Impeachment Thread

[DawnONight]

This is a long read, but it examines and dissects the primary testimony that supposedly shows Trump's guilt. In summary:

No one, it seems, who was directly involved in relations with Ukraine expressed any concern that there was any improper pressure being applied save for Bill Taylor, who admitted that he based his presumption on a New York Times article and not any actual evidence.

The actual evidence is clear: The whistleblower's report completely mischaracterized President Trump's phone call with President Zelensky which, it should be noted, the whistleblower did not hear firsthand or even secondhand. His report, therefore, is nothing more than than the whistleblower's own interpretation of someone else’s interpretation. When that interpretation is colored by political bias and a rather obvious desire to take out President Trump, that perception is not a reflection of reality.​

D. O'Donnell, The Comprehensive Case that President Trump is Innocent, WISN Radio (Nov. 12, 2019).

I challenge anyone who thinks Trump has committed a "high crime or misdemeanor" worthy of impeachment and removal from office to demonstrate where the analysis above is factually inaccurate or incomplete.

 

[icanhelp1]

Just highlighting these to point out next time someone accuses us on the left of nothing but name-calling, etc. Whether you agree with her or not, Spandex Girl provided a crisp, clear and well-supported argument, and even provided a citation - and this is your response? Pot, meet kettle!

I wasn't name calling, I was giving her the credit her narrative deserved. She has no concept of law. She rattled off a bunch of Democratic talking point who they themselves have not litigated.

A prima facia case on extortion is laughable on its face. The Dems are back to their old tricks again " guilty till proven innocent". Some congressional doofuses are throwing the term extortion around like candy and they're acting like ignorant shithouse lawyers. Using terms like that leave them with little to no credibility.

To give a clean bill of health to Putin? Cite proof of that!

Undermine U.S. intelligence? Why, because Schiff says so. Schiff has lied to the american people so often that to take his word on anything is laughable.

There have been no investigations completed when it comes to to Rudy Giuliani, there are no definitive improprieties discovered as of yet. People are making assumptions of guilt before the facts are even out.

The president is the one person who is responsible for conducting foreign policy not career politicians, CIA agents, military personnel or anyone else working at the white House. It's his responsibility to ensure U.S. taxpayer dollars are not being defrauded There may be several violations of 18 U.S. code 1924 and 798 by the time this is all over with.

Since when is any person immune from a corruption investigation because he's a political candidate. Obama did it to Trump, BUT THAT'S OK, HE'S THE ANOINTED ONE. Double standards are alive and well in the democratic party. Hakeem Jeffries telling republicans, who requested witnesses, to get lost! YAH that's the way it's supposed to work.

Quid Pro Quo is a subjective term depending on what side of the isle your on. The wording of the memorandum is ambiguous at best, but there is at least a conflict of interest with Hunter, Barisma and VP Joe Biden as well as the activities of crowdstrike and the 2016 elections.

"Donald Trump is guilty of attempting to extort a foreign government to interfere in U.S. elections. He’s also guilty of attempting to engage that same government in a conspiracy to undermine U.S. intelligence and provide a clean bill of health to Vladimir Putin. Trump’s primary on-the-ground assistant in this effort was certainly Rudy Giuliani, but the transcripts have demonstrated that Trump had plenty of help right in the White House—particularly from acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, who was involved in everything from setting up alternative diplomatic teams to blocking the release of military assistance funds. The more has been learned, the bigger Mulvaney’s role appears."

 

[gunthernehmen]

This is a long read, but it examines and dissects the primary testimony that supposedly shows Trump's guilt. In summary:

No one, it seems, who was directly involved in relations with Ukraine expressed any concern that there was any improper pressure being applied save for Bill Taylor, who admitted that he based his presumption on a New York Times article and not any actual evidence.

The actual evidence is clear: The whistleblower's report completely mischaracterized President Trump's phone call with President Zelensky which, it should be noted, the whistleblower did not hear firsthand or even secondhand. His report, therefore, is nothing more than than the whistleblower's own interpretation of someone else’s interpretation. When that interpretation is colored by political bias and a rather obvious desire to take out President Trump, that perception is not a reflection of reality.​

D. O'Donnell, The Comprehensive Case that President Trump is Innocent, WISN Radio (Nov. 12, 2019).

I challenge anyone who thinks Trump has committed a "high crime or misdemeanor" worthy of impeachment and removal from office to demonstrate where the analysis above is factually inaccurate or incomplete.

So in summary, hearsay and "everybody knows".

Trump doesn't even NEED a republican controlled Senate to be exonerated.

 

[Dumpington]

KeithD writes: "Trump's big mouth confirmed his guilt, so there's no reason for others not to say he's guilty."

According to our U.S. Constitution, it will be up to the U.S. Senate, and NOT the House Democrats, to determine whether or not our president is guilty and should be removed from office!

And if the president is acquitted of all charges being brought against him, then the American people will be understandably OUTRAGED that the Democratic Party wasted so much time & money on this endless charade that accomplished nothing! For over two years, Adam Schiff insisted that Trump/Russia collusion was real, but after the Mueller Report was finally released he dropped it. And now he's insisting that this Ukraine "scandal" is real, but again, it will be the U.S. Senate that has the final say.

The Democratic Party has spent the past three years howling in non-stop anger & frustration against President Trump, accomplishing NOTHING but made-up scandals (e.g. see the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation). If the Senate vindicates Trump (and they will), the Democrats will have nothing to run on in 2020 except their failed witchhunt!

 

[Dumpington]

Putting impeachment hearings on television won’t make them any less of a farce. The Democratic Party has already made its intentions perfectly clear:

The point now is NOT to examine the evidence so that they can decide whether or not to impeach President Trump, but simply to sway public opinion against him!

And never mind that this course of action all but guarantees that the U.S. Senate won’t convict the president - Speaker Pelosi ONLY cares about: 1) appeasing her Democratic Party base (which began demanding impeachment on the day Trump won the presidency) and 2) hopefully try and damage the president to boost their chances of beating him next November.

Pelosi and Rep. Adam Schiff, the Intelligence Committee chairman, have thus far tried to make the coming hearings as scripted as possible: They’re only calling witnesses who have already testified in secret, or in some cases just releasing transcripts of that testimony. In those secret hearings, Schiff time and again shut down Republican members’ questions — particularly anything that might lead to positive identification of the “whistleblower” who got this entire ball rolling (after meeting with Schiff’s staff).

Why not allow Republicans to call Hunter Biden (or even Joe) to testify? Democrats insist that such things would distract from “getting at the relevant facts” — because they’re insisting that the only relevant facts are those that make Trump look bad. Schiff and Pelosi want to get as quickly as possible to a full House vote on impeachment, because they know they already have the votes to win.

The Democrats are using impeachment as a partisan stunt — perverting the Constitution’s process for purely political purposes.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

T



I challenge anyone who thinks Trump has committed a "high crime or misdemeanor" worthy of impeachment and removal from office to demonstrate where the analysis above is factually inaccurate or incomplete.

Well I will step up and say from what I have seen and heard, about the phone call, and relating events, it seems to me to be very irregular and suspicious. The actions of the WH after the fact only add more fuel to the suspicions.

Now perhaps there is nothing there, and since the president is used to acting as a CEO, and this is how he has acted in the past. Thus he see's nothing wrong.

Someone should perhaps inform him, that World Leaders do not act in this manner, and he should also realize that the citizens of the US do have the right to question his actions.

Perhaps if he had just cooperated now, or back in the beginning, he could have avoided most of this from occurring. Or maybe it would have occured anyhow, but his actions around these matters, only lead outsiders to think, he has something to hide.

People who have nothing to hide, cooperate in investigations, whether they like the investigation or not.

 

[Vanadorn]

Dumpington wrote: Why not allow Republicans to call Hunter Biden (or even Joe) to testify? Democrats insist that such things would distract from “getting at the relevant facts” — because they’re insisting that the only relevant facts are those that make Trump look bad. Schiff and Pelosi want to get as quickly as possible to a full House vote on impeachment, because they know they already have the votes to win.

Because Trump is President and the impeachment is about him. Not the Bidens, not Clinton, not Obama.

And that's just it - so that's what being looked at.

Anything else is not relevant and people who are asking for more are trying to make this a circus and get Donald "ratings" at best.

-V

 

[JackLuis]

Bill Taylor fires back at Jim Jordan: ‘I don’t consider myself a star witness for anything’

Bill Taylor, the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, clashed with Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) on Wednesday.

At the first public hearing on the impeachment of President Donald Trump, Jordan accused Taylor of being the “star witness” for Democratic lawmakers.

“I don’t consider myself a star witness for anything,” Taylor replied after Jordan’s time expired.

“I was clear about that I am not here to take one side or another or to advocate any particular outcome, and let many restate that,” Taylor insisted. “And the main thing is that my understanding is only coming from people that I talked to.”

Jim Jordan brings in the clown car!

Constitutional law expert Laurence Tribe succinctly debunks Jim Jordan’s defense of Trump

Constitutional law expert Laurence Tribe debunked the key defense of President Donald Trump that was offered by Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH) during the first televised hearing in the impeachment inquiry.

The Ohio Republican argued that there could not have been a quid pro quo because the aid was eventually released.

But Tribe, who has taught at Harvard Law for half a century and argued three dozen cases before the United States Supreme Court, fact-checked the congressman who never passed the bar exam.

“Rep. Jordan’s mantra that Amb. Taylor has to be wrong because the aid was in fact released without Zelinski ever making a public announcement is absurd,” Tribe explained.

“What happened in-between to release the aid was that Trump was caught red-handed when the whistleblower spoke up!” he noted.

And then Trump publicly confessed, in writing!

 

[Dumpington]

Vanadorn writes: "Because Trump is President and the impeachment is about him. Not the Bidens, not Clinton, not Obama."

Bill Clinton survived impeachment, and the case against him (perjury & sexual harrassment) was MUCH STRONGER than the one against Trump.

This whole thing is entirely for show. Pelosi & Schiff had no choice - the House Democrats demanded it - and so the Democratic Party is going through the motions in a vain effort to damage the Trump presidency, just like they hoped the Mueller Report would do (but didn't!)

Instead the Mueller Report proved to be a DEAD END, and so is impeachment. Nancy Pelosi & Adam Schiff BOTH know that the U.S. Senate is going to acquit the president of all charges, resulting in the House Democrats immediately searching for yet ANOTHER excuse with which to endlessly attack this president.

One thing is more certain with every passing day - defeating Trump at the ballot box a year from now is only going to become more DIFFICULT following his vindication in the U.S. Senate! The American public will see all of this for exactly what it was: a witchhunt!

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Vanadorn writes: "Because Trump is President and the impeachment is about him. Not the Bidens, not Clinton, not Obama."

Bill Clinton survived impeachment, and the case against him (perjury & sexual harrassment) was MUCH STRONGER than the one against Trump.

Right, thats was after what? Three years of investigation, that started with Whitewater?
Turns out the only thing Bill did wrong was from getting a blow job in the Oval office a few times. Then denying it, by saying I never had "sexual relations". The house impeached him for lying to congress I think?. The Senate then didn't convict him, since Clinton didn't really lie, he just didn't tell the whole truth. And really folks, if you were married to Hillary, can you blame the guy??

This whole thing is entirely for show. Pelosi & Schiff had no choice - the House Democrats demanded it - and so the Democratic Party is going through the motions in a vain effort to damage the Trump presidency, just like they hoped the Mueller Report would do (but didn't!)

Instead the Mueller Report proved to be a DEAD END, and so is impeachment. Nancy Pelosi & Adam Schiff BOTH know that the U.S. Senate is going to acquit the president of all charges, resulting in the House Democrats immediately searching for yet ANOTHER excuse with which to endlessly attack this president.

Actually the Muller report did prove a bunch of things. Mainly Russia was behind the hacking, and maybe this tidbit: Muller could not clear Trump of Obstruction of Justice. Plus this left out fact; he also could not lay a charge of any kind on Trump, due to a policy of the AG's office ( see links) under which rules he had to follow.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-poli...mueller-report-obstruction-of-justice-summary

https://qz.com/1670783/all-the-evidence-of-obstruction-of-justice-in-muellers-report/

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

https://www.lawfareblog.com/obstruction-justice-mueller-report-heat-map

One thing is more certain with every passing day - defeating Trump at the ballot box a year from now is only going to become more DIFFICULT following his vindication in the U.S. Senate! The American public will see all of this for exactly what it was: a witchhunt!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt

Witch Hunt, I think not. As to Trump getting re-elected, sure why not, people in general just vote on popularity.

 

[Dumpington]

Fuzzy1975 writes: "The Senate then didn't convict him, since Clinton didn't really lie, he just didn't tell the whole truth."

No, Bill Clinton never lied - the guy just NEVER told the truth!

And like Donald Trump, Bill Clinton survived his ordeal in the U.S. Senate, and went on to complete his second term.

"...if you were married to Hillary, can you blame the guy?"

Good point, Fuzzy - no, I could not!

"Actually the Muller report did prove a bunch of things. Mainly Russia was behind the hacking..."

Yes, we discovered that - during the Obama presidency - the Russians openly meddled in our nation's elections.

"Witch Hunt, I think not. As to Trump getting re-elected, sure why not, people in general just vote on popularity."

Like the $30-million, two-&-a-half-year Mueller investigation, the current impeachment witchhunt will result in President Trump's being ultimately vindicated by the U.S. Senate, which will further damage the already fractured Democratic Party and help propel the president past whatever neo-socialist loser ends up with that other party's presidential nomination!

 

[magicalmoments]

#203 above.
The article you reference is from a Fox News affiliate. To me,that means it cannot be relied upon for fairness and balance or even factual accuracy and I have learned from experience reading them is a waste of time.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

Fuzzy1975 writes: "The Senate then didn't convict him, since Clinton didn't really lie, he just didn't tell the whole truth."

No, Bill Clinton never lied - the guy just NEVER told the truth!

And Trump does? now thats funny

Like the $30-million, two-&-a-half-year Mueller investigation, the current impeachment witchhunt will result in President Trump's being ultimately vindicated by the U.S. Senate, which will further damage the already fractured Democratic Party and help propel the president past whatever neo-socialist loser ends up with that other party's presidential nomination!

Just how much did Clinton's impeachment cost, or Benghazi? ( only two that come to mind right now besides the Muller investigation, I am not trying to pick on Republicans)

The point I am trying to make is both parties waste money foolishly on this stuff.

So don't throw up money about "investigation costs. It's just a waste of space.

30, million is what percent of your 4.094 Trillion dollar budget.

 

[magicalmoments]

The constitution of the USA states the president can be impeached for treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanours.

The key case against trump rest on a case of attempted bribery. The evidence will either show bribery or it won't.

The Clinton impeachment proved that obstruction of justice, telling lies to federal investigators, is up so facto, other high crimes and misdemeanours. The mueller report identified a dozen cases of trump obstructing justice.

It is fairly plain these will be turned into articles of impeachment.

If the senate believes the evidence is insufficient, or it is proven but is of no consequence then that is their right and trump will be acquitted.

It will then be the people's decision at the next election to demonstrate what they believe to be the truth.

Our opinions, the dozen or so of us on the literotica politics board , constantly at odds over the facts and whose opinions and analysis should be accepted are just so many leaves blowing in the wind.

 

[icanhelp1]

The constitution of the USA states the president can be impeached for treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanours.

The key case against trump rest on a case of attempted bribery. The evidence will either show bribery or it won't.

The Clinton impeachment proved that obstruction of justice, telling lies to federal investigators, is up so facto, other high crimes and misdemeanours. The mueller report identified a dozen cases of trump obstructing justice.

It is fairly plain these will be turned into articles of impeachment.

If the senate believes the evidence is insufficient, or it is proven but is of no consequence then that is their right and trump will be acquitted.

It will then be the people's decision at the next election to demonstrate what they believe to be the truth.

Our opinions, the dozen or so of us on the literotica politics board , constantly at odds over the facts and whose opinions and analysis should be accepted are just so many leaves blowing in the wind.

The Dems hatred for Trump is so toxic only they would try incorporate obstruction of justice for a crime never committed into articles of impeachment

 

[YDB95]

Just how much did Clinton's impeachment cost, or Benghazi? ( only two that come to mind right now besides the Muller investigation, I am not trying to pick on Republicans)

It was only peripherally related to Clinton's impeachment, but the Whitewater investigation ate up about $40 million - and proved nothing the Clintons hadn't admitted to back at square one.

 

[gunthernehmen]

#203 above.
The article you reference is from a Fox News affiliate. To me,that means it cannot be relied upon for fairness and balance or even factual accuracy and I have learned from experience reading them is a waste of time.

Hey, #214 above

One of your cronies, spandexgirl, posted a link to an article on a left biased site and your very OWN YBD95 defended her honor when she was called on the carpet for posting garbage.

That's #'s 187, 195 and 199 to you.

 

[Fuzzy1975]

. The mueller report identified a dozen cases of trump obstructing justice.

I am only familiar with 10 cases, but 10, 12, what does it matter. To some here 12,000 + or so lies/untrue/embellishments spoken don't phase them.

See below for proof

 

[gunthernehmen]

Our opinions, the dozen or so of us on the literotica politics board , constantly at odds over the facts and whose opinions and analysis should be accepted are just so many leaves blowing in the wind.

You don't HAVE to be at odds with the facts. Come to the RIGHT side of the argument.

 

[JackLuis]

Trump made a ‘huge mistake’ talking to reporters about impeachment: Mueller prosecutor Andrew Weissmann

Andrew Weissmann, who is now an MSNBC legal analyst, was interviewed by Chuck Todd on “Meet the Press Daily.”

The former federal prosecutor says Trump committed a blunder by denying a call with a Gordon Sondland staffer.

“Why is that?” Todd asked.

“Because he now can’t rebut it,” Weissman replied.

“He has now said I don’t remember that phone call. So you’re going to have Sondland testifying to it. You’re going to have a staffer testifying to it,” he explained. “If [Trump] doesn’t like their testimony, he’s going to have to say, ‘Oh, now I remember that I didn’t say that.'”

 

[JackLuis]

Republicans asked for a witness to undermine impeachment — but she wants to call their ‘bluff’

Since Republicans have no substantive defense of President Donald Trump’s effort to extort political investigations out of the Ukrainian government, their big hope in protecting the White House from the impeachment inquiry relies on kicking up enough dirt and throwing up red herrings to distract voters and keep Republicans united.

One of those names is likely unknown the vast majority of the American public: Democratic National Committee consultant Alexandra Chalupa. But Politico revealed Tuesday with a new interview that Chalupa is actually willing to testify — and wants to call the Republicans’ “bluff.”

“I’m on a mission to testify,” she said.

 

[JackLuis]

Fireworks as GOP congressman asks ‘where is the impeachable offense?’ — and immediately withdraws question when witness responds

Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe is getting a fair share of mocking online after asking impeachment hearing witnesses what President Donald Trump has done that is impeachable – then stopping one of the witnesses tried to respond.

The Texas Congressman, apparently unhappy that his question was about to get some form of response – or, at least, pushback, from Ambassador Bill Taylor, appeared nervous, yelled over Taylor, stopped the diplomat from answering, then went so far as to withdraw his question when Taylor tried to answer.

Taylor finally got to answer: “I’m not here to decide anything about impeachment,” he announced, rightfully. “This is your job.”

Dumb ass Rethuglicunt!

 

[JackLuis]

Room erupts in laughter as Democrat Peter Welch destroys Jim Jordan during impeachment hearing

There was a moment of levity four-hours into the first televised hearing in the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump.

Rep. Jim Jordan (R-OH), the bombastic Freedom Caucus member who was added to the committee at the last moment by Republicans, had argued that the White House whistleblower started the scandal.

“There’s one witness, one witness that they won’t bring in front of us, they won’t bring in front of the American people, and that’s the guy who started it all, the whistleblower,” Jordan argued.

“I say to my colleague, I would be glad to have the person who started it all come in and testify,” Welch said.

“President Trump is welcome to take a seat right there,” Welch said, to laughter from the audience.

 

[YDB95]

Hey, #214 above

One of your cronies, spandexgirl, posted a link to an article on a left biased site and your very OWN YBD95 defended her honor when she was called on the carpet for posting garbage.

That's #'s 187, 195 and 199 to you.

Defended her honour? All I did was point out that there is a difference between an ideological slant (which Daily Kos has) and a poor track record for factual accuracy (it has the exact opposite of that).

 

[magicalmoments]

You don't HAVE to be at odds with the facts. Come to the RIGHT side of the argument.

Now that one deserves to be quoted in full.
Unanimously voted as best giggle of the day.
You sound just like Darth Vader, "come to the Dark side Luke"