I've heard) and it no longer being a viable "defence" for Trump. Not that it's a viable defence anyway, but at least "what about Biden?" is something to say to the media.

Neither Trump on his own nor the Republican Party can open an investigation of then Biden's actions in Ukraine. Trump could ask the AG to appoint a Special Prosecutor, I guess. The IG, the AG and another Special Prosecutor are currently looking into FB!/CIA misdeeds in connection with the Russia/Mueller investigation.

 

[Imari]

A 2nd impeachment would ideally aim for impeachable offenses which would be easier to prove, and not involve the leading Democratic presidential candidate as a potential witness.

But what would they use for that? The reason they're impeaching him for Ukraine is that's what he's done wrong. There aren't really other options, and there certainly aren't ones that are easier to prove or they'd be using those instead. No prosecutor only puts forth the weakest charges just in case that's all that's needed, you put forth the strongest case you have available.

The only way you get a second impeachment is if Trump does something else that is potentially impeachable.

Once again, I'm not a Trump fan and never have been. The record shows that.

I think when you're at the stage that you behave identically to a Trump fan it becomes sort of beside the point what you actually believe. The record shows you behaving identically to a Trump supporter, so you can see why people might assume that you are one.

 

[baldgye]

When and if this travesty gets to the Senate

Is this still part of the joke?

 

[Dotini]

I think when you're at the stage that you behave identically to a Trump fan it becomes sort of beside the point what you actually believe. The record shows you behaving identically to a Trump supporter, so you can see why people might assume that you are one.

This forum is so one-sided against Trump, and since I started the thread I guess its up to someone to say something in order to keep up the semblance of fairness and balance. You must admit it would be pretty boring if there was no controversy, nobody to fear and loathe.

 

[DesertPenguin]

This forum is so one-sided against Trump, and since I started the thread I guess its up to someone to say something in order to keep up the semblance of fairness and balance. You must admit it would be pretty boring if there was no controversy, nobody to fear and loathe.

What's wrong with being boring? Times of peace are just that.

 

[Joey D]

This forum is so one-sided against Trump, and since I started the thread I guess its up to someone to say something in order to keep up the semblance of fairness and balance. You must admit it would be pretty boring if there was no controversy, nobody to fear and loathe.

Probably be Trump is a terrible leader, a terrible president, and probably a terrible person. He ignores the Constitution, he panders to a base that deserves no pandering, he can't handle foreign relations to save his soul, he says really stupid things on Twitter, he's put the US in more debt, he skirts the laws to get what he wants, he goes over Congress' head on things, he's admitted to committing crimes, and chances are he's in bed with a foreign government to influence elections.

It's really easy for most people to find something to fault Trump for. The amount of people who truly think Trump is good is probably very small. I think most people voted for him in 2016 simply because he wasn't Hillary, not because they thought he had good ideas.

And a discussion of ideas and opinions is great, it's what this section of GTP is all about. But judging by your past handful of posts, you don't seem to want to have a discussion. You're rolling out things that simply aren't true and ignoring those who show you they aren't true.

 

[PocketZeven]

Neither Trump on his own nor the Republican Party can open an investigation of then Biden's actions in Ukraine. Trump could ask the AG to appoint a Special Prosecutor, I guess. The IG, the AG and another Special Prosecutor are currently looking into FB!/CIA misdeeds in connection with the Russia/Mueller investigation.

There is no evidence to warrant an investigation into Biden concerning Ukraine. He got paid a lot of money, because daddy has connections. That isnt enough evidence for a crime. There is no evidence that Shokin was investigating Burisma. Let alone Shokin being fired for investigating corruption. All evidence show he was pressured to resign, because he was not investigating corruption.

The IG already concluded there was no bias in the oranges (or origins) of the mueller investigation. But the republicans still reject its findings. Exactly what they did with the mueller report. They started another investigation, which will probably conclude the same thing.

 

[Scaff]

Some things were technically permitted but not occur. To my knowledge, Republican lawyers could not cross-exam anonymous witnesses, and it did not seem Republicans could call their own witnesses.

Look at those goalposts moving.

 

[baldgye]

probably a terrible person

probably

 

[Dotini]

What's wrong with being boring? Times of peace are just that.

Fair point. I like peace. But if I never posted I would be lot more bored.

We may in fact may be in a time of relative peace. But because we have so much "change" to deal with, it never gets boring anyway.