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:
View attachment 950318

Yup. None of this shit is trending at all in the US anymore. Not even in the extended trends. Cancel NYT is 12, but that's it.

I can't say with impunity that this is Twitter suppressing discussion of it since the Dems are getting BTFO'd something hardcore about it, but, well, I'm THINKING it real fucking hard.
Glad to see Ertz on there. But dat wobbly o-line... tick tock...
 
Wow that one is pretty good.

The profile picture makes me worry though. This person claims to be a doctor? And their picture looks like they are in some sort of medical type of situation. So why is a cellphone anywhere near that? People bring their phones into the bathroom with them.
Wow I just looked this Gu up. A total mess.
 
Trump is a Russian puppet but he also loves Ukraine. Okay.

At least when, say, far right people talk about ZOG it's more consistent than this fever dream liberals have made up like something conjured out of stacks of technothriller paperback novels of the very early 1990s. Trump is controlled by freaking Putin!!! Also ignore that American politics has lobbyists and interest groups inside the country.

People see Cyrillic and the epigenetic Cold War trauma kicks in; those damn Ivans and their backwards R’s.
Don't forget, Trump sucks Putin's cock while simultaneously bombing Syrian airfields.
 
There's been a little theory going around that establishment Democrats are using this situation to destroy the crazy socjus portions of their party. Tat they know 2020 will be Trump's and they're using these incidents and the impeachment to make the public angry at the non moderate Democrats.

I could honestly see this as the establishment Dems' "Tet Offensive". The regular North Vietnamese Army, the "professional" one, got to where they hated the Viet Cong, because the Cong were basically the local equivalent to ISIS. Oh that guy's a teacher who was educated in France? Better beat him with barbed-wire wrapped bamboo poles for a few days while we shout Maoist and Stalinist propaganda at him. Oh, that woman over there, she worked for a wealthy landowner, watching his kids? We'll just kill her and her children and leave them in a ditch. (etc.) So what they did, when they started the Popular Uprising/People's Uprising offensive was tell all the VC cadres that they had the US on the ropes (they didn't, the drawdown after the Tet Offensive was because of that dumb motherfucker Walter Cronkite, the original Fake Newsman with his "It now appears as though the Vietnam War is entirely unwinnable" bullshit), and all they had to do was conduct waves of attacks at these key points. But those key points were some of the strongest US positions in the country. So the VC got massacred and were never an effective force again in any serious way.

Pelosi might be playing the same game: create an unwinnable battle scenario (the North Vietnamese lost the Tet Offensive, but won it on the US homefront), then put the terrorists (Tlaib, Cortez, Omar) in the front lines, so they get massacred in 2020.
 
There's been a little theory going around that establishment Democrats are using this situation to destroy the crazy socjus portions of their party. Tat they know 2020 will be Trump's and they're using these incidents and the impeachment to make the public angry at the non moderate Democrats.
Not surprising the guy is a spook. This espionage has been going on for years.
I was literally talking about this idea yesterday with a friend. A large portion of their politicians who have a following have only that, a fickle fanbase of SJWs whereas the more established ones within the party would need large scandals to end their careers. Getting reckless as a group could shake off alot of the less established, more radical new bloods
 
OH. MY. GOD.

This shit really is the russian collusion all over again.

Step 1: Get a theory going that Drfumbbth is making deals with a country in eastern europe to win an election, demand impeachment.
Step 2: Get an "insider" that has "proof" of said dealings. Don't ask questions, just trust him.
Step 3: Rally up the blue checkmarks. Sharpen those pitchforks and eliminate all disenters.
Step 4: Mass protests in the streets because you are the good guys.
Step 5: "This is for real you guys! We're making history! Bernie can still win!" (YOU ARE HERE)
Step 6:
Lose your shit when nobody believes you. Blame white people.
Step 7: Find hidden sex tape of Drrramphf and use it as black mail. Post to Buzzfeed.
Step 8: MSNBC does a thing. The whole bus claps.
Step 9: Slow news week. Make shit up.
Step 10: More protests. More impeachment. More yelling. More Drubfh.
Step 11: In a desparate attempt to actually win the upcoming election cycle, put the collusion theory to rest for a moment and shake hands with republicans and claim yourself to be more center leaning then you actually are.
Step 12: "This is for real you guys! We're making history! Bernie can still win!"

And congratulations! You lost the election cycle.

You forgot Step 13: Assination attempt

Step 14: Failed said assination attempt
Step 15: Suicide
 
I could honestly see this as the establishment Dems' "Tet Offensive". The regular North Vietnamese Army, the "professional" one, got to where they hated the Viet Cong, because the Cong were basically the local equivalent to ISIS. Oh that guy's a teacher who was educated in France? Better beat him with barbed-wire wrapped bamboo poles for a few days while we shout Maoist and Stalinist propaganda at him. Oh, that woman over there, she worked for a wealthy landowner, watching his kids? We'll just kill her and her children and leave them in a ditch. (etc.) So what they did, when they started the Popular Uprising/People's Uprising offensive was tell all the VC cadres that they had the US on the ropes (they didn't, the drawdown after the Tet Offensive was because of that dumb motherfucker Walter Cronkite, the original Fake Newsman with his "It now appears as though the Vietnam War is entirely unwinnable" bullshit), and all they had to do was conduct waves of attacks at these key points. But those key points were some of the strongest US positions in the country. So the VC got massacred and were never an effective force again in any serious way.

Pelosi might be playing the same game: create an unwinnable battle scenario (the North Vietnamese lost the Tet Offensive, but won it on the US homefront), then put the terrorists (Tlaib, Cortez, Omar) in the front lines, so they get massacred in 2020.
I wasn't certain how it was going to happen, only that it was but yes. This is it exactly. This is the moment that the moderate Democrats picked to start pushing the crazies out.
 
OK, so if the impeachement goes thru Mike Pence becomes the next POTUS. So fucking what, dear Dems?
Do the Dems really think that Joe Biden would stand a chance against Pence, they can't be that kind of deluded, can't they?
All an impeachment would achive is that Trump would be gone, again, so fucking what?
The Dems will still not win the next election, period!
Speaking in long terms this impeachment movie not only will secure DJT's reelection it will also secure the next election in 2024 for Pence.
Yup, calling it right now: Pence 2024.

Also mandatory: MABA Make AOC Bartend Again!
 
  • Feels
Reactions: nanny911
10a57b57ab79175a1a840a164eb08f57.png


It really is amazing. These reporters can sit there, hammer out a line completely explaining that this document was put in a more-secure storage to prevent leaks similar to the ones that administration already had, and then go on to write all about how putting this document in there was completely unwarranted and "would limit who could view it." Yeah that's the fuckin' point, Einstein.

The entire article they wrote isn't any better. As usual they bury the lede smack in the middle of it so they can point to it later and go "See? According to this one, little bit we wrote here, we weren't wrong!" and then they immediately go back to completely ignoring everything that this person just said. It's like these people are just empty husks who have absolutely no critical-thinking skills. The article contradicts itself like three fucking times and shoves in either blatant lies or completely unresearched 'facts'.

I mean holy shit just look at this other article on the sidebar: "The New York Times was right to unmask the whistleblower." These are journalists who are honestly and seriously defending the unmasking of an official who they're still alleging did nothing wrong. They are completely and thoroughly still on his side, and yet they're openly saying, "This person has no right to anonymity and we're not obligated to protect anonymous sources."

So according to their current narrative, Right-Wingers and Trump Supporters and Trump himself are all deranged lunatics who would probably want nothing more than to murder this person for "snitching on the God-Emperor", and yet they see absolutely nothing wrong with unmasking this person and shoving them into the spotlight. Jesus Christ.
 
View attachment 950748

It really is amazing. These reporters can sit there, hammer out a line completely explaining that this document was put in a more-secure storage to prevent leaks similar to the ones that administration already had, and then go on to write all about how putting this document in there was completely unwarranted and "would limit who could view it." Yeah that's the fuckin' point, Einstein.

The entire article they wrote isn't any better. As usual they bury the lede smack in the middle of it so they can point to it later and go "See? According to this one, little bit we wrote here, we weren't wrong!" and then they immediately go back to completely ignoring everything that this person just said. It's like these people are just empty husks who have absolutely no critical-thinking skills. The article contradicts itself like three fucking times and shoves in either blatant lies or completely unresearched 'facts'.

I mean holy shit just look at this other article on the sidebar: "The New York Times was right to unmask the whistleblower." These are journalists who are honestly and seriously defending the unmasking of an official who they're still alleging did nothing wrong. They are completely and thoroughly still on his side, and yet they're openly saying, "This person has no right to anonymity and we're not obligated to protect anonymous sources."

So according to their current narrative, Right-Wingers and Trump Supporters and Trump himself are all deranged lunatics who would probably want nothing more than to murder this person for "snitching on the God-Emperor", and yet they see absolutely nothing wrong with unmasking this person and shoving them into the spotlight. Jesus Christ.
I don't get that tweet-is she trying to convince me that putting call transcripts on a secure server poses an even larger national security risk than keeping them on an unsecured server or am I having a boomer moment?
 
View attachment 950748

It really is amazing. These reporters can sit there, hammer out a line completely explaining that this document was put in a more-secure storage to prevent leaks similar to the ones that administration already had, and then go on to write all about how putting this document in there was completely unwarranted and "would limit who could view it." Yeah that's the fuckin' point, Einstein.

The entire article they wrote isn't any better. As usual they bury the lede smack in the middle of it so they can point to it later and go "See? According to this one, little bit we wrote here, we weren't wrong!" and then they immediately go back to completely ignoring everything that this person just said. It's like these people are just empty husks who have absolutely no critical-thinking skills. The article contradicts itself like three fucking times and shoves in either blatant lies or completely unresearched 'facts'.

I mean holy shit just look at this other article on the sidebar: "The New York Times was right to unmask the whistleblower." These are journalists who are honestly and seriously defending the unmasking of an official who they're still alleging did nothing wrong. They are completely and thoroughly still on his side, and yet they're openly saying, "This person has no right to anonymity and we're not obligated to protect anonymous sources."

So according to their current narrative, Right-Wingers and Trump Supporters and Trump himself are all deranged lunatics who would probably want nothing more than to murder this person for "snitching on the God-Emperor", and yet they see absolutely nothing wrong with unmasking this person and shoving them into the spotlight. Jesus Christ.

At this point I just want to know if these reporters actually believe what they say. Do they selectively interpret the world around them? Or is it just outright lies and propaganda? I used to think they were lying, but I'm beginning to think they actually believe they are speaking the truth.
 
I’m curious how this situation is being viewed IRL, because ultimately those are the people that matter when it comes to stuff like this. Anyone wanna chime in with opinions heard from friends, coworkers, etc.?
 
I’m curious how this situation is being viewed IRL, because ultimately those are the people that matter when it comes to stuff like this. Anyone wanna chime in with opinions heard from friends, coworkers, etc.?
A random black guy walked into my office yesterday. He told me to turn on the news quick because CNN was breaking news that the President would be impeached and removed for. He was literally one of those 85 IQ types though.

My AWL university employed family are glued to CNN and called me about it yesterday for some reason (probably to gloat). I told them that a lot of holes had been shot through it and nothing was going to happen. I told them a couple of the holes had been made like the timing of the Ukraine knowing about the hold up in military funding, the transcript looking fine to me, that there were a lot of inaccuracies of the "whistle blower report," and that the "whistle blower" appeared to be some CIA agent with a political agenda. Of course they told me I was watching biased news, didn't believe any of it, and went back to watching CNN. They are the definition of middle class shitlib though and have minor meltdowns about Trump from time to time.
 
Back