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:
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:

Nigger, why the fuck would you put this much faith in another impeachment attempt when the last one failed and that one arguably had more substance to it than this one? Are you so dumb and assmad that you can't see basic patterns?
 
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:

So much sperg. So little substance. lol.
 
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:

So we're going to ignore the quite obvious corruption regarding epstein and basically any politician he's ever come into contact with, which is the entire congress, and we're going to also ignore bidens own corruption because orange man bad? okay buddy. sure. and I'm the literal son of motherfucking zeus and have a literal harem of 10/10 babes.

seriously, grow up. what the fuck are you doing? of course there's corruption, anyone that thinks that trump isn't dirty is retarded. anyone that thinks biden isn't is retarded. this has been an established fact since.... 1970? 50? it's been a really long time since it's been accepted that all our politicians are shitty people that probably are degenerates too. the only question ever has been to what depth.

yet here you are, running laps, screaming how you finally got one like a tard thats lost his wrangler. stop it. its embarressing. not even the funny kind that I can sit and laugh at, but the kind that just makes me sad and depressed and frankly a bit mad because it reminds me that for all the progress in society and science we've made, there'll always be idiots like you to drag us backwards.
 
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
Clinton was impeached for perjury lol.
They didn't try to impeach Nixon for the Pentagon Papers anyway, it was for obstruction of justice. Johnson, despite being a terrible person by modern standards, was also impeached primarily for subverting Congress. Pretty much everything from Reagan onwards had just as fucked up shit going on in the background, but it led nowhere in terms of impeachment. Blundered Cold-War-motivated foreign policy fucked up the world and required more blundered corruption to cover it up, for decades after. So generally the executive branch really has a large degree of freedom in being corrupt. Kids just don't learn about it in school. Like it or not, impeachment seems more to do with disrupting the checks and balances processes.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: FierceBrosnan
Nigger, why the fuck would you put this much faith in another impeachment attempt when the last one failed and that one arguably had more substance to it than this one? Are you so dumb and assmad that you can't see basic patterns?

Hey don't blame me! I'm just reporting the news. I know usually @It's HK-47 does this sorta thing but he's been a bit quiet for the past few days so I thought I would pick up the slack. Geeze, talk about shooting the messenger! Are you guys gonna have another three-page spergout about how dumb I am or are you gonna talk about the news? No wait, we already know the answer to that one lmao
 
Clinton was impeached for perjury lol.
They didn't try to impeach Nixon for the Pentagon Papers anyway, it was for obstruction of justice. Johnson, despite being a terrible person by modern standards, was also impeached primarily for subverting Congress. Pretty much everything from Reagan onwards had just as fucked up shit going on in the background, but it led nowhere in terms of impeachment. Blundered Cold-War-motivated foreign policy fucked up the world and required more blundered corruption to cover it up, for decades after. So generally the executive branch really has a large degree of freedom in being corrupt. Kids just don't learn about it in school. Like it or not, impeachment seems more to do with disrupting the checks and balances processes.
actually it may do fuck all.... because can't trump just resign and run again? i mean you can't impeach a president if he isn't a president. you could arrest him but that doesn't make him inelligble to become one.... and doing it may actually be the straw that breaks the camels back.

of course i'm not an expert. that's just speculation. maybe they can still impeach trump just so he can't run again and then arrest him. i dunno.
 
Clinton was impeached for perjury lol.
They didn't try to impeach Nixon for the Pentagon Papers anyway, it was for obstruction of justice. Johnson, despite being a terrible person by modern standards, was also impeached primarily for subverting Congress. Pretty much everything from Reagan onwards had just as fucked up shit going on in the background, but it led nowhere in terms of impeachment. Blundered Cold-War-motivated foreign policy fucked up the world and required more blundered corruption to cover it up, for decades after. So generally the executive branch really has a large degree of freedom in being corrupt. Kids just don't learn about it in school. Like it or not, impeachment seems more to do with disrupting the checks and balances processes.

in 1968 (before Nixon was President) he got some Taiwanesse people to reach out to the North Vietnamese Government to tell them to not make a peace deal with LBJ he would give them a better one

4 years later he gave them basically the same deal

actually it may do fuck all.... because can't trump just resign and run again? i mean you can't impeach a president if he isn't a president. you could arrest him but that doesn't make him inelligble to become one.... and doing it may actually be the straw that breaks the camels back.

of course i'm not an expert. that's just speculation. maybe they can still impeach trump just so he can't run again and then arrest him. i dunno.
Impeach =/= remove
 
This pretty much sums up today...

View attachment 1036743
thats some sad brains shit.

the point of today is to figure out if theres legal precedent to impeach potus on the issues before the panel.

they did these panels before nixon and clinton.

it wouldve been better to play a video of sondland saying he presumed everything and then ask the dem witnesses if they think its right to impeach based on presumption.
 
Hey don't blame me! I'm just reporting the news. I know usually @It's HK-47 does this sorta thing but he's been a bit quiet for the past few days so I thought I would pick up the slack. Geeze, talk about shooting the messenger! Are you guys gonna have another three-page spergout about how dumb I am or are you gonna talk about the news? No wait, we already know the answer to that one lmao
You are grossly unqualified for the position
 
actually it may do fuck all.... because can't trump just resign and run again? i mean you can't impeach a president if he isn't a president. you could arrest him but that doesn't make him inelligble to become one.... and doing it may actually be the straw that breaks the camels back.

of course i'm not an expert. that's just speculation. maybe they can still impeach trump just so he can't run again and then arrest him. i dunno.
Even if he was impeached he could theoretically run again. It would have to go through Senate to impose something like that, which is unlikely to happen. Granted I doubt running for president after being impeached would be good for public opinion. Public opinion of Clinton was fine after impeachment, but it was also at the very end of his second term and he had decent amount of bipartisan support (primarily by lying to democrats, ironically). Bush Jr, whose popularity plummeted after the recession, was also able to improve opinion after leaving office. p sure Carter is doing well on that front as well. Incumbent presidents receive more scrutiny, though.
 
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid
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"?
Imagine working for some spiffy MSM outlet and being outclassed by Ethan Ralph when it comes to interviewing political opponents,
 
Back