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:
Crossposting from the Pelosi thread.

Interesting, some were wondering why this piece of shit whistleblow was even a thing. Apparently they revised the rules so that the requirement for direct evidence was eliminated. This was done about a month ago...right about the time Schiff would have had this report land on his desk. Big Thunk 🤔.
It really looks like they changed the rules just to use this. Since everyone is wondering why the fuck they are allowing someone with 3rd party hearsay to officially whistleblow, the rule change is why. When Sean called the DNI to inquire why this occured, they let slip that it "had nothing to do with the whistleblower", in spite not being asked about it.

The IC needs to be cleaned out.
 

Interesting, some were wondering why this piece of shit whistleblow was even a thing. Apparently they revised the rules so that the requirement for direct evidence was eliminated. This was done about a month ago...right about the time Schiff would have had this report land on his desk. Big Thunk 🤔.
I'm willing to bet they had that fucker drafted and ready to hand out before that rule was removed. I mean they did EXACTLY what Trump expected them to do. A cat has less patience than these cunts.
 
Wait a minute, the guy who replaced the prosecutor who was fired wasn't even a lawyer or had any legal experience at all? How does this not raise some major alarm bells?
ss+(2019-09-27+at+05.43.28).png
 
I'm willing to bet they had that fucker drafted and ready to hand out before that rule was removed. I mean they did EXACTLY what Trump expected them to do. A cat has less patience than these cunts.
This is really looking to be beyond just Democrat incompetence at this point, but an orchestrated attempt by the incestuous IC to roll out the much talked about impeachment. We have former NSA members saying it looks like a lawyer wrote it. It has secondary hearsay and circular citations from a third party source that was coincidentally right in time and passes the new rule change, which was made on the quiet.

If this is the IC and Dems teaming up in a highly conspiratorial and blatant corrupt way to get rid of Trump before they get raped next year, they clearly didn't account for their own incompetence. They aren't smart enough to pull shit like this off without it blowing up spectacularly in their faces. There is a reason why Twitter and Google are trying to memory hole this ASAP, because they did it in such a way that a monkey can follow the trail.
 
Wait a minute, the guy who replaced the prosecutor who was fired wasn't even a lawyer or had any legal experience at all? How does this not raise some major alarm bells?
View attachment 951197
Well that blows another hole in Joe's "I wanted to get rid of him, he was corrupt". To quote Biden at the end of that magnificent self destructive speech: "He got fired and they put in someone who was solid"... and by solid he means someone who is wholly unqualified for the job which he took over.
 
I'm willing to bet they had that fucker drafted and ready to hand out before that rule was removed. I mean they did EXACTLY what Trump expected them to do. A cat has less patience than these cunts.
Heh. So they change a rule to allow their mole to launch the torpedoes.

You think maybe Trump knew what they are up to, set the trap and let them take the bait?

The Trump administration has been pitch perfect on this. Full transparency, honest answers at committee hearings, they sent a Navy Seal to appear before Schiff. All documents have been released to the public, no stonewalling, he got out ads today countering the narrative.

Can't help but think the Dems expected executive privilege claims and bad press. Their story is falling apart and Trump can claim a major victory.
 
This is really looking to be beyond just Democrat incompetence at this point, but an orchestrated attempt by the incestuous IC to roll out the much talked about impeachment. We have former NSA members saying it looks like a lawyer wrote it. It has secondary hearsay and circular citations from a third party source that was coincidentally right in time and passes the new rule change, which was made on the quiet.

If this is the IC and Dems teaming up in a highly conspiratorial and blatant corrupt way to get rid of Trump before they get raped next year, they clearly didn't account for their own incompetence. They aren't smart enough to pull shit like this off without it blowing up spectacularly in their faces. There is a reason why Twitter and Google are trying to memory hole this ASAP, because they did it in such a way that a monkey can follow the trail.

I'm still of the mind that this was an op by the DNC and Warren/et al to get rid of Biden, long before the election; and hope America's newscycle memory hole will gobble up any fallout that may blow back on Warren (or whoever).

Biden was the primary target, with Trump being one of opportunity.

This would account for Pelosi's sudden flip on impeachment; she was willing to wait & hope Trump got beat at the polls, but her geriatric feet were being held to a fire by young turks.
 
Last edited:
This is going to get nasty.

Special Counsel Robert Mueller has finally released his conclusions of the investigation into Russia’s role in the US Presidential Election 2016. The investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russians, the press reported. But there is a curious detail: most people charged have no connection to Russia, as in Manafort’s case. The former Trump campaign manager has been accused of money laundry and illegal foreign lobbying for Ukraine.

Thus, the Mueller investigation findings are leading to Kiev, not Russia. Moreover, Ukraine did admit to interfering in the 2016 US election helping the Democratic candidate, Hillary Clinton. In this regard, there are fair questions to raise: why American citizens are indicted and sentenced with less charges while the evidence of a foreign conspiracy is omitted? Where are fair debates over the issue? Why there were no special committee hearings to determine the truth?

It is clear: a new investigation is coming. The US prosecutors need to interrogate Ukrainian politicians and members of the Clinton campaign as well as to probe the activity of Ukrainian lobbyists in Washington.

Thus, the audio recording made public in the Ukrainian media was one piece of evidence of Ukraine’s interference. According to it, a person with a voice similar to the voice of the head of Ukraine’s National Anti-Corruption Bureau (NABU), Artem Sytnyk, admitted that he had supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 US election. His office was responsible for publicly disclosing the contents of the Ukrainian «black ledger», which implicated Paul Manafort, to the media. The document contained a list of secret payments made by Ukraine’s Party of Regions to Manafort.

Earlier, the county administrative court of Kyiv had pledged the director of the NABU Artem Sytnyk, and a member of the Ukrainian Parliament Sergey Leshchenko guilty of publicizing the pre-trial investigation materials concerning Paul Manafort and election interference. The information was spread illegally and inflicted damage on the foreign policy of Ukraine.

Another confirmation of the Ukrainian officials’ overt support of Hillary Clinton was the anti-Trump publications on social media. However, as soon as the Republican had won, the Ukrainian politicians, in particular, the Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine Arsen Avakov and Ukrainian MP Oleg Lyashko began to remove massively their anti-Trump narratives from their social media pages.

Certainly, the US President did not forgive the Ukrainian leadership actions. On his Twitter page, Donald Trump criticized the Ukrainian efforts to “sabotage” his campaign.

Moreover, in August 2017, it became clear that on the election day Petro Poroshenko sent Hillary Clinton a telegram, in which he congratulated her on the victory in the elections even before the announcement of the voting results. The then Minister for Foreign Affairs of Ukraine Pavel Klimkin personally delivered it. The president himself did not comment on this at all. His assistants strongly rejected all the suspicions of illegal actions during the election campaign. However, all these facts speak for themselves.

Despite this, Washington does not refuse financial assistance and cooperation with Ukraine. The intervention in the US Presidential Campaign 2016 and the leverages issues undoubtedly overshadow the current position of Petro Poroshenko. Moreover, the growing scandal related to accusations against our diplomat gives us reason to doubt the trustworthiness of the head of state and his future plans as a presidential candidate for the second term.


You probably shouldn't forget what happened with Manafort. Whom reneged on his pleas deal and was accused of informing Trump on the Mueller investigation.

Putin is very happy with Pelosi though.

The swirling "Ukrainegate" scandal is casting a dark shadow over U.S.-Ukrainian relations, at a pivotal moment in the European nation's history.

President Volodymyr Zelensky, a political novice and famous comedian, was propelled into office in April with a landslide election victory against incumbent Petro Poroshenko.

In July, Zelensky's Servant of the People party—named for the television show in which he played a history teacher who unexpectedly becomes president—swept parliament, making history as the first party to win a majority since independence.

The party ran on an avowedly anti-corruption, liberal, pro-western platform. Untainted by the endemic corruption that has long hamstrung the country, Zelensky's ambitious administration has prompted much optimism. But the challenges facing the country—not least the looming threat of Russia—remain daunting.

Crimea has been annexed and war in the east of the country still simmers. Some 13,000 people have been killed, 30,000 wounded and 1.5 million people forced from their homes. Western support is vital in helping Kyiv to try and reunite the country and end the fighting, especially American backing.

But the Ukrainegate scandal—Trump's apparent efforts to pressure Zelensky into investigating Joe Biden's son and thus interfere in the 2020 race—threatens that. Zelensky will have to tread carefully and avoid politicization of his country by partisan interests in the U.S. The issue seems set to drag on for some time yet, perhaps until the 2020 election.

The first year of any new administration is pivotal. But with the Ukraine question fast boiling down to the latest Trump scandal, Kyiv may be worried that its own challenges will be forgotten by its American friends.

Orysia Lutsevych, a research fellow at the Chatham House think tank and manager of the organization's Ukraine Forum said that the focus in Ukraine is on possible damage to the country's reputation, and concerns that it may become an instrument in U.S. political machinations.

"Trump's proposition did not come as a big shock because the story was circling in Kyiv since this spring," Lutsevych told Newsweek. "The announcement of Rudy Giuliani's visit (and its later cancelation), the removal of the U.S. Ambassador from her job—these were all pieces of the same puzzle. They testified that the White House is seeking a 'favor' and it will be a transactional relationship."

Mark Simakovsky, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, suggested there is now an "incredible risk" that the country will become politicized in the U.S. "At least in the short term, I think U.S.-Ukraine relations will suffer as a result of this ongoing investigation," he added.

Simakovsky, who also served as Europe/NATO chief of staff in the Pentagon's Office of the Secretary of Defense for Policy, said that Trump's conduct had undermined the bipartisan U.S. support for Ukraine in its reform and anti-Russian efforts.

"When push comes to shove the President was willing to risk all of that," he told Newsweek. "Ukrainians are in a really tough spot." Being outside the NATO umbrella, Ukraine cannot rely on direct U.S. and Western military support, so diplomatic backing is vital to dissuade the Russians from further interference.

But Trump's behavior shows his "huge skepticism" towards Ukraine, Simakovsky said, and his view of the country is simply a pawn in a much bigger game of power.

Zelensky and his team have to think bigger than Trump. Long-term U.S. support will require bipartisan backing for Ukraine, regardless of who is president. "The Ukrainians are on a razor's edge," Simakovsky warned.

And for many voters, the current scandal will have been the first they have heard of Ukraine for some time. Americans of all political persuasions may begin to wonder why the U.S. is spending so much money and effort supporting a country perceived as so corrupt.

"There's Ukraine fatigue already in the United States among policymakers because of a perception of Ukraine not having its own house in order," Simakovsky explained. "And I think the scandal potentially could exacerbate that."

Zelensky's job now is to try and "stay away from it," Lutsevych suggested, something which Ukraine's European partners may sympathize with. "He would be well advised to ensure that, if there is any investigation, it is done by the newly established High Anti Corruption Court rather than General Prosecutor."

"Ukraine needs to maintain by partisan support for its territorial integrity," she continued. "The impeachment [investigation] will definitely complicate the relationship, as Ukraine may be viewed as too toxic by the Trump administration."

But the impact will go beyond Ukraine. Though the U.S. has maintained and even intensified engagement in eastern Europe, other regional partners may see the scandal as evidence of Trump's reckless and transactional approach to foreign policy.

Such nations "are going to be even more sensitive to how their engagement, and how their personal engagement with president Trump, could come at the risk of U.S. presence in the region," Simakovsky explained.

Any suggestion that loyalty to Trump rather than to the U.S. will be rewarded is "a horrible impression" to leave upon partners, he added.

The situation will also leave an impression on Russian President Vladimir Putin. For The Kremlin, anything that drives a wedge between the U.S., Ukraine and the wider Western alliance will be counted as a win.

"Putin clearly benefits from the whole story as it plays into his narrative that Ukraine is pushed by the U.S. and it not really an independent state, Lutsevych noted. "It also presents the U.S. leader as a person seeking 'dirt' on his political opponents—typically Russian tactic—which supports the Russian narrative about the duplicity of the West and casts a shadow on democracy."

Its impact on U.S. politics will feed into Russia's efforts to sow confusion and chaos. Trump's engagement with both Ukraine and Russia "has put at risk our own political system because of the infighting that will go on as a result of these impeachment proceedings," Simakovsky warned.

"I think The Kremlin, more than anyone, is very happy with this turn of events, which is mostly a self-inflicted wound by the administration," Simakovsky concluded. "This didn't have to happen."

 
The problem is, this is literally the worst possible time for that, since AOC's Neo-Marxist, DSA "Squad" is making inroads in taking over.

Imagine the DNC dying because of that, and instead of throwing out AOC and the idiots that lead them down this path, they convince themselves that what they really should have done is quintuple down. Something like Labour in the UK.

Remember that the left has convinced themselves that they HAVE to go DNC or else, even if the DNC is fucking insane. They're not wrong, either -- fixing the DNC will necessitate letting the GOP win for a decade or more. Can they bring themselves to do it? With the younger voting base all being indoctrinated by literal Communist infiltration cells?

Probably not.

Gonna get a whole lot worse before it gets better.

Yeah. Old guard DNC doesn't realize the hate squatters is going to turn on them next.
 
Heh. So they change a rule to allow their mole to launch the torpedoes.

You think maybe Trump knew what they are up to, set the trap and let them take the bait?

The Trump administration has been pitch perfect on this. Full transparency, honest answers at committee hearings, they sent a Navy Seal to appear before Schiff. All documents have been released to the public, no stonewalling, he got out ads today countering the narrative.

Can't help but think the Dems expected executive privilege claims and bad press. Their story is falling apart and Trump can claim a major victory.
I've been thinking about that a lot lately and I've come to the conclusion Trump has to have a mole in the DNC somewhere.

I get that he plays dumb sometimes but his moves are too perfect, he has have some inside information.
 

God damn I hate glowers so much. The Company above all.
Screen Shot 2019-09-27 .png


I remember when the left used to be suspicious of spooks. Now they love them.
And the congress is full of literal CIA agents setting their own rules and using the MSM to control public opinion.

Screen Shot 2019-09-27 at.png


 
Last edited:
I've been thinking about that a lot lately and I've come to the conclusion Trump has to have a mole in the DNC somewhere.

I get that he plays dumb sometimes but his moves are too perfect, he has have some inside information.
Ratfucker here. I can speak to how information gets passed around.

The Democratic Party - including the DNC and state level parties - is not a monolith. There are a lot of different interests represented and not all of them align exactly with the national agenda. Think about the impact NAFTA had on union membership and you can understand the kinds of challenges that exist, it's a big country and people's toes will get stepped on.

But there's also a lot of overt racism at the top. The DNC recently had a white purge, a number of people were asked to leave so members of marginalized communities could take their place. In public, no one calls it a purge, in secret, many people damn it. News reports claimed about 6 people were impacted, the truth is different. 6 leadership positions were race swapped, but staffer positions have been going mostly to minorities. The DNC actually does keep records of race / gender for staffers in all Federal legislative offices and campaigns are encouraged to hire progressively with the implied threat of losing fundraising support. It creates a certain kind of environment.

Not everyone feels this represents progress. There are a lot of people who think the party no longer represents them and want a change. They are not prepared to buy into Conservativism but they know they can't stay where they are. Some are just looking to make the leap to private industry, others are entertaining more radical ideas that include changing their political affiliation. This is kind of normal, 90% of people involved in politics leave after a few years. But I think you'd find non-minorities are more motivated to leave right now - especially women - and that there will be an exodus after the 2020 election.

With all that context - there are a lot of people feeding information to media and opposition resources. They have a variety of motivations, the one thing that ties them together is the knowledge they will be somewhere else before long. I know a number of Pro-Trump Democrats, they are anti-progressive and believe the legislative agenda is on the wrong track. They can't be seen doing business with Trump staff, but they talk and keep it hidden. Some of them are in committed relationships and can't tell anyone, Capulets and Montegues are not exactly uncommon.

It works both ways tho, there are Never Trumpers doing the same in reverse. No one assumes anything is a secret.
 
Another update: Another trending pulled up as twitter masses are reporting that Bill Barr is also likely to be swept up as well within the matter!





Many of them still making a lot of Russia connections to Trump, I see that card is getting played again, wonder how many people they don't like being referred to as Russian bots.
 
Yeah. Old guard DNC doesn't realize the hate squatters is going to turn on them next.

To refine that a little; the old guard in Congress don't realize they're already being turned on by the DNC and their younger, more radical colleagues, who firmly believe that even working with Trump is a Ceasarian offense.

And they've been waiting for the right moment to let Pelosi hang, along with Biden. They're even willing to let Obama's legacy be ground into dust, because his apparatus (and undoubtedly the man himself) failed to ensure Clinton's election.

Schumer, on the other hand, while supporting a shellshocked Pelosi openly, seems rather nonplussed by everything.

I don't doubt the man is jaded as fuck, and he's not dumb when it comes to political longetivity... he's already thrown her under the bus, though that bus is more than a mile away yet.

I wonder if she even knows it's coming; it's not like she'll be able to get out of the way, even if she does.
 
Last edited:
065cc0c7801caa8b604a5fe4ba56a024.png


Okay, the "manufactured dirt" one is new, even though it's already been well-established that he didn't even ask for dirt, let alone "pressure them into manufacturing" any, and you already had a hearing about this and never once mentioned dirt being "manufactured." Again, if Trump is such an awful president who's mired in scandal, why do they always need to lie?
 
Back