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:
It is fizzling out; a week or so back one of the Dems "aha, gotcha!" witnesses testified that he pressured Trump to tell him whether or not he wanted something in exchange for the military aid, and Trump rather testily told him "No, I don't want anything at all." He tried to do a "takesies backsies" and say that "everyone" knew there was a give/take situation surrounding the aid but he can't link it directly to Trump or anyone close enough to matter to Trump.

What they (the Dems) are going to (try) and do is rattle Trump by picking off, say, Giuliani or someone else very close to him (or several someone elses) to send a signal. "We could've shot you..." But they're forgetting (as per usual) that Trump doesn't rattle like that. Censure and move on is probably their next step.

And remember: we're not even at the stage where this is an impeachment investigation. The Dems are just trying to collate information to see if they should have a hearing to determine if they should have an impeachment hearing. This is all handwaving, and the only reason anyone should feel compelled to testify is because they're afraid the optics for refusing will be bad. But as I said before, at this stage the Dems could demand @Null, @HK-47, me, General Grant's Horse and the ghost of George C. Scott testify and if we all wanted to refuse, and then chip in and hire a skywriter to fly over the Capitol building and write LOL GET FUCKED DEMOCRATS, there'd be nothing they could do about it. They are literally doing what mid-sized city cops do to try and pin down a suspect when they have no actual legal recourse, it's following the by-numbers steps. Sigh, cross arms, tell you to come in and answer questions, break out a tape recorder with a theatrical flourish, etc. etc. Fun fact: did you know that if the police ask you to "come in and answer a few questions" you're under no obligation to do so, and if you go, you can get up and walk out?

This is what the Dems are doing right now, and it's going to lead nowhere but a loss of the Senate come 2020. If the democrats think that a blustering, populist Trump who had a mandate and simple majority was capable of ramming through anything and ruining them in the public arena, they haven't even imagined in their worst nightmares what a blustering, populist Trump who is now a Lame Duck president not interested in being elected backed up by a congress and senate full of republicans whom they tried to have arrested and tarred with monikers like "traitors" and "treasonous" are going to do. It's going to be nuclear war.

The Dems are like cops intimidating witnesses with a lie detector gizmo. It's a useless prop, none of the results are admissible as evidence, and they can't legally force anyone to submit to testing, but, it's all they got, so polygraphs it is, and they'll just pray that a few suckers are dumb enough to fall for it.
 
The Dems are like cops intimidating witnesses with a lie detector gizmo. It's a useless prop, none of the results are admissible as evidence, and they can't legally force anyone to submit to testing, but, it's all they got, so polygraphs it is, and they'll just pray that a few suckers are dumb enough to fall for it.

Precisely. It's funny when it's on The Wire or Homicide: Life on the Streets but when used to depose a sitting president, a lot less so.
 
I wonder this much, when Democrats took back the house in 2018, which has historically happened in the first terms of Obama and Clinton, dont know about Bush, where the opposition took back the house. They spinned it as its over for Trump and hes done in 2020. So why not go with the momentum and throw the impeachment at his face. Wasnt it one of the squad that said we will impeach the motherfucker and all the neoliberals think they in Harry Potter.

Anyway Jimmy Dore has a critical view as always of this impeachement.

 
it's racist of you to reference greek mythology instead of the illustrious , you're obviously a nazi and hillary clinton will send a death squad after you once she is elected.


What? What? I don't understand this at all. Is this bizarro world in which they're actually just pretending this is all the republican's fault? What???
See thats how DIABOLICAL trump is

he tricked all these SMART (really the Best people) in DC into THINKING he was doing something illegal "without any evidence to back it up" because he KNEW that congress would set up impeachment so he could use it to beat them in congressional elections
 
It's kind of amazing reading this thread and then watching the news. In the UK the media is treating this like such a fait accompli that the line of questioning is "Could additional charges be added for obstruction of justice?", when as far as I can see they've produced absolutely nothing of substance for the underlying charge used to initiate impeachment in the first case. Seriously, is it just that one phonecall? Because the transcript looked pretty innocuous.
 
It's kind of amazing reading this thread and then watching the news. In the UK the media is treating this like such a fait accompli that the line of questioning is "Could additional charges be added for obstruction of justice?", when as far as I can see they've produced absolutely nothing of substance for the underlying charge used to initiate impeachment in the first case. Seriously, is it just that one phonecall? Because the transcript looked pretty innocuous.
They havent even produced any evidence of Obstruction of Justice

they produced a 1/16 chance that an argument might be made that a judge would accept to allow the argument to advance
and there is like a 50/50 chance (at the absolute best). So thats like a 1/32 shot on the highest end. DoJ doesn't file charges on odds that bad
 
White House counsel Pat Cipollone responded to Jerry Nadler's invitation to testify before the House Judiciary Committee and, over the course of four pages, basically calls both Jerry Nadler and Adam Schiff punkass bitches -in a pointedly worded legal sense- and telling Nadler to go fuck himself unless he actually allows true due process and fairness going forward.

It is too late to cure the profound procedural deficiencies that have tainted this entire inquiry. Nevertheless, if you are serious about conducting a fair process going forward, and in order to protect the rights and privileges of the President, we may consider participating in future Judiciary Committee proceedings if you afford the Administration the ability to do so meaningfully. As you have acknowledged, the House's "power of impeachment ... demands a rigorous level of due process," and in this context "due process mean(s) ... the right to confront witnesses against you, to call your own witnesses, and to have the assistance of counsel." So far, all of these rights have been violated. Even at this late date, it is not yet clear whether you will afford the President at least these basic, fundamental rights or continue to deny them.
 
Last edited:
At this rate I kinda want them to approve their impeachment nonsense. Once this ends up in Front of the Senate and Chief Justice Robert's all their shit will have to come out. It's like the seems have conveniently forgotten this fact.
 
It's kind of amazing reading this thread and then watching the news. In the UK the media is treating this like such a fait accompli that the line of questioning is "Could additional charges be added for obstruction of justice?", when as far as I can see they've produced absolutely nothing of substance for the underlying charge used to initiate impeachment in the first case. Seriously, is it just that one phonecall? Because the transcript looked pretty innocuous.
The UK media, while worthless as fuck in its own right, is orders of magnitude more fucktarded when it comes to covering the land of borgars, and ESPECIALLY whomever president borgar is. I have sperged about how it and euro media as a whole tends to handle the US before...

The Bush Era's impact on european media really cant be overstated.

Basically euro media sources both right wing and left wing were extremely anti murican and anti bush for various reasons during this time and combined with the fact that the most popular american news sources in Europe at the time were all left wing and anti bush, and that this was all long before the Internet as a source for news really became a thing, this resulted in a uniformly and hyperbolically negative view of a violently imperialist and fascist nuke happy "Jesusland" among europeans since there was literally zero counter point to any of the hysteria unless you had cable and accidentally found yourself watching Fox News.

Incidentally this is why if you watch any british tv show from the bush era you will more likely than not get some astonishingly cringy jabs at the "stupid and evil americans"

Once Obama came along it was a straight up religious mania for how "murica was now redeemed and Obama would bring peace and prosperity to the planet" among these media sources and the politicians/celebs dependant upon them, and this only really started dying down as the Internet became a greater and greater factor in how people got their news and thus they were able to access sources that contradicted the messiah narrative.

TLDR Both left wing and right wing media in europe hate the US for various dumb reasons, which has naturally led them to latch on to left wing media in the US given how these speds tend to hate the US just as much and use them as their *only* sources of news regarding america, resulting in a universally and hyperbolically negative portrayal of the country. Obama was an exception to this because he was portrayed as the anti-bush "redeeming messiah" who would finally make the US into a europe style cucktopia....which meant that the shock of a Drumpf was a thousand times worse.

Hell this is why I remember the day of his inauguration the BBC loudly declaring at least a dozen times in a single news snippet "THIS IS A PRESIDENT ENDORSED BY THE KU KLUX KLAN AND OTHER HATE GROUPS" out of nowhere, solely because there was so much absolute fucking fury in every newspaper editor room in the country. Basically imagine a continent where the only source of news regarding the US and Trump was CNN and MSNBC and you will understand why its reporting is so fucking cringy
 
They havent even produced any evidence of Obstruction of Justice

they produced a 1/16 chance that an argument might be made that a judge would accept to allow the argument to advance
and there is like a 50/50 chance (at the absolute best). So thats like a 1/32 shot on the highest end. DoJ doesn't file charges on odds that bad
 
I've always preferred this version because of the visuals


I thought we told you not to cite Dr. Steiner's Theory of Mathematic Relative Probability of Victory at Total Nonstop Action's 2008 'Sacrifice' Pay-Per-View. To lump him in with this sort of pseudointellectual bullshit is highly disrespectful to one of the greatest mathematicians of our time.

Neck yourself.
 
If you want some further hilarity, apparently Jerry Nadler released the list of witnesses for HIS Impeachment Hearings to start next week. It's all Academic Professors. No actual witnesses of fact. Nobody who has any information about Trump, Ukraine, Biden, etc. Jonathan Turley is one. Nadler is trying to find MSNBC style talking heads to swear that "Orange Man is Bad Must Impeaches!!!!"
 
Some Republican senators recently questioned whether Kyiv tried to sabotage Donald Trump’s campaign in 2016. But the GOP-led Intelligence Committee looked into the theory, and found scant evidence to support it.
Republican-controlled Senate Intelligence Committee thoroughly investigated that theory, according to people with direct knowledge of the inquiry, and found no evidence that Ukraine waged a top-down interference campaign akin to the Kremlin’s efforts to help Trump win in 2016.

Two things. One, what exactly is the "kremlin efforts" they're referring to as documented. Two, aren't they contradicting their own reporting from 2016?

A Ukrainian-American operative who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee met with top officials in the Ukrainian Embassy in Washington in an effort to expose ties between Trump, top campaign aide Paul Manafort and Russia, according to people with direct knowledge of the situation.

The Ukrainian efforts had an impact in the race, helping to force Manafort’s resignation and advancing the narrative that Trump’s campaign was deeply connected to Ukraine’s foe to the east, Russia. But they were far less concerted or centrally directed than Russia’s alleged hacking and dissemination of Democratic emails.

Oh, right. It was the ROOSKIE HACK they are referring to. The one that was definitely proven and not still baseless conjecture. They use the same "people with knowledge of the situation" line in both articles as well.

Neat.
 
If you want some further hilarity, apparently Jerry Nadler released the list of witnesses for HIS Impeachment Hearings to start next week. It's all Academic Professors. No actual witnesses of fact. Nobody who has any information about Trump, Ukraine, Biden, etc. Jonathan Turley is one. Nadler is trying to find MSNBC style talking heads to swear that "Orange Man is Bad Must Impeaches!!!!"

They seem more like a kid who has to submit a book report, and just decided to pad it out with useless bullshit when they ran out of things to say.

"In summary Trump is a man of contrasts"
 
Again with the Mueller report? How many times are they gonna go to the well?

What's that definition of insanity? Doing the same thing and expecting a different result? The country is already bored with their shit and they want to rehash old news?
Screenshot_2019-12-02-21-25-20_kindlephoto-8507158.png
 
Back