The Trump Impeachment Thread

[Imari]

That's how they're excusing themselves from having to listen to testimony. They've already decided he's guilty, and just aren't going to remove him from office.

And I guess that this is where the legacy of Clinton's impeachment comes back to roost. Because while the charges were different, the idea is much the same; he was generally accepted to have been guilty of the charges laid upon him but was not removed from office because reasons.

It could have been hoped that when the boot was on the other foot the Republicans might do better, or that the more serious charges against Trump might force a reconsideration, but I guess not. Politicians are nothing if not stubbornly predictable.

Part of me wonders how this might have turned out differently if Clinton's impeachment had never happened, and the only similar modern proceedings were Nixon's. Another part of me wonders what would actually be required to be removed from office in a modern age, if it can be done at all.

 

[Liquid]

what would actually be required to be removed from office in a modern age, if it can be done at all.

Both Houses to be controlled by the opposite party to the President. Whether it would be fair or vindictive removal from office is another matter altogether.

I think @Danoff already summed it up; if you know you're in a position where the Senate is going to remove you from office, you resign anyway. It really would take a monumental 🤬 up for a President to actually be removed from office due to impeachment.

And you know what's going to happen next. Just like when he skim-read the title of the Mueller Report, Trump will say that he has been TOTALLY EXONERATED of any wrong-doing, ignoring the swathes of evidence and facts.

 

[Imari]

Both Houses to be controlled by the opposite party to the President. Whether it would be fair or vindictive removal from office is another matter altogether.

Not just that, they need a supermajority in the Senate as well it would seem. Given how similar the parties are on many things, I seriously doubt that one party will gain that sort of advantage over the other any time soon, hence me questioning whether it's actually practically possible.

I think @Danoff already summed it up; if you know you're in a position where the Senate is going to remove you from office, you resign anyway. It really would take a monumental 🤬 up for a President to actually be removed from office due to impeachment.

I think Trump will be the closest anyone gets. Enough ignorance and arrogance that even if he was informed that he was going to be removed, there's a good chance that he would have not believed it and told them to blow it out their back passage. Hell, if he was actually removed I think there's a fair chance that he would have called it a witch hunt, fake news and refused to leave.

The chances of getting another president that is as politically naive and as convinced of his own righteousness regardless of the actual situation is low, I feel. There's a reason Trump was a joke in public culture before he became president.

And you know what's going to happen next. Just like when he skim-read the title of the Mueller Report, Trump will say that he has been TOTALLY EXONERATED of any wrong-doing, ignoring the swathes of evidence and facts.

Yep. Despite the admissions from his own party to the tune of "he's guilty, but we're not removing him because we don't think it worth it".

 

[baldgye]

And you know what's going to happen next. Just like when he skim-read the title of the Mueller Report, Trump will say that he has been TOTALLY EXONERATED of any wrong-doing, ignoring the swathes of evidence and facts.

Indeed, I do wonder if all this will do is vindiate Trump and his supporters...

 

[Danoff]

And I guess that this is where the legacy of Clinton's impeachment comes back to roost. Because while the charges were different, the idea is much the same; he was generally accepted to have been guilty of the charges laid upon him but was not removed from office because reasons.

It could have been hoped that when the boot was on the other foot the Republicans might do better, or that the more serious charges against Trump might force a reconsideration, but I guess not. Politicians are nothing if not stubbornly predictable.

Part of me wonders how this might have turned out differently if Clinton's impeachment had never happened, and the only similar modern proceedings were Nixon's. Another part of me wonders what would actually be required to be removed from office in a modern age, if it can be done at all.

I think the democrat reaction to this should be:

 

[TexRex]

I figure he was swept up in the moment, but I'd note that he probably meant to switch "his own interests" and "the interests of the country"; I think everyone* has the confidence he'll put his own interests first. Still, that was fantastic.

*I do mean everyone. Even the GOP has the confidence he will, the difference is that they're fine with it.

And you know what's going to happen next. Just like when he skim-read the title of the Mueller Report, Trump will say that he has been TOTALLY EXONERATED of any wrong-doing, ignoring the swathes of evidence and facts.

I'm more-than-half expecting the title of this thread to be changed to reflect that: "The TOTAL EXONERATION of President Trump".

I think the democrat reaction to this should be:

 

[Danoff]

There's a word for this... when a group of people in power get together to knowingly break the law for personal and political gain. What's that word?

Oh yea, corrupt. The Republican party (on the whole) is corrupt.

 

[Dotini]

There's a word for this... when a group of people in power get together to knowingly break the law for personal and political gain. What's that word?

Oh yea, corrupt. The Republican party (on the whole) is corrupt.

If the Republicans are corruptly seizing power and influencing the next election, would it not be a sound idea to fight them to the very maximum in the courts, in the media, in Congress, and ultimately on the streets in acts of defiance, boycott, sabotage and finally armed rebellion?

 

[Danoff]

If the Republicans are corruptly seizing power and influencing the next election, would it not be a sound idea to fight them to the very maximum in the courts, in the media, in Congress, and ultimately on the streets in acts of defiance, boycott, sabotage and finally armed rebellion?

Don't get ahead of yourself. Armed rebellion is not a reasonable response to what we're currently presented with. The next step is to see whether the plurality of the American people will support open corruption.

 

[Dotini]

part of me wonders what would actually be required to be removed from office in a modern age, if it can be done at all.

If Trump were caught live on TV raping a small child or animal on the front lawn of the White House, I do believe that would be enough for removal.

 

[Danoff]

If Trump were caught live on TV raping a small child or animal on the front lawn of the White House, I do believe that would be enough for removal.

At least we have standards then.

 

[Danoff]

When I was protesting the Vietnam war, I took part in riots in which streets were barricaded, things were broken and/or set on fire, and some people including cops got roughed up. I had clear and firm beliefs, and I acted upon them, despite some risk. I don't really believe you think Republicans are mostly corrupt.

The "party" is corrupt. And by that I mean party leadership. The whole point I was making (and I must not have made it clearly somehow because you seem to have missed it), was that we have yet to see how corrupt the population is (meaning people who tend to vote republican). My corruption statements were aimed at people "in power" who are helping each other break the law for personal and political gain. Not voters who are deciding how to vote.

A vote for republicans in the next election though, in almost all cases, is a vote for corruption. So the population is about to make their positions clear.

 

[TexRex]

If Trump were caught live on TV raping a small child or animal on the front lawn of the White House, I do believe that would be enough for removal.

"Trump shouldn't have been impeached for abuse of power but he should totally be impeached for abuse of power."

 

[Dotini]

The "party" is corrupt. And by that I mean party leadership. The whole point I was making (and I must not have made it clearly somehow because you seem to have missed it), was that we have yet to see how corrupt the population is (meaning people who tend to vote republican). My corruption statements were aimed at people "in power" who are helping each other break the law for personal and political gain. Not voters who are deciding how to vote.

A vote for republicans in the next election though, in almost all cases, is a vote for corruption. So the population is about to make their positions clear.

You are a very confused young man. You are confusing corruption with principle. Republicans believe in conservatism, and in appointing conservative judges as vital to the preservation of the Republic. They have declined to remove a president who supports their beliefs and principles, at least in conservative causes and judges. They are following the Constitution to the letter in doing so. Yes Trump is defective. They are unwillingly stuck with him. Yet he is supported by vast numbers of the unwashed who may yet reelect him, and keep the Republican control of court nominations and appointment in place. Principle FTW.

 

[DesertPenguin]

So just because Trump says he's a "Republican" (even though there's proof that he was a "Democrat" when the narrative required it), that means you must blindly support him because you're supporting "The Republic"?

 

[Rallywagon]

So just because Trump says he's a "Republican" (even though there's proof that he was a "Democrat" when the narrative required it), that means you must blindly support him because you're supporting "The Republic"?

That's definitely what Trump's lawyer wants you to believe

 

[PocketZeven]

There's a word for this... when a group of people in power get together to knowingly break the law for personal and political gain. What's that word?

Oh yea, corrupt. The Republican party (on the whole) is corrupt.

There is apparantly a fine line between loyalty and corruption. Abetting to corruption should be grounds for impeachment (of the senators) as well. However loyalty prevents any republican to be truly impartial.

 

[Dotini]

So just because Trump says he's a "Republican" (even though there's proof that he was a "Democrat" when the narrative required it), that means you must blindly support him because you're supporting "The Republic"?

Officially, on paper, Trump is the leader of the Republican Party. The country is at peace with prosperity. For the moment. The instant things go south, and he cannot win reelection, he will be abandoned. He is a freak. I hope there will never be another like him.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

But yet Trump is accused of corruption because he inquired about Biden's and his sons corruption while he was holding the the office of VP in this nation.https://nypost.com/2020/01/28/the-b...medium=site buttons&utm_campaign=site buttons
Also seems to be inquiries about Pelosi's son having questionable dealings involving bribes and corruption in the Ukrain as well.

No wonder that the liberals were trying to get rid of Trump and his ability to expose their activities.
And about the whistleblower that the liberals wanted so much to keep secret, maybe the pictures below explain why! Seems as if the supposed "whistleblower" was a plant and set up is why the liberals were so adamant to keeping his identity secret. Seems his fingers have been right in the middle of all the shady Democrat dealings for a long while.
But of course I know that there will be excuses galore why this information is incorrect from the crowd on here.

 

[Dotini]

But yet Trump is accused of corruption because he inquired about Biden's and his sons corruption while he was holding the the office of VP in this nation.https://nypost.com/2020/01/28/the-biden-familys-ukraine-games-cried-out-for-investigation/?utm_source=url_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site buttons&utm_campaign=site buttons
Also seems to be inquiries about Pelosi's son having questionable dealings involving bribes and corruption in the Ukrain as well.

No wonder that the liberals were trying to get rid of Trump and his ability to expose their activities.
And about the whistleblower that the liberals wanted so much to keep secret, maybe the pictures below explain why! Seems as if the supposed "whistleblower" was a plant and set up is why the liberals were so adamant to keeping his identity secret. Seems his fingers have been right in the middle of all the shady Democrat dealings for a long while.
But of course I know that there will be excuses galore why this information is incorrect from the crowd on here.
View attachment 886997 View attachment 886998 View attachment 887000

Bizarre, if true.

 

[PocketZeven]

But yet Trump is accused of corruption because he inquired about Biden's and his sons corruption while he was holding the the office of VP in this nation.https://nypost.com/2020/01/28/the-biden-familys-ukraine-games-cried-out-for-investigation/?utm_source=url_sitebuttons&utm_medium=site buttons&utm_campaign=site buttons
Also seems to be inquiries about Pelosi's son having questionable dealings involving bribes and corruption in the Ukrain as well.

No wonder that the liberals were trying to get rid of Trump and his ability to expose their activities.
And about the whistleblower that the liberals wanted so much to keep secret, maybe the pictures below explain why! Seems as if the supposed "whistleblower" was a plant and set up is why the liberals were so adamant to keeping his identity secret. Seems his fingers have been right in the middle of all the shady Democrat dealings for a long while.
But of course I know that there will be excuses galore why this information is incorrect from the crowd on here.
View attachment 886997 View attachment 886998 View attachment 887000

This also has absolutely little to do with what Trump did.

 

[Rallywagon]

This also has absolutely little to do with what Trump did.

It vindicates breaking the law. Clearly when you're a trumpster two wrongs make a right.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

This also has absolutely little to do with what Trump did.

What Trump did was to inquire about initiating help into looking at corruption by U.S. officials and their friends and family which may have been influenced by certain official positions within the government.
Never did Trump tell Ukraine officials he was withholding aid for their cooperation, nor did he request from an Ukraine official that someone be fired or removed from their official position unlike what Joe Biden did to the prosecutor investigating the company his son was involved with and then bragged about it later in a speech he gave.
Here is a link to another article that pretty much lays out how all the players in this "impeachment farce" is tied in one way or another to Ukraine and corruption along with Biden and others also being tied to illegal dealings with China.
The investigation against Trump was just to take the spotlight off the treason and corruption involving the Democrats that created and brought this whole joke of an impeachment against our legally elected president.
Again we actually owe Trump a thank you for doing his job as the leader of this country as he was actually trying to root out corruption that was costing this country billions in tax payer dollars, making millions for the liberals involved in the corruption and giving China access to our military contracts.

There s also a link to another article that delves much deeper into the whistleblower and what a set up and sham was involved with that.

https://www.tierneyrealnewsnetwork....ler-clinton-are-tied-to-sketchy-ukraine-deals

Whistleblower Was Overheard in '17 Discussing With Ally How to Remove Trump

It vindicates breaking the law. Clearly when you're a trumpster two wrongs make a right

Clearly when a liberal then ignoring the facts and the amount of corruption dealing with the Ukraine by the Democrats going back to at least 2014 to present day and pretty much all those involved with fabricating the Trump impeachment saga can easily be tied to such corruption with the Ukraine and even China that the lawbreakers were using the cloak of impeaching Trump to try to hide their own lawbreaking and treason against our nation.
The Dems never had evidence to actually prove anything other than hear say by other liberal dems.
And you want to talk about what a Trump supporter does! you libs are quite the joke!

 

[Danoff]

You are a very confused young man. You are confusing corruption with principle.

Let's take a look shall we?

Very first definition I came across:

"dishonest or fraudulent conduct by those in power, typically involving bribery."

Ok that's a little too on the nose. Let me see if I can find something broader.

"guilty of dishonest practices, as bribery; lacking integrity; crooked:"

Oh boy... ok... this just keeps coming a little too close to Trump's own actions. Let me try again.

"illegal, bad, or dishonest behaviour, especially by people in positions of power:"

So what we have is Republicans in the Senate who are openly admitting that Trump is guilty of violating the law. Even at last one has admitted that he is guilty of an impeachable offense. And the reason that they stick by him (your "principle") is that he is one of them, a Republican. And they think that this is enough to justify their actions. That is corrupt by definition. It is illegal behavior, supporting subversion of the law and their sworn duties, in favor of personal and political gain.

It is you who is confusing corruption with principle.

They have declined to remove a president who supports their beliefs and principles, at least in conservative causes and judges.

They've declined to remove a president who they openly admit is guilty of violating the constitution, and has committed an impeachable offense, because they like his politics. That's corruption, it's decidedly unprincipled. What you're attempting to do is to say that they have a principle of supporting who they like. Which is like trying to define principle into unprincipled.

They are unwillingly stuck with him.

Quite willingly apparently.

What Trump did was to inquire about initiating help into looking at corruption by U.S. officials and their friends and family which may have been influenced by certain official positions within the government.

What he did was bribe a foreign country for personal gain, which is an impeachable offense.

Never did Trump tell Ukraine officials he was withholding aid for their cooperation,

Comeon... all of the evidence (including his own statements) supports that the reason he withheld aid was for their cooperation. Do you have some other reason why he withheld aid?

He admitted it. He did it. Get over it.

 

[PocketZeven]

What Trump did was to inquire about initiating help into looking at corruption by U.S. officials and their friends and family which may have been influenced by certain official positions within the government.

Inquire?
You fail to look at the impeachment with neutral eyes. If this was a democrat president, you would not have judged the same.

Do you really, really think that Donald J Trump. With his long history of controversey, cheating on all his wives, shady deals, ripping of taxpayers etc. really wanted to go after corruption in Ukraine?

 

[VFOURMAX1]

What he did was bribe a foreign country for personal gain, which is an impeachable offense.

Comeon... all of the evidence (including his own statements) supports that the reason he withheld aid was for their cooperation. Do you have some other reason why he withheld aid?

He admitted it. He did it. Get over it.

How did Trump use the aid to bribe Ukraine when the Ukraine was never aware that the aid money had a hold placed on it? To bribe someone they have to know they are actually being bribed.

Treason or high crimes are required for impeachment and personally I saw no solid infallible evidence of such in the house articles of impeachment given to the Senate.
Actually even though he perhaps did not follow the correct methods or protocols to temporarily withhold the aid money he did not threaten Ukraine by telling them he was withholding the money and it is or should be his duty as leader of this country to initiate investigation to assure that any taxpayer funded aid sent to another country is used as intended and not subject to those funds being taken through fraud and bribes.

But again Liberals only see what they want and ignore facts that do not coincide with their agenda.

Inquire?
You fail to look at the impeachment with neutral eyes. If this was a democrat president, you would not have judged the same.

Do you really, really think that Donald J Trump. With his long history of controversey, cheating on all his wives, shady deals, ripping of taxpayers etc. really wanted to go after corruption in Ukraine?

Not true, I thought the impeachment trial against Clinton was about as bad although in the eyes of the law he did break the law. I am glad he was not removed from office for having a fling with an intern.

Same with Trump, the facts support that what he inquired about has deep roots in actual corruption by U.S. government officials and their positions were used benefit their own and family and friends interest and bank accounts. Those are the actual facts that have come to light and it seems pretty obvious that the Democrats used the investigations and impeachment to try to deflect the attention on Trump instead of their own wrongdoing and lawbreaking coming to light.

One of the reasons Trump won the election, is people are tired of the corruption within Washington and it was hoped that Trump would expose and eliminate some of it, the whole "drain the swamp" thing. Well it seems that is another promise he made that just may be being kept as more of this Ukraine/China deal comes to light.
Believe what you want but the libs showed who and what they are and it surely is not in a good light!

 

[Danoff]

How did Trump use the aid to bribe Ukraine when the Ukraine was never aware that the aid money had a hold placed on it? To bribe someone they have to know they are actually being bribed.

You think they still don't know about the hold?!? Someone needs to let them know.

So do you have any possible other explanation for why there was a hold on the money after they failed to perform the favor other than what Trump said was the reason? Which was that they weren't doing the favor? That's bribery.

 

[VFOURMAX1]

You think they still don't know about the hold?!? Someone needs to let them know.

So do you have any possible other explanation for why there was a hold on the money after they failed to perform the favor other than what Trump said was the reason? Which was that they weren't doing the favor? That's bribery.

What they found out after the fact does not translate to bribery. They did not know about the withholding at the time Trump ask for the favor to look into the corruption so it could not be bribery as the other party had no clue at the time. And yes the money was later released without any "favor"being received so again no bribery!

 

[PocketZeven]

Not true, I thought the impeachment trial against Clinton was about as bad although in the eyes of the law he did break the law. I am glad he was not removed from office for having a fling with an intern.

Same with Trump, the facts support that what he inquired about has deep roots in actual corruption by U.S. government officials and their positions were used benefit their own and family and friends interest and bank accounts. Those are the actual facts that have come to light and it seems pretty obvious that the Democrats used the investigations and impeachment to try to deflect the attention on Trump instead of their own wrongdoing and lawbreaking coming to light.

One of the reasons Trump won the election, is people are tired of the corruption within Washington and it was hoped that Trump would expose and eliminate some of it, the whole "drain the swamp" thing. Well it seems that is another promise he made that just may be being kept as more of this Ukraine/China deal comes to light.
Believe what you want but the libs showed who and what they are and it surely is not in a good light!

Please dont compare the Trump impeachment with Clinton. That is comparing a bribing a foreign power case with a lying under oath case. There is 0 evidence or even president for crowdstrike or H. Biden/Burisma having to do with corruption. What facts are you speaking of?

Trump is the definition of corruption. Please look into his looooong history of encounters with the law and shady business deals, leaving innocent people in shambles:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_affairs_of_Donald_Trump

 

[Rallywagon]

What Trump did was to inquire about initiating help into looking at corruption by U.S. officials and their friends and family which may have been influenced by certain official positions within the government.
Never did Trump tell Ukraine officials he was withholding aid for their cooperation, nor did he request from an Ukraine official that someone be fired or removed from their official position unlike what Joe Biden did to the prosecutor investigating the company his son was involved with and then bragged about it later in a speech he gave.
Here is a link to another article that pretty much lays out how all the players in this "impeachment farce" is tied in one way or another to Ukraine and corruption along with Biden and others also being tied to illegal dealings with China.
The investigation against Trump was just to take the spotlight off the treason and corruption involving the Democrats that created and brought this whole joke of an impeachment against our legally elected president.
Again we actually owe Trump a thank you for doing his job as the leader of this country as he was actually trying to root out corruption that was costing this country billions in tax payer dollars, making millions for the liberals involved in the corruption and giving China access to our military contracts.

There s also a link to another article that delves much deeper into the whistleblower and what a set up and sham was involved with that.

https://www.tierneyrealnewsnetwork....ler-clinton-are-tied-to-sketchy-ukraine-deals

Whistleblower Was Overheard in '17 Discussing With Ally How to Remove Trump


Clearly when a liberal then ignoring the facts and the amount of corruption dealing with the Ukraine by the Democrats going back to at least 2014 to present day and pretty much all those involved with fabricating the Trump impeachment saga can easily be tied to such corruption with the Ukraine and even China that the lawbreakers were using the cloak of impeaching Trump to try to hide their own lawbreaking and treason against our nation.
The Dems never had evidence to actually prove anything other than hear say by other liberal dems.
And you want to talk about what a Trump supporter does! you libs are quite the joke!

Rhe end of this shows you clear want to stick your fingers in your ears. I mean, i myself and many others have already pointed they are NOT liberals. In fact, there is a not small minority within the Republican Republican that think trump broke the law, and FFS, I did say two wrongs dont make a right.... Two wrongs.... I dont doubt the Clinton's and the Bidens are into some shady ****. There are avenues to take to have them investigated that does not require breaking the constitution and obstructing the investigation of said break.
Trump has lived a life style of doing whatever he wants and however he wants, and that shows in his policies and his actions. In politics, that can clearly have bigger consequences then in business. Regardless, Trump ****ed up, broke the law of the constitution, himself described doing it and his cabinet full stop admitted to him doing it and literally told everyone to "get over it." Being so brazen can gain you great rewards, but can also bring great consequences.
Should the Bidens be investigated, sure, does that excuse Trumps actions? Absolutely not.