The Trump Impeachment Thread

[Chrunch Houston]

It seems John Bolton has a new book coming out. This will probably prompt the senate to vote for witnesses.

 

[Biggles]

It seems John Bolton has a new book coming out. This will probably prompt the senate to vote for witnesses.

Ah ... John Bolton, another of those infamous "Leftists".

 

[Danoff]

So you watched enough to see the clips of the witnesses? If you didn't you didn't watch enough. BTW the reason I started the vid so late is because the first 50 minutes or so is just a picture of the capitol building.

i didn't watch that far. I watched through the defense's layout of their key points. Again, he admitted it on national television. Do you think Trump was lying? And Bolton? And everyone who testified at the Senate? And the whistleblower?

 

[TexRex]

Do you think Trump was lying?

[channeling Dotini] Politicians lie. It's imperative that the public decides what they want to believe. Winter is coming.

 

[Famine]

[channeling Dotini] Politicians lie. It's imperative that the public decides what they want to believe. Winter is coming.

My uncle's cousin was a member of the public one winter. He and his step-son enjoyed casting for freshwater salmon down by Lake Sammamish, before the local government genuflected to environmentalists in the name of "species preservation". Of course back then you could feed a family of six with just half a silver Jemimah - as they were called at the time, because they had a duck engraved on the back; a silver Jemimah was about the same as half a penny back in the day. Anyway, the important thing is that we hung an onion on our belt, as was the style in those days...

 

[baldgye]

This thread has the most advanced meta-game of any thread I've read

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Three; there have been three presidential impeachment trials in the United States. "Normal" has not been established in such a small sample pool.

But a past precedent HAS BEEN SET which is all that may required to support the position.

 

[TexRex]

But a past precedent HAS BEEN SET which is all that may required to support the position.

Yeeeeaaahh, the thing is...witness testimony was given during the impeachment trial of Andrew Johnson. Among witnesses called was Lorenzo Thomas, the individual who replaced Stanton as acting Secretary of War when there was no vacancy per the Tenure of Office Act enacted to prohibit Johnson replacing Stanton, and who was alleged to have conspired with Johnson in violating the Tenure of Office Act. Thomas was called by the defense.

http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/impeach/testimony.html

So...what precisely is the precedent?

 

[TenEightyOne]

Do you think Trump was lying?

Trump doesn't lie, and he's said so.

 

[UKMikey]

Trump doesn't lie, and he's said so.

"truthful hyperbole"

(c.f. "economical with the truth")

 

[VFOURMAX1]

So...what precisely is the precedent?

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has called for several current and former Trump administration officials to be subpoenaed to testify in the chamber's likely impeachment trial for President Trump.

Yet, during former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1999, Schumer, D-N.Y., roundly dismissed the importance of, and voted against, such witness testimony -- suggesting it amounted to "political theater."
“It seems to me that no good case has been made for witnesses,” Schumer said during a press conference on Jan. 27, 1999.

Days later, he argued that there was no reason to call witnesses, saying: “I wonder if the House managers aren’t a little more interested in political theater than in actually getting to the bottom of the facts.”

As with virtually everybody involved in the Clinton-era impeachment on both sides of the aisle, the roles and talking points have reversed now that Trump is facing impeachment for his dealings with Ukraine. Republicans who cheered Clinton's impeachment have condemned Trump's. And Democrats like Schumer are sudden champions of the process."
“We would of course be open to hearing the testimony of additional witnesses having direct knowledge of the Administration’s decisions regarding the delay in security assistance funds to the government of Ukraine and the requests for certain investigations to be announced by the government of Ukraine, if the President’s counsel or House Managers identify such witnesses,” he continued, adding that the witness testimony time should “be limited to not more than four hours” for House Managers and “not more than four hours for the President’s counsel.”

"But Republicans in the Senate have signaled their interest in calling different witnesses in a Trump trial -- like Hunter Biden and former Democratic National Committee consultant Alexandra Chalupa, both of whom Republicans in the House tried to call only to be blocked by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff."

Guess it all depends on which side of the fence you are on whether the actions of the Dems in the Clinton trial are taking an opposite position of what should be allowed in the current trial against a sitting Republican president. Dems in the House were all about allowing just the witnesses they wanted that supported their agenda.

Call it what you want but in reality Trump was actually asking Ukraine for information as to whether a sitting vice presidents son was awarded jobs and salary he was not qualified for as a possible favor or payment to the vice president and if so why was that?

I think the inquiry appears to be warranted and has yet to be answered honestly.

 

[Danoff]

Call it what you want but in reality Trump was actually asking Ukraine for information as to whether a sitting vice presidents son was awarded jobs and salary he was not qualified for as a possible favor or payment to the vice president and if so why was that?

How about bribery of a foreign government for personal gain. Can we call it that? Because if so, we can also call it "an impeachable offense" and "grounds for removal of office". Sound good?

If the US government wanted to investigate the Bidens, there was a process for that that did not involve shakedowns or going through Trump's personal attorney.

 

[TexRex]

Senate Democratic Leader Chuck Schumer has called for several current and former Trump administration officials to be subpoenaed to testify in the chamber's likely impeachment trial for President Trump.

Yet, during former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1999, Schumer, D-N.Y., roundly dismissed the importance of, and voted against, such witness testimony -- suggesting it amounted to "political theater."
“It seems to me that no good case has been made for witnesses,” Schumer said during a press conference on Jan. 27, 1999.

Days later, he argued that there was no reason to call witnesses, saying: “I wonder if the House managers aren’t a little more interested in political theater than in actually getting to the bottom of the facts.”

As with virtually everybody involved in the Clinton-era impeachment on both sides of the aisle, the roles and talking points have reversed now that Trump is facing impeachment for his dealings with Ukraine. Republicans who cheered Clinton's impeachment have condemned Trump's. And Democrats like Schumer are sudden champions of the process."
“We would of course be open to hearing the testimony of additional witnesses having direct knowledge of the Administration’s decisions regarding the delay in security assistance funds to the government of Ukraine and the requests for certain investigations to be announced by the government of Ukraine, if the President’s counsel or House Managers identify such witnesses,” he continued, adding that the witness testimony time should “be limited to not more than four hours” for House Managers and “not more than four hours for the President’s counsel.”

"But Republicans in the Senate have signaled their interest in calling different witnesses in a Trump trial -- like Hunter Biden and former Democratic National Committee consultant Alexandra Chalupa, both of whom Republicans in the House tried to call only to be blocked by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff."

You quote me asking you to elaborate on precedent and then you make no effort to do so.

You're saying that the Clinton impeachment trial happened differently than the Johnson impeachment trial. Now the Trump impeachment trial appears to be headed in another direction.

There is no precedent.

Call it what you want but in reality Trump was actually asking Ukraine for information as to whether a sitting vice presidents son was awarded jobs and salary he was not qualified for as a possible favor or payment to the vice president and if so why was that?

I think the inquiry appears to be warranted and has yet to be answered honestly.

Appropriate channels.

The State Department investigates corruption abroad--specifically the Bureau of International Narcotics and Law Enforcement Affairs. Trump actually nominated the current head of the INL, Kirsten D. Madison.

No record of an above-board investigation by the INL exists because there was no actual investigation. There's only Trump's extortion of Zelensky for dirt on the Bidens and public announcement of an investigation into their dealings in Ukraine; extortion that involved impoundment of congressionally appropriated funds without request for rescission from Congress per the Impoundment Control Act of 1974.

I've asked this over and over and nobody who seeks to defend Trump has made any effort to respond; why release the impounded funds upon discovery of unlawful impoundment by the public? Why not continue to hold it until evidence of corruption was provided by Ukraine?

Because the goal wasn't fighting corruption. The goal was getting dirt on a political opponent and the Trump administration broke the law in attempting to acquire that dirt.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Here is something I stumbled across, I have not fact checked it but find it interesting that one of the main proponents pushing to impeach Trump on corruption and improper behavior for personal gain seems to be in the middle of it up to his eyeballs and of course after seeing this I can see whu he does not want probes into Biden's Ukraine affairs and dealings.

https://www.statedepartmentwatch.or...uUu9dS_ElBg3sYdN2ZE5TMKOF6o_eu6qxARJNzAq7o8iA

SMOKING GUN: Adam Schiff Directly Connected to $7.4 Billion Burisma Corruption Scandal… Details Developing

(Gateway Pundit) – As reported on Wednesday the head of Burisma Holdings was indicted this week in Ukraine!

Ukrainian Prosecutor General indicted Burisma owner Nikolai Zlochevsky.

The claim alleges that Hunter Biden and his partners received $16.5 million over several years for their ‘services’ in Ukraine.

Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden took a lucrative post on the Burisma Board in 2014.

Hunter Biden was making millions from the corrupt Ukrainian oil and gas company.

New memos released earlier this month revealed Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian natural gas company, pressured the Obama State Department to help end the corruption investigation during the 2016 election cycle just one month before then-Vice President Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor probing his son Hunter.

Joe Biden bragged about getting Viktor Shokin fired during a 2018 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The media immediately covered for Biden and said his targeting of Mr. Shokin was totally unrelated to the prosecutor’s corruption investigation into Hunter and Burisma Holdings.

Burisma Holdings actually name-dropped Hunter Biden when requesting help from the State Department.

According to CD Media last week former Ukrainian official Oleksandr Onyshchenko said Hunter Biden was receiving “off the books” payments from Burisma in the millions.

Earlier this month the chief of Burisma Holdings was indicted in Ukraine. He has gone missing.

Now this…

Democrat Adam Schiff is linked to both US corporations named in the $7.4 BILLION corruption case.

M3thods reported:

Here are US government documents that show Schiff’s links to and donations from BlackRock and Franklin Templeton Investments.

And here is a mention of BlackRock and Franklin Templeton Investments from reports on Wednesday.

Will Adam Schiff and Democrats call this $7+ billion corruption case a conspiracy too?

Someone needs to get Schiff on the record for his ties to these two companies.

 

[Rallywagon]

Here is something I stumbled across, I have not fact checked it but find it interesting that one of the main proponents pushing to impeach Trump on corruption and improper behavior for personal gain seems to be in the middle of it up to his eyeballs and of course after seeing this I can see whu he does not want probes into Biden's Ukraine affairs and dealings.

https://www.statedepartmentwatch.or...uUu9dS_ElBg3sYdN2ZE5TMKOF6o_eu6qxARJNzAq7o8iA

SMOKING GUN: Adam Schiff Directly Connected to $7.4 Billion Burisma Corruption Scandal… Details Developing

(Gateway Pundit) – As reported on Wednesday the head of Burisma Holdings was indicted this week in Ukraine!

Ukrainian Prosecutor General indicted Burisma owner Nikolai Zlochevsky.

The claim alleges that Hunter Biden and his partners received $16.5 million over several years for their ‘services’ in Ukraine.

Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden took a lucrative post on the Burisma Board in 2014.

Hunter Biden was making millions from the corrupt Ukrainian oil and gas company.

New memos released earlier this month revealed Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian natural gas company, pressured the Obama State Department to help end the corruption investigation during the 2016 election cycle just one month before then-Vice President Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor probing his son Hunter.

Joe Biden bragged about getting Viktor Shokin fired during a 2018 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The media immediately covered for Biden and said his targeting of Mr. Shokin was totally unrelated to the prosecutor’s corruption investigation into Hunter and Burisma Holdings.

Burisma Holdings actually name-dropped Hunter Biden when requesting help from the State Department.

According to CD Media last week former Ukrainian official Oleksandr Onyshchenko said Hunter Biden was receiving “off the books” payments from Burisma in the millions.

Earlier this month the chief of Burisma Holdings was indicted in Ukraine. He has gone missing.

Now this…

Democrat Adam Schiff is linked to both US corporations named in the $7.4 BILLION corruption case.

M3thods reported:

Here are US government documents that show Schiff’s links to and donations from BlackRock and Franklin Templeton Investments.

And here is a mention of BlackRock and Franklin Templeton Investments from reports on Wednesday.

Will Adam Schiff and Democrats call this $7+ billion corruption case a conspiracy too?

Someone needs to get Schiff on the record for his ties to these two companies.

Ahh, cool, so two wrongs make a right then? What about this exonerates what Trump did? Or am I missing something here?

 

[huskeR32]

Here is something I stumbled across

Did you happen to stumble upon an answer to @TexRex's question to you on your way?

[W]hy release the impounded funds upon discovery of unlawful impoundment by the public? Why not continue to hold it until evidence of corruption was provided by Ukraine?

It's something that's long baffled me about Trumpers; this man so often does things that only make sense if you're guilty of something. The mental gymnastics that are required to, time and time again, convince yourself that the less sensical, more convoluted explanation is actually the right one... It must be exhausting! How long before you stop playing along, if only because you're simply worn out?

 

[TexRex]

There's copypasta, and then there's...

7 font copypasta!!!

Also...deflection. For when the Trumpkin can't actually address allegations but still wants to defend Trump.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

Ahh, cool, so two wrongs make a right then? What about this exonerates what Trump did? Or am I missing something here?

No actually the below quote out of the article I linked seems to be a legitimate reason for Trump to raise the questions he did with Ukraine. Seems as if the ones breaking the laws and abusing the powers of office were the exact individuals Trump made the inquiries about.

"The claim alleges that Hunter Biden and his partners received $16.5 million over several years for their ‘services’ in Ukraine.

Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden took a lucrative post on the Burisma Board in 2014.

Hunter Biden was making millions from the corrupt Ukrainian oil and gas company.

New memos released earlier this month revealed Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian natural gas company, pressured the Obama State Department to help end the corruption investigation during the 2016 election cycle just one month before then-Vice President Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor probing his son Hunter.

Joe Biden bragged about getting Viktor Shokin fired during a 2018 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The media immediately covered for Biden and said his targeting of Mr. Shokin was totally unrelated to the prosecutor’s corruption investigation into Hunter and Burisma Holdings.

Burisma Holdings actually name-dropped Hunter Biden when requesting help from the State Department."

 

[Rallywagon]

No actually the below quote out of the article I linked seems to be a legitimate reason for Trump to raise the questions he did with Ukraine. Seems as if the ones breaking the laws and abusing the powers of office were the exact individuals Trump made the inquiries about.

"The claim alleges that Hunter Biden and his partners received $16.5 million over several years for their ‘services’ in Ukraine.

Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden took a lucrative post on the Burisma Board in 2014.

Hunter Biden was making millions from the corrupt Ukrainian oil and gas company.

New memos released earlier this month revealed Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian natural gas company, pressured the Obama State Department to help end the corruption investigation during the 2016 election cycle just one month before then-Vice President Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor probing his son Hunter.

Joe Biden bragged about getting Viktor Shokin fired during a 2018 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The media immediately covered for Biden and said his targeting of Mr. Shokin was totally unrelated to the prosecutor’s corruption investigation into Hunter and Burisma Holdings.

Burisma Holdings actually name-dropped Hunter Biden when requesting help from the State Department."

Sure. And has been pointed out many, many times, Trump did not have the right to use the funds to force the Ukraine president to investigate. I know you keep ignoring that point. But, nothing there says "Trump had the constitutional right" it does however say "he over stepped his bounds and did not follow proper procedures".

 

[TexRex]

This might be the most entertaining "defense" of Trump since @BobK's "Democrats have been calling for his impeachment for three years."

 

[Danoff]

Here is something I stumbled across, I have not fact checked it but find it interesting that one of the main proponents pushing to impeach Trump on corruption and improper behavior for personal gain seems to be in the middle of it up to his eyeballs and of course after seeing this I can see whu he does not want probes into Biden's Ukraine affairs and dealings.

https://www.statedepartmentwatch.or...uUu9dS_ElBg3sYdN2ZE5TMKOF6o_eu6qxARJNzAq7o8iA

SMOKING GUN: Adam Schiff Directly Connected to $7.4 Billion Burisma Corruption Scandal… Details Developing

(Gateway Pundit) – As reported on Wednesday the head of Burisma Holdings was indicted this week in Ukraine!

Ukrainian Prosecutor General indicted Burisma owner Nikolai Zlochevsky.

The claim alleges that Hunter Biden and his partners received $16.5 million over several years for their ‘services’ in Ukraine.

Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden took a lucrative post on the Burisma Board in 2014.

Hunter Biden was making millions from the corrupt Ukrainian oil and gas company.

New memos released earlier this month revealed Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian natural gas company, pressured the Obama State Department to help end the corruption investigation during the 2016 election cycle just one month before then-Vice President Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor probing his son Hunter.

Joe Biden bragged about getting Viktor Shokin fired during a 2018 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The media immediately covered for Biden and said his targeting of Mr. Shokin was totally unrelated to the prosecutor’s corruption investigation into Hunter and Burisma Holdings.

Burisma Holdings actually name-dropped Hunter Biden when requesting help from the State Department.

According to CD Media last week former Ukrainian official Oleksandr Onyshchenko said Hunter Biden was receiving “off the books” payments from Burisma in the millions.

Earlier this month the chief of Burisma Holdings was indicted in Ukraine. He has gone missing.

Now this…

Democrat Adam Schiff is linked to both US corporations named in the $7.4 BILLION corruption case.

M3thods reported:

Here are US government documents that show Schiff’s links to and donations from BlackRock and Franklin Templeton Investments.

And here is a mention of BlackRock and Franklin Templeton Investments from reports on Wednesday.

Will Adam Schiff and Democrats call this $7+ billion corruption case a conspiracy too?

Someone needs to get Schiff on the record for his ties to these two companies.

Oh crap. I have a blackrock fund (or two) also!!!!!! No wonder I'm in favor of impeachment.

 

[Dotini]

No actually the below quote out of the article I linked seems to be a legitimate reason for Trump to raise the questions he did with Ukraine. Seems as if the ones breaking the laws and abusing the powers of office were the exact individuals Trump made the inquiries about.

"The claim alleges that Hunter Biden and his partners received $16.5 million over several years for their ‘services’ in Ukraine.

Vice President Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden took a lucrative post on the Burisma Board in 2014.

Hunter Biden was making millions from the corrupt Ukrainian oil and gas company.

New memos released earlier this month revealed Burisma Holdings, Hunter Biden’s Ukrainian natural gas company, pressured the Obama State Department to help end the corruption investigation during the 2016 election cycle just one month before then-Vice President Joe Biden forced Ukraine to fire Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor probing his son Hunter.

Joe Biden bragged about getting Viktor Shokin fired during a 2018 speech to the Council on Foreign Relations.

The media immediately covered for Biden and said his targeting of Mr. Shokin was totally unrelated to the prosecutor’s corruption investigation into Hunter and Burisma Holdings.

Burisma Holdings actually name-dropped Hunter Biden when requesting help from the State Department."

I have heard Trump's lawyers will argue he had not only the right, but the duty to withhold funds to Ukraine, the tarbaby created by the Obama administration - specifically Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Victoria Nuland.

 

[Danoff]

I have heard Trump's lawyers will argue he had not only the right but the duty to withhold funds to Ukraine, the tarbaby created by the Obama administration - specifically Hillary Clinton, Joe Biden and Victoria Nuland.

A duty to abuse the powers of the executive to block an approved action of congress? It's always interesting to see how far these people can twist reality.

 

[huskeR32]

No actually the below quote out of the article I linked seems to be a legitimate reason for Trump to raise the questions he did with Ukraine.

How many times does this need to be brought up? It doesn't matter! The Impoundment Control Act says the president cannot do what Trump did, period. It doesn't matter if he had a good reason to suspect Hunter Biden of something. It doesn't matter, as Chrunch insists, what Trump was thinking at the time. It doesn't matter what Bill Clinton did or said after getting a beej from an intern. It doesn't matter how angry AOC makes internet manbabies everywhere. It doesn't matter if aliens exist or not.

By withholding money past the date the Impoundment Control Act specified, Trump broke the law. End of story. Go read the act, it makes zero concessions, it allows for zero situations where the president can bypass it.

Honestly, how hard is this to understand?

--

I have heard Trump's lawyers will argue he had not only the right, but the duty to withhold funds to Ukraine

He had neither. Read the Impoundment Control Act. It's not vague.

If his lawyers argue it, and the Senate accepts it, then all we'll have is a group effort to ignore a law that is crystal clear.

 

[Dotini]

...the Impoundment Control Act. It's not vague.

I suggest the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional, and should be taken to trial at the Supreme Court.

 

[huskeR32]

I suggest the Impoundment Control Act is unconstitutional, and should be taken to trial at the Supreme Court.

On what grounds?

 

[TexRex]

*snort*

Trumpism, man...

 

[Dotini]

On what grounds?

On the grounds it fetters the constitutionally mandated conduct of foreign policy by the Executive branch. Too often US foreign policy has been controlled by neocons like Bolton and Nuland infesting academia, media, the State Department and the lobbying industry.

 

[TexRex]

On the grounds it fetters the constitutionally mandated conduct of foreign policy by the Executive branch. Too often US foreign policy has been controlled by neocons like Bolton and Nuland infesting academia, media, the State Department and the lobbying industry.

Bolton and Nuland served the Executive branch by appointment. ICA reasserts Congress' control of the purse, thereby making abuse by the Executive branch more difficult.

Did you fall and hit your head?

 

[Rallywagon]

I thought it was the "libtards" infesting academia and the media? Which is it, neocons or liberals, or does it just change to suit whatever situation?