US President Donald J. Trump Impeachment Megathread - Democrats commit mass political suicide

On September 24th, 2019, Nanci Pelosi did what everyone expected was some exceptional political posturing -- initiating a formal impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

The initial "charge," such as it was, was "betraying his oath of office and the nation's security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain." This, amusingly, was after it was discovered and widely reported on that the DNC had contacted the very same foreign power to attempt to tarnish Trump.

Specifically, this was all based on a rumor that Trump had asked the Ukraine to investigate how a prosecutor investigating Joe Biden's son for corruption had gotten fired, and withheld foreign aid until they had agreed. (He did ask the leader of the Ukraine to investigate what happened with the prosecutor, but did not hold up any foreign aid nor threaten anything of the like.)

Around this time, Trump did something they could not, and still cannot, understand: He publicly turned over all the documents. The transcript of the phone call they claimed showed him committing the crime of blackmailing the Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden for him was released, showing that Trump did nothing wrong. The only reaction the radical left had was arguing over the definition of "transcript" and spouting off a conspiracy theory about official state documents being edited.

At the same time, old video evidence of Joe Biden publicly bragging about blackmailing the Ukraine into NOT investigating his son came to light. Yes, this is exactly what they're accusing Trump of doing. The left is nothing if not subtle. Right after this, evidence came to light that Pelosi, Kerry, and Romney's kids had similar fake jobs in the Ukraine, getting paid ungodly amounts of money and embezzling US foreign aid to the Ukraine -- all things that Trump's Attorney General has openly discussed investigating.

By releasing the transcripts, the DNC was tripped up. Instead of being able to leak information from their secret investigation until November 2020, they were forced to play their hand publicly.

And they had no hand to play. The impeachment accusations came from second and third hand sources -- watercooler talk from Unelected Deep State Analysts with Trump Derangement Syndrome, outraged that President Trump refused to obey them when they felt they had a better idea as to how to run Foreign Affairs. Other allegations included that supposedly, the telepathic DNC members working in the state department knew what Trump was thinking (despite him literally saying the exact opposite) or could tell that Trump would do something even worse -- maybe something actually illegal -- in the future, and boy howdy, the imaginary Trump in their minds was a right bastard.

(As an aside, the name of the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella, has been censored across pretty much all social media, a test run of whatever censorship they're going to enact in the next few months to try and swing the election.)

At the same time, the DNC performed significant amounts of partisan political fuckery to do this all publicly, but unofficially -- preventing the GOP from bringing forth witnesses or questioning the DNC's witnesses, or even reading the double plus secret evidence the DNC supposedly had. Those GOP that did get access to the evidence have confirmed it's a 3 pound 5 ounce nothingburger.

The charges have since mutated, with them initially being changed to "bribery" -- as "bribery" focus groups easier and is easier to spew out on Twitter.

On December 18th, 2019, along party lines and with bipartisan opposition, they finally drafted their articles of impeachment -- first for "Abuse of Power" and second for "Obstruction of Congress." Neither are actually crimes nor are they impeachable offenses, even if they were true -- which the DNC has provided no evidence of, explaining that it's the Senate's job to investigate and find the evidence.

Narrator: It is not the Senate's job to investigate and find the evidence.

The "Obstruction of Congress" charge is particularly egregious, as they are claiming that Trump, by reaching out to the courts to act as mediators in his dispute over the rules with Pelosi, was obstructing her. In other words, Pelosi's stance is that the President must obey her, even if she's being a batshit insane drunk. Many legal scholars, including Alan Dershowitz, have pointed out that this is absolute bullshit.

The latest development as of this writing on December 21th, 2019, is that Pelosi is demanding that the GOP recuse itself, allowing the DNC to reshape the Senate in order to make the process "fair" -- by creating a Kangaroo court. The GOP is refusing outright, as the Senate's role during this is very specifically to take the charges and all the evidence gathered from the house -- which is none -- and vote yes or no on impeachment. They need 2/3rd majority to vote yes, and the DNC does not have the votes.

Pelosi is refusing to send over the articles of impeachment until the GOP allows her to stack the Senate against Trump, an act that Dershowitz as well as Noah Feldman, the DNC's own star legal expert witness, has said is unconstitutional and "a problem," as Trump isn't impeached until the articles have been filed. Meanwhile, the DNC has put the House on vacation until the new year, while the Senate is exploring options including forcing the articles over without Pelosi's ok. Trump and the Senate have both went to the SCOTUS to ask them if any of this is constitutional.

tl;dr: Trump may have found where the Swamp was embezzling US Foreign Aid. Many politician's children working fake jobs for huge amounts of money in the Ukraine, blatantly selling influence. This caused the DNC to freak out and try and headshot Trump. They missed. The Democrats appear to have committed political suicide, making Trump a Martyr and only realizing in the aftermath that they didn't actually get rid of him or even weaken him in any way. They also appear to realize they fucked up and are trying to slow walk it back, keeping the "he's impeached!" victory while not actually having to let anyone read the evidence or have a trial on it.


@Yotsubaaa did a great writeup here with links to various winner posts: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/nancy...kraine-phone-call.61583/page-135#post-5606264

And @Yotsubaaa did a new version very late on the 21st of December: https://kiwifarms.net/threads/presi...chment-megathread.61583/page-260#post-5754920

Which are too big to quote here.



https://archive.fo/oVGIv

WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on Tuesday that the House would initiate a formal impeachment inquiry against President Trump, charging him with betraying his oath of office and the nation’s security by seeking to enlist a foreign power to tarnish a rival for his own political gain.

Ms. Pelosi’s declaration, after months of reticence by Democrats who had feared the political consequences of impeaching a president many of them long ago concluded was unfit for office, was a stunning turn that set the stage for a history-making and exceedingly bitter confrontation between the Democrat-led House and a defiant president who has thumbed his nose at institutional norms.

“The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the Constitution,” Ms. Pelosi said in a brief speech invoking the nation’s founding principles. Mr. Trump, she added, “must be held accountable — no one is above the law.”

She said the president’s conduct revealed his “betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.”

Ms. Pelosi’s decision to push forward with the most severe action that Congress can take against a sitting president could usher in a remarkable new chapter in American life, touching off a constitutional and political showdown with the potential to cleave an already divided nation, reshape Mr. Trump’s presidency and the country’s politics, and carry heavy risks both for him and for the Democrats who have decided to weigh his removal.

Though the outcome is uncertain, it also raised the possibility that Mr. Trump could become only the fourth president in American history to face impeachment. Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were both impeached but later acquitted by the Senate. President Richard M. Nixon resigned in the face of a looming House impeachment vote.

It was the first salvo in an escalating, high-stakes standoff between Ms. Pelosi, now fully engaged in an effort to build the most damning possible case against the president, and Mr. Trump, who angrily denounced Democrats’ impeachment inquiry even as he worked feverishly in private to head off the risk to his presidency.

Mr. Trump, who for months has dared Democrats to impeach him, issued a defiant response on Twitter while in New York for several days of international diplomacy at the United Nations, with a series of fuming posts that culminated with a simple phrase: “PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!” Meanwhile, his re-election campaign and House Republican leaders launched a vociferous defense, accusing Democrats of a partisan rush to judgment.

“Such an important day at the United Nations, so much work and so much success, and the Democrats purposely had to ruin and demean it with more breaking news Witch Hunt garbage,” Mr. Trump wrote. “So bad for our Country! For the past two years, talk of impeachment had centered around the findings of the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, who investigated Russia’s interference in the 2016 elections and Mr. Trump’s attempts to derail that inquiry. On Tuesday, Ms. Pelosi, Democrat of California, told her caucus and then the country that new revelations about Mr. Trump’s dealings with Ukraine, and his administration’s stonewalling of Congress about them, had finally left the House no choice but to proceed toward a rarely used remedy.

“Right now, we have to strike while the iron is hot,” she told House Democrats in a closed-door meeting in the basement of the Capitol. Emerging moments later to address a phalanx of news cameras, Ms. Pelosi, speaking sometimes haltingly as she delivered a speech from a teleprompter, invoked the Constitution and the nation’s founders as she declared, “The times have found us” and outlined a new stage of investigating Mr. Trump.

At issue are allegations that Mr. Trump pressured the president of Ukraine to open a corruption investigation of former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr., a leading contender for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and his son. The conversation is said to be part of a whistle-blower complaint that the Trump administration has withheld from Congress. And it occurred just a few days after Mr. Trump had ordered his staff to freeze more than $391 million in aid to Ukraine.

Mr. Trump has confirmed aspects of his conversation with the Ukrainian leader in recent days, but he continues to insist he acted appropriately.

The president said on Tuesday that he would authorize the release of a transcript of the conversation, part of an effort to pre-empt Democrats’ impeachment push. But Democrats, after months of holding back, were unbowed, demanding the full whistle-blower complaint and other documentation about White House dealings with Ukraine, even as they pushed toward an expansive impeachment inquiry that could encompass unrelated charges.

President Trump’s personal lawyer. The prosecutor general of Ukraine. Joe Biden’s son. These are just some of the names mentioned in the whistle-blower’s complaint. What were their roles? We break it down.

Ms. Pelosi told fellow Democrats that Mr. Trump told her in a private call on Tuesday morning that he was not responsible for withholding the whistle-blower complaint from Congress. But late Tuesday, the White House and intelligence officials were working on a deal to allow the whistle-blower to speak to Congress and potentially even share a redacted version of the complaint in the coming days, after the whistle-blower expressed interest in talking to lawmakers.

Although Ms. Pelosi’s announcement was a crucial turning point, it left many unanswered questions about exactly when and how Democrats planned to push forward on impeachment.
 
Last edited:
Once the vote is taken, I’m sure many blue checkmarks will be ecstatic about it passing the House, only for their hopes to be dashed in the Senate. The salt flow is going to be great.

For how flimsy the argument is for impeachment though, I’m doubting it will pass the House (unless there are enough Democrats willing to do it, along with Never Trump Republicans and Independents). There’s a reason Nancy has been smart about not doing the impeachment inquiry for so long (until pressure got too much to handle). She knows there’s a Republican majority in the Senate, so it will die there even if it passes the House.
 
I bet they think hanging an impeachment in the house around Trump's neck will cause enough people in the GOP to turn on him and primary him for the 2020 election. They're just about exceptional enough to think that would work and would happily concede the 2020 and 2024 election as long as they get rid of orange man bad.
 
This will not have any negative effect on the Democrats.
All the democrats have to do is continuously come up with literally anything they can use against Trump. If it turns out in the favor, good, if it doesn't, it'll be buried and no one will remember it in a week.
Simply doing something like this helps them to influence public opinion. People are now talking about whether Trump should be impeached or not, *if* he will be impeached or not. It doesn't matter if its actually going to happen, simply having these conversations are bad for Trump's image and thus good for the Dems
 
What The Dems and everyone pro-impeachment expects (And I exaggerate some things for the sake of the narrative, but it isn't wrong):
  1. Public execution of DRUMPF by bitches in Handmaiden costumes.
  2. WOW LOOK AT ALL THIS DIRT ON THE REPUBLICANS, CAN WE GET RID OF KAVANAUGH NOW???
  3. Pelosi becomes Glorious Leader of the entire world, democrats and liberals take over every form of public office because the impeachment goes so well.
  4. "White nationalists" get put in concentration camps because that's within the scope of their power, right??
  5. They've really hyped this up for the people who hate Trump and Republicans/Anyone not liberal left so there's going to be a whole ton of collective autism as time goes on.

What they're going to end up with:
  1. Let's say the impeachment has some merits to move forward. They'll likely be stalled out by gathering enough clear and specific evidence that isn't just off-color comments a la Trump's sense of humor. A lot of time and resources will be wasted only for the entire show to stall out again in the Senate.
  2. It proves to the fringe voters and independents that the Democrats do not have faith in any of the current candidates despite their best efforts to mask that. If they had faith they would wait rather than trying to get Trump removed and have their candidate go against Pence.
  3. They will likely lose the House again for this dumbfuckery. Faith will be low especially after getting their voter base to ride the impeachment hype train.
  4. Trump's re-election will almost certainly be guaranteed after scaring off the independents and fringe voters who will sit out another election or vote for their third party show pony.
  5. More instability in the Democratic party. Just what they need. Everyone will be at each other's throats if things go south because even people within the leadership of the party have had blind faith that this will work.
 
This is the first time an actual impeachment inquiry has been announced to my knowledge. There's been a bunch of hearings, but no actual vote arranged for the floor of the House.
Pelosi has also been holding out against the cries for impeachment before this, so either:
1) She believes the Ukraine Affair is sufficient grounds for impeachment, quite possibly through information gathered through backchannels
2) She believes impeachment hearings will significantly damage Trump's chances of reelection more than they will damage the Democratic party's eventual candidate
3) She believes a formal settlement of the issue is needed so that the Democratic party can move on to other things
4) she is being forced into moving forward on this by leverage.
Unlike most other posters in this thread, I have a neutral opinion on this proceeding, so it will be interesting to see how things play out and if Trump is formally impeached. This has been cooking behind the scenes for a few days already, so it's interesting that no House Republican, to my knowledge, has yet moved to object. It's quite possible they know something we don't about the situation.
Maybe. But maybe the people who have been wildly flailing about impeachment of trump and kavanaugh since 2016 are just continuing to flail wildly. Seems far more likely than them secretly being competent.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Ivan Shatov
Well they did do that third one, but the court appointments are finally (if slowly) starting to pay off. I wonder if Nancy will pull up after tomorrow or if things are really gonna hit the fan.

Mostly true, but they let a number slide that they could have gone after. If the Democrats wanted to stand for something, if they really believed Trump was Cheeto McFascistHitler, they could have claimed they were trying to roll back executive power and return law making to Congress where it belongs.

That would have actually got them some Republican support, because conservatives have been complaining about executive orders since Bush's 2nd term. Then again, it also would have made Obama look bad, because Trump is following the template for expanded use of executive orders that Obama set (Bush limited his mostly to war-related stuff).

Instead of angling for the banner of "good governance", they've faceplanted in the opposite direction. TDS claims another victim/victory.
 
Just what exactly are they expecting to accomplish? They don't have the votes to impeach. Do the math, Nancy, it's some pretty basic shit. I don't think the Senate would vote to impeach even if they did find some kind of smoking gun in an impeachment investigation. All this shit does is alienate the moderates they need to win.

Cut the crap and get back to work, Christ.
 
jkehnf93.jpg

Full Article | Archive

"Don't investigate one of our politicians for threatening to shut off foreign aid for your country or we'll shut off foreign aid to your country."

Okay, first off, how is it possible to be this fucking tone deaf? Secondly, Burisma Holdings is a Ukrainian company. You can't just fucking tell a foreign government to not investigate a company in their own country and simultaneously accuse them of meddling in your own country's politics. Well, you can, but it's a dick move and it's not exactly a compelling argument.
 
Well, with so many news articles and politicians being angry about Trump, there must be something really bad he did. Anyway, Trump should resign. None of this is a good look for him.

It’s not about evidence, he just doesn’t have the trust of the public.
Poe's law strikes again. This is either fairly accurate satire or a demonstration of the target of said satire.
Trump's got a better approval rating than Obama. So by this logic he should have resigned too.
 
This will not have any negative effect on the Democrats.
All the democrats have to do is continuously come up with literally anything they can use against Trump. If it turns out in the favor, good, if it doesn't, it'll be buried and no one will remember it in a week.
Simply doing something like this helps them to influence public opinion. People are now talking about whether Trump should be impeached or not, *if* he will be impeached or not. It doesn't matter if its actually going to happen, simply having these conversations are bad for Trump's image and thus good for the Dems
I think there’s a chance you’re right, but overall I wouldn’t underestimate the potential this has to be long term negative for them.

It makes them look weak that they’re constantly throwing out half-assed attempts to undermine his credibility, especially if their claims end up as insubstantial as it looks like they’re shaping up to be.

I will admit that to someone following only the constant negative explosive headlines is going to have a lowered opinion, but how much lower can that opinion get among people alread predisposed to dislike him? What more is an impeachment call going to do that four years of constant negative coverage hasn’t already? Instead, if the DNC fails, I’d think it’s more likely that people maybe wake up to the fact that the constant extreme rhetoric they’ve seen is really just smoke out their asses. This is especially true post-Mueller.
 
Pelosi is a lot of things, but a pants on head, mouth-breathing window licker is not one of them. She knows impeachment proceedings would go nowhere before the next election and actively ruin the left’s chances of coming anywhere near the Oval Office. This is a bone tossed to the crazies in her party to shut them the fuck up for the time being.
 
I need someone to speak in simple words to me for a moment, because sometimes the particulars of what exactly constitutes "criminal behavior" in politics is indistuinishable to me from everyday behavior, but...

Just for a moment, assume that the democrats are 100% right about what Trump did: He coerced Ukraine into opening an investigation on a corrupt company that Uncle Joe's brat worked for.

Even if he did that, and maybe he did, how is that a crime? Pelosi said that she's opening these inquiries because what Trump did "benefits himself". Well, no shit. But trying to make yourself look good to your constituents is also not a crime. He didn't directly go after a political rival; the fact that one of his rivals' failures to pull out in time is in the line of fire shouldn't matter - being related to a presidential candidate cannot legally confer immunity, can it? I mean, he's just a Biden, not a Kennedy.
 
Just what exactly are they expecting to accomplish? They don't have the votes to impeach. Do the math, Nancy, it's some pretty basic shit. I don't think the Senate would vote to impeach even if they did find some kind of smoking gun in an impeachment investigation. All this shit does is alienate the moderates they need to win.

Cut the crap and get back to work, Christ.
Well I will say it seems to be working on some of the University type affluent white people, but they were already in the bag for the democrats anyway. One of them started yelling at me about it how "this is a breach of American fairness and decorum" and how we should be doing what's best "all people not just citizens or residents" when I told them I thought Trump was doing an OK job and said that this was probably not what happened as presented and if it was, then it wasn't even close the worst thing people with power in the US have done this week. Of course they thought the Obama 'chill till I win the next election' comments to Russia and the Biden comments to get the prosecutor fired in the first place were totally kosher and didn't see any irony there.

TL;DR - It might be bug meat for the base.

Pelosi said that she's opening these inquiries because what Trump did "benefits himself". Well, no shit. But trying to make yourself look good to your constituents is also not a crime.
Yeah that wording weirds me out too. Is he not supposed to do things that benefit him while in office? I get not wanting him to hold important deals at bay for naked political gain, but that's hardly new in politics and likely not what happened.
 
How many calls were there? Because now I'm seeing comments to the effect of "well there were several calls and just releasing this one is deceiving to the Amercan people." I thought it was just the one call.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: Ivan Shatov
Back