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:
Black, female, establishment, middle aged instead of elderly.
In that clip of her debating Gabbard she looked so much older and very tired. Trump's doge-like would make her seem like Hillary 2.0.
It could be him being sarcastic, or him demoralizing the left.
I've always picked him as predicting the most entertaining option, so that he can write a book about it and make bank if he's proved right. I think him and Anne Coulter both got lucky backing Trump early and it made them think they had a political intuition they don't have.
 
  • Thunk-Provoking
Reactions: spiritofamermaid
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..
If they start focusing on local elections in a few states then probably. Now that the movement isn't dependent on an old man who might drop dead tomorrow there's time to build.
 
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.

Remember back a few months... For a while Harris seemed like a strong contender. Then the 2nd debate happened, and Tulsi gutted her live on television. Then she started to take a bunch of cheap shots back at Tulsi, each one making her more and more pathetic looking.
 
I don't see Trump losing to Biden. Biden is a fucking creeper, a disgusting old man who can barely speak in public. Trump will wipe his ass with Biden and call it a day.



The DNC does not want this anywhere near the Senate. That would be a fundamental mistake. The Republicans would use it as an opportunity to rip open the Bidens with no risk to themselves, because they know they'll never impeach, If they let it get to the Senate, they have lost. Period.
Nominating Biden won't hurt anyone since white ass liberal kids don't even vote anyway. It's the middle class Joes and Helen.
 
The thing about Joe Biden is that he's a package deal. If the DNC gets Joe Biden, they also get Hunter Biden. Every single political person in DC (and Delaware) absolutely hates Hunter Biden. He's a creep and an asshole, and a huge political liability to Granpa Joe. If the DNC backs Biden, they know they're going to get a general election cycle full of stories about Hunter. Conservative media will overturn every slimy rock Hunter crawled under, every dirty dollar he's made, every story of him smoking crack in strip joints, every woman he cheated on his wife with, every law he broke business-wise. And who will pick up those stories and hammer them home, emphasizing his sleaze and forcing Granpa Joe to defend him? Donald J. Trump, shitposter-in-chief.

The DNC knows this very well. I don't know who the nominee will be, but I think the DNC liked Biden just fine as a nominee until this impeachment nonsense started and Hunter Biden became a household name. I think the DNC also didn't expect Biden to be so lackluster as a candidate. From the dentures slipping to the eye exploding to the Corn Pop story to his incoherent speaking, the DNC didn't expect any of it. But now they have it. And they have a choice to make: Support Biden and go down to sure defeat in the general election, or pick someone else. I wonder what Obama's telling them behind the scenes? I doubt it's anything good about the Bidens, that's for sure.
 
Honestly the only real threat to Trump 2020 is Booty Gag, and he has a massive problem culling the niggers to vote for him (because they don't like fags and the id pol tendencies of the Democratic Party didn't take that into account) versus a half-dead potato nigger heretic who has a stupid fuckup of a son, some hypocritical angry socialist Jew who got cucked from his own podium by two angry mulattas last cycle and some dumb bitch LARPing as a Native American. If I were a Democrat, I would try to get the Jim Webbs of the party back and fix my political movement to be more populistic and at least re-brand it to be more marketable to a good chunk of people across the isle like Trump did with Business Dems. You know you're fucked when Joe Biden is your best candidate.
 
Honestly the only real threat to Trump 2020 is Booty Gag, and he has a massive problem culling the niggers to vote for him (because they don't like fags and the id pol tendencies of the Democratic Party didn't take that into account) versus a half-dead potato nigger heretic who has a stupid fuckup of a son, some hypocritical angry socialist Jew who got cucked from his own podium by two angry mulattas last cycle and some dumb bitch LARPing as a Native American. If I were a Democrat, I would try to get the Jim Webbs of the party back and fix my political movement to be more populistic and at least re-brand it to be more marketable to a good chunk of people across the isle like Trump did with Business Dems. You know you're fucked when Joe Biden is your best candidate.

It's gonna be Hillary. You know it, I know it, she knows it. This is all just a distraction so that she can swoop in and "save" the country.
 
I feel like the only one who has a chance against Trump is Warren. The women who see her as a torchbearer for Hilary will vote for her by default, and while some people hate her, she’s far less polarizing than Clinton or Biden, simply due to being less well-known. It’s always worth remembering that a lot of votes weren’t pro-Trump, they were anti-Clinton.

At this point, mild indifference may be the only chance for success.

I have doubts she’ll win the primary though, so it’s a moot point.
 
In that clip of her debating Gabbard she looked so much older and very tired. Trump's doge-like would make her seem like Hillary 2.0.

I've always picked him as predicting the most entertaining option, so that he can write a book about it and make bank if he's proved right. I think him and Anne Coulter both got lucky backing Trump early and it made them think they had a political intuition they don't have.
Ann Coulter just picked Trump to be contrarian and get attention. She probably said to herself, 'What is the edgiest thing I can say? I know, how about I say Trump will win?' It's a low risk, high reward move. If Trump didn't win, would anyone ever remember she wrongly predicted he would? No.

Scott Adams just happened to be right. How he came to his conclusion Trump would win based on his use of persuasion techniques is a little iffy, but at least you understand the thought process behind it and at least sorta makes sense. But that happens a lot. People wind up at the right answer by a path that is suspect.

I think the person who called it best was Mary Matalin. This interview is so epic and telling of the left's smugness and self assuredness. Some points she has a hard time specifically expressing why, but that's because she has such a feel for it that it's been internalized. She can just look at the situation and go, 'I can't explain it, but I know it when I see it and I'm telling you.' But the hosts are so incredulous and dismissive. It's fun to look back at it with hindsight.
 
I feel like the only one who has a chance against Trump is Warren. The women who see her as a torchbearer for Hilary will vote for her by default, and while some people hate her, she’s far less polarizing than Clinton or Biden, simply due to being less well-known. It’s always worth remembering that a lot of votes weren’t pro-Trump, they were anti-Clinton.

At this point, mild indifference may be the only chance for success.

I have doubts she’ll win the primary though, so it’s a moot point.

Cept too many of the Money Democrats in New York have vowed to sit out or vote for Trump if they put up Warren.
 
I feel like the only one who has a chance against Trump is Warren. The women who see her as a torchbearer for Hilary will vote for her by default, and while some people hate her, she’s far less polarizing than Clinton or Biden, simply due to being less well-known. It’s always worth remembering that a lot of votes weren’t pro-Trump, they were anti-Clinton.

At this point, mild indifference may be the only chance for success.

I have doubts she’ll win the primary though, so it’s a moot point.
She's quit the race, so that's a no-go. I'm an idiot, that was Harris.
 
Ann Coulter just picked Trump to be contrarian and get attention. She probably said to herself, 'What is the edgiest thing I can say? I know, how about I say Trump will win?' It's a low risk, high reward move. If Trump didn't win, would anyone ever remember she wrongly predicted he would? No.

Scott Adams just happened to be right. How he came to his conclusion Trump would win based on his use of persuasion techniques is a little iffy, but at least you understand the thought process behind it and at least sorta makes sense. But that happens a lot. People wind up at the right answer by a path that is suspect.

I think the person who called it best was Mary Matalin. This interview is so epic and telling of the left's smugness and self assuredness. Some points she has a hard time specifically expressing why, but that's because she has such a feel for it that it's been internalized. She can just look at the situation and go, 'I can't explain it, but I know it when I see it and I'm telling you.' But the hosts are so incredulous and dismissive. It's fun to look back at it with hindsight.
Oh my goodness, this is almost a textbook case of how not to be a host. Even ignoring the subject matter, the entire point of having a guest on a show is to let them speak, maybe ask a question or two at most to prevent the conversation from having dead air (which in a normal conversation isn't bad, but in talks like this it's wasted time).

They ask her a question, and halfway (or even just a fourth!) of the way through her answer they interrupt, saying that she's super dumb! I will admit that I was expecting her to say HK-47's post on Politics of Fear (which I 100% recommend everyone read), but from the little she spoke she showed that at the very least she was listening to Trump herself, and not learning about him secondhand or from cultural osmosis.

Half her answer wasn't even an answer, it felt like, because she had to defend herself from them judging her for her answer. I honestly am surprised (and have some respect for her composure) because if I were there I honestly would've (hopefully not in a hostile manner) asked them why they asked me the question if they were going to get upset/frustrated with me for what I answered. I get more than enough of that at home.

Like, from that 5 minute clip I learned more about how the hosts felt about that answer than what she said, which is the OPPOSITE of what having a guest should be. A good host should make the audience feel that the episode/segment was the "Mary Matalin Show". Not so much that they are invisible, but that the focus should be on the guest, and the host is merely a platform or vehicle for the guest.

It's probably a little autistic, but my only experience really with talk shows was the Talking Dead show, for Walking Dead fans. I watched it when it was a new show, and I view it as a perfect balance between an entertaining host, but when his guests would talk, all attention was given to the guest(s).

Rate me MOTI if necessary, because this is probably not informative at all and basically just a rant, but I'm honestly a little insulted on her behalf. What's also amusing is that, while I would be loathe to say that it was because she was a woman and they were men, this is almost a textbook example of mansplaining. Maybe it would be better referred to as "liberal-splaining"?
 
Okay, so I have been struggling to understand American politics. Sorry if this is a stupid set of questions, but I would really like an answer.

1. Should a country not weigh leverage over another country for its own interests? Has this not happened before, a thousand times in history? It seems like a move that places their own country first - a mindset which is what even many Democrats are currently running for office on.

2. If your answer to the above question is that this move only benefits the self interests of Trump, I understand this concern. I believe the awarding of the summit to Trump Hotels is a corrupt move. I think it is not far fetched for him to do other selfish actions. However, what if Biden and his son actually did some sketchy shit in Ukraine? Is it not different than Obama investigating Trump? It was clear Obama didn't want Trump to win. One cannot claim just because he was not running for office, that Obama was an unbiased source.

3. Which leads me to my next question: If the issue is that it is a political rival, does that make anyone running against Trump immune to investigation?

4. Is it because he has asked a foreign power to "meddle"? So what if a foreign country breaks the news on a huge scandal. American media is censored to hell with narratives (see: prince andrew/epstein leak). The people are supposed to decide for themselves, right? The american people had a right to know about Hillary's dirty laundry, did they not? Seems like a bunch of politicians worried that their own sins will have light shed on them.

5. I think it silly that politicians believe the public to be so stupid that they need protecting from dissenting opinions and sources. Did the public not elect Trump? Is removing him from power not the government overriding the democratic process of the people?

6. By definition of election meddling, Is Bloomberg running not a conflict of interests, given Google has Bloomberg News as one of the top suggested when I am browsing news articles? Is this because hes American, not Russian?

7. If people are so proAmerica, they should be trying to investigate if Biden and his son genuinely did commit a crime. If there is no basis, then Trump looks like a fool with his own witch hunt. Instead all the attention is on the fact that he asked for this investigation. Does this not scream guilt on Biden's behalf?

8. Any good quotes from Clinton and friends (during the cold war) about the ridiculousness of McCarthyism? This is just like the cold war all over again, except it is not conservatives who are accusing others of being traitors, or fake Americans. It is the other side. How does the narrative flip so completely without people stopping and wondering WTF is going on?
 
Back