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:
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?

the Democrats don't believe the Bidens did anything wrong which means any investigation talk is just to smear Biden's campaign. they also really hate trump. That's really it.
it's not about fairness or anything like, it's just they really want to win 2020 because 2016 was very big setback.
 
Last edited:
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.
Hispanics also hate tags.

It's like double self own. Buttfagi is actually a plastic cutboard white politician plus gay tag. The dude is someone you'd see from Futurama episode where two identical politicians have exact same position but just a degree of it. He is fucking boring but safe.

Yet super liable to his gayness
 
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.

This isn't "a country". All of this is purely for Trump's political gain. Literally nothing that Trump is doing in Ukraine benefits America whatsoever. This is simply about the upcoming 2020 election and gathering dirt on Biden to use because Trump sees Biden as the presumed front-runner and the biggest challenge to his campaign. The funniest part about this is all of this is highly unnecessary. At this point a piece of wet toilet paper covered in that blue juice they use in cleaning commercials could beat Joe Biden. He sorta jumped the gun on all of this, but that's really been his style the entire presidency. Go balls out first and deal with the consequences later.

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.

The problem with this comparison is that Obama wasn't up for re-election when the presumed investigation went down, and Trump himself broke the """"story"""" once he'd already won. This was then immediately debunked by the Department of Justice:

Of course later after the shitstorm had died down he claimed he had been "misinterpreted"

You're trying to compare an investigation Trump SAID Obama maybe sorta probably did that ended up having no effect on the election to Trump's current play for re-election by taking out his number one political opponent, which has led to actual consequences and impeachment hearings with actual evidence and witnesses. Its really not comparable. Trump is a vindictive little shit and tends to hyperfixate on people he thinks wronged him or are threats, like Obama, Hillary and now Biden. He wants to presumably expose their corruption, but he's so bad at it he's actually now going through impeachment because the people he hired and surrounded himself with turned out to be even MORE corrupt than his opponents.

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?
Of course not. As a matter of fact the president should be allowed to investigate opponents. What he isn't allowed to do it use other countries as chess-pieces in order to do so. Including with-holding aide for political favors looking into someone who just so happens to be your opponent in an upcoming election.

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.

You nailed it. And as a matter of fact the people can decide for themselves. Today you can pick and choose which news stories support your narrative and disregard all information to the contrary. The problem comes in when a President bribes a country to do his bidding, instead of it happening organically.
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?
I know this quote is worn out by now but he actually lost the popular vote. So to say that most of America supports him is sort of a misnomer. If America was a PURELY democratic country then he wouldn't have won in the first place. So saying its "overriding the democratic process" doesn't make sense, because the electoral college already does that.

So no, the public didn't elect him, if you want to break it down to the nitty-gritty. Our system is a series of compromises between the popular vote and proportional representation that makes sure huge population centers don't have more voting power than smaller populations in midwestern states. The "democratic will of the people" often times means jack shit. Just ask any red voter in a blue state, or vice versa.

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?
Yes, Bloomberg is a massive conflict of interest. But he's also not the president. Unfortunately once you're elected a different set of rules apply to you, since you just so happen to essentially now run the most powerful country on the planet. Sucks for him, tbh.
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?
See that's the thing...an investigation into the company Hunter worked for already happened. Multiple times.

Corruption was found, and the company had to pay out of the nose for it, but nothing that could be linked in a surefire way to Hunter Biden.


Ukraine themselves said they were mostly interested in the period BEFORE Hunter got hired.


And as a matter of fact, Joe Biden himself put pressure on Ukraine to fire their top prosecutor because he had been accused of blocking corruption investigations. Apparently, Biden wanted more transparent investigations into Ukraine, something that doesn't line up with Trump's new narrative of Joe and Hunter being pro-corruption.

Is it still sketchy as fuck and most likely corrupt? Yes. Should Biden's campaign be tanked for it? Probably. Did Trump fuck up on investigating it so badly that he's getting impeached? Yup. With the information we have now it paints Trump's insistence on investigating these things in a purely political light. Why else dig into old, closed investigations that already happened? Is he really concerned about fighting corruption...or is he just kicking up old dirt in order to slam someone he perceives as a threat?

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?
I mean its pretty much an open secret at this point that Republicans could give a shit about any of the institutions of American governance when they threw their weight behind someone who quite literally doesn't give a shit about doing things the normal way. They've defied subpoenas, refused votes, obstructed and pretty much done all kinds of crazy shit to prop up Trump.


For me its not so strange to see how Republicans could now be facing such claims from people. They only care about protecting Trump at this point, whether he's guilty or not, because he's the last hope they have before they never win another election in their lifetimes.
 
This isn't "a country". All of this is purely for Trump's political gain. Literally nothing that Trump is doing in Ukraine benefits America whatsoever. This is simply about the upcoming 2020 election and gathering dirt on Biden to use because Trump sees Biden as the presumed front-runner and the biggest challenge to his campaign. The funniest part about this is all of this is highly unnecessary. At this point a piece of wet toilet paper covered in that blue juice they use in cleaning commercials could beat Joe Biden. He sorta jumped the gun on all of this, but that's really been his style the entire presidency. Go balls out first and deal with the consequences later.



The problem with this comparison is that Obama wasn't up for re-election when the presumed investigation went down, and Trump himself broke the """"story"""" once he'd already won. This was then immediately debunked by the Department of Justice:

Of course later after the shitstorm had died down he claimed he had been "misinterpreted"

You're trying to compare an investigation Trump SAID Obama maybe sorta probably did that ended up having no effect on the election to Trump's current play for re-election by taking out his number one political opponent, which has led to actual consequences and impeachment hearings with actual evidence and witnesses. Its really not comparable. Trump is a vindictive little shit and tends to hyperfixate on people he thinks wronged him or are threats, like Obama, Hillary and now Biden. He wants to presumably expose their corruption, but he's so bad at it he's actually now going through impeachment because the people he hired and surrounded himself with turned out to be even MORE corrupt than his opponents.


Of course not. As a matter of fact the president should be allowed to investigate opponents. What he isn't allowed to do it use other countries as chess-pieces in order to do so. Including with-holding aide for political favors looking into someone who just so happens to be your opponent in an upcoming election.



You nailed it. And as a matter of fact the people can decide for themselves. Today you can pick and choose which news stories support your narrative and disregard all information to the contrary. The problem comes in when a President bribes a country to do his bidding, instead of it happening organically.

I know this quote is worn out by now but he actually lost the popular vote. So to say that most of America supports him is sort of a misnomer. If America was a PURELY democratic country then he wouldn't have won in the first place. So saying its "overriding the democratic process" doesn't make sense, because the electoral college already does that.

So no, the public didn't elect him, if you want to break it down to the nitty-gritty. Our system is a series of compromises between the popular vote and proportional representation that makes sure huge population centers don't have more voting power than smaller populations in midwestern states. The "democratic will of the people" often times means jack shit. Just ask any red voter in a blue state, or vice versa.


Yes, Bloomberg is a massive conflict of interest. But he's also not the president. Unfortunately once you're elected a different set of rules apply to you, since you just so happen to essentially now run the most powerful country on the planet. Sucks for him, tbh.

See that's the thing...an investigation into the company Hunter worked for already happened. Multiple times.

Corruption was found, and the company had to pay out of the nose for it, but nothing that could be linked in a surefire way to Hunter Biden.


Ukraine themselves said they were mostly interested in the period BEFORE Hunter got hired.


And as a matter of fact, Joe Biden himself put pressure on Ukraine to fire their top prosecutor because he had been accused of blocking corruption investigations. Apparently, Biden wanted more transparent investigations into Ukraine, something that doesn't line up with Trump's new narrative of Joe and Hunter being pro-corruption.

Is it still sketchy as fuck and most likely corrupt? Yes. Should Biden's campaign be tanked for it? Probably. Did Trump fuck up on investigating it so badly that he's getting impeached? Yup. With the information we have now it paints Trump's insistence on investigating these things in a purely political light. Why else dig into old, closed investigations that already happened? Is he really concerned about fighting corruption...or is he just kicking up old dirt in order to slam someone he perceives as a threat?


I mean its pretty much an open secret at this point that Republicans could give a shit about any of the institutions of American governance when they threw their weight behind someone who quite literally doesn't give a shit about doing things the normal way. They've defied subpoenas, refused votes, obstructed and pretty much done all kinds of crazy shit to prop up Trump.


For me its not so strange to see how Republicans could now be facing such claims from people. They only care about protecting Trump at this point, whether he's guilty or not, because he's the last hope they have before they never win another election in their lifetimes.
lol Holy shit is this what you faggots in your hobo caves discuss and fabricate.

lol your life is so shit. I pity you.
 
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?
allow me to answer all that with a single answer: orange man bad is their reason for everything.
 
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.

You mean what every American President before Trump (especially Obama) and innumerable American politicians have done?
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.

Also Hunter Biden also worked with John Kerry's kids on similar deals around the world
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?

that is their logic
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.

Also Foreign countries have been meddling in our elections for over 100 years off and on (and so have we to 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?
They consider our democratic processes illegitimate because the wrong outcome was produced

and they arent making an effort to fix that
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?


"Technically" no. But the way Bloomberg is handling it makes it look like it is
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?
Trump isnt super popular, neither is biden
 
Apparently the latest IMPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH witness can't even walk on the same side of the street as a Trump building

... and just went after Baron Trump during this... hearing? Panel? Subcommittee discussion?

I'm pretty sure normies, or moderates, or what not, aren't going to be cool with that. But then again, Orange Man Bad.
 
Apparently the latest IMPEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEECH witness can't even walk on the same side of the street as a Trump building

... and just went after Baron Trump during this... hearing? Panel? Subcommittee discussion?

I'm pretty sure normies, or moderates, or what not, aren't going to be cool with that. But then again, Orange Man Bad.
Baron is using his galaxy brain tismo powers to mastermind all this across time.
 
Professor Pamela S. Karlan is seething, fuming, VIBRATIN' Trump Derangement Syndrome. I don't know why the democrats chose such a clearly biased and unpleasant seether for this part of the shampeachment. The one for the Republicans, who said he didn't event vote for President Trump but that being mad isn't a sufficient basis for impeachment, like DUH, is obviously better, than some ugly whiner yammering about President Trump's family. She's such a triggered wineyenta about President Trump that she can't even walk near TRUMP BUILDINGS. Ahahahahaha! What a LOSER.
This is all a pageant and beauty contest and theater. Why did Nadler pick such a bristling loser?
 
Making the rounds on reddit today:


AT&T says it was ‘required by law’ to turn over the call records featured in the House Intelligence impeachment report

‘Like all companies, we are required by law to provide information to government and law enforcement agencies.’


That’s Jim Greer, a spokesman for AT&T, reportedly responding generically to a question from Talking Points Memo about whether the company T, +1.69% had been subpoenaed for the call logs that became a conspicuous element of the impeachment report released Tuesday afternoon by the House Intelligence Committee.

The logs showed apparent and previously undisclosed contacts, for example, between the House committee’s ranking member, Rep. Devin Nunes, and both Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, and the since-indicted Giuliani associate Lev Parnas; between Giuliani and the Office of Management and Budget, which is believed to have actively held up the congressionally apportioned military aid to Ukraine; and between Giuliani and the White House, including reported calls to the Situation Room. (See the full text of the House Intelligence Committee report, including the call logs.)

MW-HW295_giulia_20191203165858_ZT.jpg
HPSCI
Giuliani phone records from Aug. 8 of this year.
“In all cases,” the AT&T spokesman said, according to the Talking Points Memo report, “we ensure that requests for assistance are valid and that we act in compliance with the law.”

Read on: Appeals court sides with Congress in battle for Trump’s bank records

Two options.

1. AT&T is using this as an excuse to STICK IT TO ORANGE MAN BAD
2. AT&T fell for the Democrats' bluff about this being totes legal goiz
 
Beanie Man continues to be shocked and appalled, but still supportive.

Beanie Man will never admit to voting Trump. He thinks it gives him some sort of cred with the left, not realizing he's been "Alt-Right" for years now. The only reason they haven't given him the Andy Ngo treatment is he doesn't actually do on the ground reporting anymore.

Having said that, I bet when he gets in that booth next year... he does. Or at least votes 3rd party. He won't admit it, until maybe in 2020/2021 when the insanity boils over again. He's the very definition of a burned ex-leftist who is socially conditioned to support the left still because "they're the good guys."
 
Professor Pamela S. Karlan is seething, fuming, VIBRATIN' Trump Derangement Syndrome. I don't know why the democrats chose such a clearly biased and unpleasant seether for this part of the shampeachment. The one for the Republicans, who said he didn't event vote for President Trump but that being mad isn't a sufficient basis for impeachment, like DUH, is obviously better, than some ugly whiner yammering about President Trump's family. She's such a triggered wineyenta about President Trump that she can't even walk near TRUMP BUILDINGS. Ahahahahaha! What a LOSER.
This is all a pageant and beauty contest and theater. Why did Nadler pick such a bristling loser?

Nixon (in 1968) through cutouts spoke to the North Vietnamese Government and extended the vietnam war

please show me one thing trump has done that bad
 
  • Disagree
Reactions: Your Weird Fetish
He hasn't really done anything too bad. The worst stuff he does is stuff related to Israel and Saudi Arabia and Egypt and its not really stuff he is doing, he's just along for the ride on it and can't really do anything about it without getting assassinated, like Yemen.
Apart from that I'm not aware of any violated laws or really bad legislation that was passed.
 
lol Holy shit is this what you faggots in your hobo caves discuss and fabricate.

lol your life is so shit. I pity you.
Amazing, fact filled rebuttal lmao. Good for farming upboats though.

In other news, Devin Nunes did an oopsie!


As another poster mentioned, the House Intelligence Committee obtained call logs from AT&T showing Devin Nunes, the top Republican on the impeachment panel and one of its biggest critics, had extensive communication with Rudy Guiliani and Lev Parnas who you'll recall is one of Guiliani's strongmen. Lev Parnas was the connection between Guiliani and Ukraine and acted upon his discretion to pressure Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden (They also worked to get the former ambassador fired as well). Both Parnas and another spook got arrested before they tried to flee the country and were charged with trying to funnel money from foreign governments to US officials in exchange for political favors (like ousting the ambassador).


What's interesting about this is that this now implicates a sitting member of the impeachment panel in the entire mess itself. It actually positions him as a key player in all the corruption as one of the people who helped Trump extort Ukraine to get dirt on the Bidens. Of course, he kinda sorta doesn't remember any of these calls?


And Fox news has swooped in to save the day, on schedule, with an excuse that BLOWS EVERYTHING WIDE OPEN: Maybe someone else used his phone????


As sort of a distraction from this Devin is currently suing CNN:

Which is REALLY funny, because part of the basis of the CNN story is Lev Parnas himself, who Nunes is now throwing under the bus in the suit. Parnas had just agreed to essentially tattle on Nunes' involvement. Narnas' attorney even dunked on Nunes for being apart of the committee investigating the corruption...WHILE BEING APART OF THE CORRUPTION.


The lawsuit seems to be some kind of weird instinctive defense mechanism in response to his involvement with the corruption being exposed by the House Committee report.and This isn't the first time Nunes has thrown around lawsuits that obviously would go nowhere: he once sued twitter because there were parody accounts making fun of him by pretending to be his mom and his pet cow. I am not making this up.

Essentially this entire impeachment process has turned into a steady procession of Trump's associates imploding under their own stupidity and corruption. A lot of them seem sort of emboldened by the way nothing sticks to Trump, so they're trying to also walk on water like Jesus. They're all drowning, one by one. If you want to read the report itself, here it is:

 
I know this quote is worn out by now but he actually lost the popular vote. So to say that most of America supports him is sort of a misnomer. If America was a PURELY democratic country then he wouldn't have won in the first place. So saying its "overriding the democratic process" doesn't make sense, because the electoral college already does that.

@Ashy the Angel this is, was, and will always be THE #1 stupidest fucking argument.

He won based on the rules that all parties had established and agreed to prior to the contest. If I lose at Speed Chess I can’t then say “well, I would have won if we weren’t using timers.”

This is the presidential equivalent of “Fox Only - Final Destination”. It’s idiotic, it’s unsportsmanlike, it’s irrational, and it’s meaningless. And frankly any time that argument comes up it makes me lose respect for the person who makes it. All I can picture is a kid pouting and saying “well, I SHOULD have won”.

If you’re going to ignore all rules, why have them in the first place? #GamersRiseUp
 
Back