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:
Unless they're going to do something really stupid, like hold a mock trial and call it an impeachment. Hm. Could they be that dumb? To hold a pretend impeachment in the House, "convict" trump and then screech to high heaven with claims of a coup and democratic illegitimacy when he doesn't stand down?
Please Santa, I've been an okay boy this year. I'd like just this one thing.

Okay, and maybe a new recurve bow, but that's all.
 
If the Democrats fail to impeach, then they will lose a number of own side votes due to depressed voter turnout.

If the Democrats do try to impeach, then they will lose a number of independents who will then vote for their opponents instead.

Better to take the loss of mental patients' votes than to give up votes to your opponent.
 
I forsee a lot of pencil-necked psychology professors breaking the Goldwater Rule during his hearings.


If Pelosi passes an impeachment vote this obviously partisan the scope of Dem establishment politicians that would be in McConnel's sights goes way beyond just the Bidens. Corruption via money laundering in Ukraine implicates the Clintons, Obamas, and most of the other higher-ups in the party.

sure but the GOP has to have the balls to call the witnesses that show those implications
 
sure but the GOP has to have the balls to call the witnesses that show those implications
I think this impeachment attempt is egregious enough for them to re-discover their spines. It's been happening more frequently ever since the Kavanaugh confirmation.
 
sure but the GOP has to have the balls to call the witnesses that show those implications
And they don't, because it would mean their own corruption would get revealed as well, you start tugging on the Biden's corruption strings..you end up in China. You end up in China..you end up with Turtleneck's Kid.
 
While I really dont want to give into hubris, I have to entertain thoughts like these in looking ahead at a possible post Trump 2020 win and say that maybe if you are right and if the justice dems take over the party after the dem establishment's second out, then..... perhaps....and I really dont like saying this.... it might be better if trump loses in 2020

Like obviously I really fucking want him to win, both for short term chuckles and medium term security in knowing clinton esque psychos are out of the white house, but once his term is up and he steps down in 2024 the future rests in whomever the republicans put in place to succeed him...and even now when they have rediscovered the barest trace of a spine I dont fucking trust them. Besides which, presidential fatigue is definitely a thing and its entirely possible if not likely that even a good candidate will still lose in the face of a sated republican base being less eager to take the time to go out and vote come 2024.

Anne-frankly, if a republican candidate in 2024 were to lose to a justice democrat candidate and all the moronic authoritarian nightmare shit that entails, then shit is going to get real fuckin bad for everybody in borgarland and beyond unless both houses are solidly republican enough to keep them in check.

However if Trump loses to Biden in 2020, then the crusty old establishment side of the democrat party, that for all its faults is not likely to actually try and force through the crazy wannabe stalinist shit we have seen SJW media and academia demand, will reassert control of the throne for another ten years and the justice democrat side will be utterly discredited with their dumb identity politics fuckery.

If the justice dems were to take over the party, it should have been back in 2017. This would have meant that them losing to drumpf in 2020 would utterly discredit them and maybe allow for somebody halfway boring and sane to retake the reigns of power in preparation for a run against whomever the republicans run after Trump

I dunno, maybe im overthinking things, and maybe the opposite will happen should Trump win in 2020 and the moderates take control over the democrats, but its worth looking ahead and preparing ourselves for whatever horrible shit could come about after even the most satisfying victories
Look, on one hand I agree with you. Perhaps, though, the time of Trump 2020 (and the enduring two legislative elections that will occur under him [2020 and 2022]) will show the Democrats being able to strangle the AOC-wing. Really, though, the best way to see how much of a grip that wing has is to see how many Justice Democrats are put in during the 2020 elections. How many seats are up? I know that AOC's district doesn't exist anymore, because they redid it to have it be somewhere else, so there's that.

Also:
4cf.jpg
 
There isn't going to be an impeachment vote. It'll just go on and on and on, hearings upon hearings, requests for documents, "subpoenas" that they know won't be answered. They've learned one thing from Mueller: They don't actually have to go through with anything, they don't need to have proof of anything, as long as they keep the process going they can leak "bombshell" revelations to their lapdog press dummies over and over and over again. The last thing the Democrats want is for this to go anywhere near the Senate. This will continue until the elections. Or so they think. Trump is going to beat them like red-headed stepchildren. He has the bully pulpit, he has the big stick here, and he will use it. Over and over and over, like he's done from the moment he released the transcript.

Really, though, does anyone buy doomsday eyes Adam Schiff and shlumpy weirdo Jerry Nadler as defenders of the Republic? The more the public sees of Schiff and Nadler the more they hate them.
 
Turns out that little freakazoid Adam Schiff hired CIA """whistleblower"""" Eric Ciaramella's bestest buttbuddy Sean Misko directly onto his staff the EXACT DAY after Donald Trump's July 25th phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, even though it was initially put out as public record that he didn't join until after the "whistleblower" complaint was filed in August.


How convenient that all these ex-NSC just keep finding their way straight to Adam Schiff's most inner circles.
 
People download Reddit extensions on their browser just to have it highlight users who are subscribed or post on r/thedonald. All so they can ignore their statements or to randomly call them out on random subreddits not even about politics.

The disturbing thing is that users actually support it
You have to understand the sentiment on Reddit. Everyone on Reddit is begrudgingly using the site. The less Reddit you have to browse, the more your quality of life improves. Hence extensions that remove parts of the site are considered a positive.
Reddit is so anti discussion it makes me wonder why they have a comment section. Power tripping mods, downvotes allowing hiding of wrongspeak, purges of entire post comment sections. If all they’re going to post own “What a cute doggo/pupper” or sing song lyrics or make media references why have a comment section to begin with? Fucking abhorrent. I actually use reddit sometimes but only to keep up with manga or very occasional meme gold nuggets in the shitflow. If the rhetorical “you”, as most redditors do, use the site with the mindset of paying literally any attention to comments you’re using the site wrong. It’s hot trash and it’s no wonder a site that so actively promotes censorship has such an anti trump mindset.
 
Reddit is so anti discussion it makes me wonder why they have a comment section. Power tripping mods, downvotes allowing hiding of wrongspeak, purges of entire post comment sections. If all they’re going to post own “What a cute doggo/pupper” or sing song lyrics or make media references why have a comment section to begin with? Fucking abhorrent. I actually use reddit sometimes but only to keep up with manga or very occasional meme gold nuggets in the shitflow. If the rhetorical “you”, as most redditors do, use the site with the mindset of paying literally any attention to comments you’re using the site wrong. It’s hot trash and it’s no wonder a site that so actively promotes censorship has such an anti trump mindset.

There was definitely a turn with Trump. I don't doubt that the democrats made clear they expected social media to start purging wrong-thinkers, or else left-friendly institutions (most of them) would start breathing down their neck. Look at the treatment Facebook has gotten, what with the media trying to make an example of them for being so stupid as to dare to allow Trump and pro-Trump opinions equal access. Once 2020 starts in earnest they're going to accelerate further in trying to remove anything not-anti-Trump off the internet.

That and shills. I suspect ShareBlue (and others) have enormous resources to shilling/botting social media sites like Reddit, as well as buying out mod accounts to purge dissent.
 
There was definitely a turn with Trump. I don't doubt that the democrats made clear they expected social media to start purging wrong-thinkers, or else left-friendly institutions (most of them) would start breathing down their neck. Look at the treatment Facebook has gotten, what with the media trying to make an example of them for being so stupid as to dare to allow Trump and pro-Trump opinions equal access. Once 2020 starts in earnest they're going to accelerate further in trying to remove anything not-anti-Trump off the internet.

That and shills. I suspect ShareBlue (and others) have enormous resources to shilling/botting social media sites like Reddit, as well as buying out mod accounts to purge dissent.


See, I dont think anyone actually told the MSM and Social media types to start censoring shit. They do it all on their own for their own various reasons.

While Shareblue and such have a small impact I truly believe that most lefties would happily censor the fuck out of anything that dis-agrees with their world view. They even self-censor automatically on fully controlled websites. Its just part of their group think methods and in-group world view.

It used to be to the liberals we looked to protect us from tyranny but now they've somehow become the party pushing it.

Right side of history my fat ass...
 
Last edited:
There was definitely a turn with Trump. I don't doubt that the democrats made clear they expected social media to start purging wrong-thinkers, or else left-friendly institutions (most of them) would start breathing down their neck. Look at the treatment Facebook has gotten, what with the media trying to make an example of them for being so stupid as to dare to allow Trump and pro-Trump opinions equal access. Once 2020 starts in earnest they're going to accelerate further in trying to remove anything not-anti-Trump off the internet.

That and shills. I suspect ShareBlue (and others) have enormous resources to shilling/botting social media sites like Reddit, as well as buying out mod accounts to purge dissent.


And it's truly amazing they think that is going to make any difference. People still went out and supported Trump despite the mainstream trying their hardest to make Trump and anyone who supported him into pariahs in 2016. They've never let up since and you know that anyone who didn't cave to social shaming the first time sure as shit isn't going to cave now. It's just going to galvanize his base and recruit fence-sitters who don't like the precedent that kind of censorship sets.
 
Based Dilbert Merchant thinks that Harris was the only threat Trump was facing
Harris? How does he reckon that? His "master wizard" guff from 2016 made sense with Trump, but I can't see Harris using amazing pursuasion powers on anyone not looking for a plea deal.

Once 2020 starts in earnest they're going to accelerate further in trying to remove anything not-anti-Trump off the internet.
My conspiracy brain suggests that's my Larry Page is out at Google. They're going to get down and dirty in 2020 and don't want to be implicated.
 
to see how many Justice Democrats are put in during the 2020 elections.
Is that still a thing? I figured all that JD money would be hoovered up by the presidential race, since there's so many candidates and only so much prog dosh to spread around..

Harris? How does he reckon that? His "master wizard" guff from 2016 made sense with Trump, but I can't see Harris using amazing pursuasion powers on anyone not looking for a plea deal.

My guess is that he saw her as the candidate that the most people would suck it up and vote for. She checked the intersectional boxes, sucked neoliberal cock behind closed doors, and gave lip service to populist legislation. Everybody's 3rd choice is probably as good as you can get at uniting people.
 
Harris? How does he reckon that? His "master wizard" guff from 2016 made sense with Trump, but I can't see Harris using amazing pursuasion powers on anyone not looking for a plea deal.


My conspiracy brain suggests that's my Larry Page is out at Google. They're going to get down and dirty in 2020 and don't want to be implicated.

Black, female, establishment, middle aged instead of elderly. Compare that to a senile pervert in Biden, and aged screeching commies in sanders and Warren.

She ticked the required demographic boxes to get the support of the base even before accounting for anything else.
 
Harris? How does he reckon that? His "master wizard" guff from 2016 made sense with Trump, but I can't see Harris using amazing pursuasion powers on anyone not looking for a plea deal.

It could be him being sarcastic, or him demoralizing the left.

She also did offer the law and order candidate, basically being Hillary's chosen successor. As mentioned, she ticked the boxes -- had the neolib support, had the support of the bigots in the dem party, etc etc.

And that comment is based on one he made before Bloomberg showed up and changed the calculus -- but there's no fucking way the DNC's Antifa wing will accept Bloomberg, so...
 
Back