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:
Can't get over how stupid they are over at FiveThirtyEight. If there's anything to take away from these impeachment hearings it's how exceedingly unimpressive the people regarded as "experts" are, be they political pundits, academics or diplomats.

No you dumb motherfucker, it was not notable that Karlan called it bribery. Not at all. Not even a little bit.
Screenshot_2019-12-04-20-45-25_kindlephoto-112480989.png
 
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...sadly I...*sniff*....don't like Trump!
Honey, sweetie, I love you, but please copy and paste the articles. I don't like giving news sites ad revenue.
 
Democrats: We're going to present three TDS-suffering academics who has been major campaign contributors and been pushing for impeachment themselves since almost the very day Trump got elected.

Republicans: We're going to present a guy who didn't vote for Trump and admits he doesn't like the guy and thinks he's done a lot wrong.


Can't get over how stupid they are over at FiveThirtyEight. If there's anything to take away from these impeachment hearings it's how exceedingly unimpressive the people regarded as "experts" are, be they political pundits, academics or diplomats.

No you dumb motherfucker, it was not notable that Karlan called it bribery. Not at all. Not even a little bit.
View attachment 1037082

Instead of a democratic politician it's a democratic academic who has been bought and paid for by democratic politicians. So much more non-partisan!
 
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.
You know, I dont agree with everything you have said, but I appreciate all the sources and certainly a different point of view. The full story is somewhere between left and right, and one would be a fool not to want to see both sides of the country

You (and others) took the time to reply to my question. I appreciate this.

Honestly all of the Dem candidates have some skeletons in their closets OR major flaws going against the beliefs of their diverse and inclusive voters).

2020 will be a repeat of 2016. Either a scandal breaks/is manufactured, or the Hispanic and Black voters refuse to vote for a gay man.
 
Man, if you thought listening to a bunch of crybaby, blue-blooded government functionaries whinge about how much it hurt their fee-fees to be put out of the loop was a monotonous and dreadful affair that revealed how over-stuffed and counterproductive the foreign policy agencies are.... then BOY, watching these quack professors sure said something about what the hell is wrong with the education system. So fucking glad I got out of that hellscape during the far more tolerable, in retrospect, Bush Derangement years. Being in college now must be like tap dancing in a minefield in cement clown shoes made of debt.

If this is how nutty these credentialed fucking people are in public, how insane do you think they are when given power and authority over other people? I refuse to call these losers witnesses, none of them can bear witness to a goddamn thing, they're just pundits there to give the opinion of the political party that sent for them. I honestly did not expect the Democrat professors to be that blatantly batshit. I figured they'd try to go the scholarly, mature approach. Holy fuck, was I wrong; is this what twitter has done to people? I guess after the Schiff junta failed the order went out that they wanted it jazzed up for those sweet, sweet TV soundbites so they can pretend like they are accomplishing something. It was truly embarrassing.

I'm of a mixed bag on the Republican-invited lawfag. They also invited a Democrat lawyer, but compared to the fucko whackjobs that the committee Democrats invited, this guy actually seemed rational. But all he really proffered was, essentially, that 'sure, I guess you could do this, but I don't think you actually want to try to open pandora's box with such weak hands. because it will fuck up the future.' He tried to rationalize with people who are so consumed with momentary power that they may not stop at anything to grind the axes that fit the chip in their shoulder. I guess that was the Republican strategy. Whether it was better to invite a rational, Democrat-aligned squish over some fire-breathing shit-kicker, who knows, but it was certainly more boring.

And MEANWHILE, in stupid race hustler land:

 
Last edited:
So I was on Twitter and saw that another Impeachment hearing was happening and the spergs were out again. But then I also saw that Barron Trump and Greta "the Great Austimo" Thunberg were being mentioned. Color me surprised that apparently people were comparing how Barron is being treated to Greta was treated. I have no knowledge about what was happening with the former but the latter I do know and I agree with the sentiment that this child should not be the face of Climate Change (with a mural in some libcentral city like Putin). Can someone fill me in what happened in the hearing that involved Barron and how much are people being spergs about comparing him to Greta and the kids in ICE centers? Not to mention how Hunter hasn't been present for these hearings since he is the prime reason for these?

Also is it bad that to actually wish that Trump pulled a Hitler with the people involved with the hearings? It's just been going on with so little results that it's too sad to laugh but too funny to ignore it completely.
 
Can someone fill me in what happened in the hearing that involved Barron

One of the alleged-constitutional professors the Democrats invited today, a woman -no doubt a childless man-hater, because she looks like she smells like cat piss and lentils- sneered, in response to an ignorant question from ignorant media whore and funeral-crasher Sheila Jackson Lee about how the Constitution doesn't allow for kings, about how just because Donald Trump named his son Barron doesn't mean he gets to make him one.

She caught hell, and Melania Trump called her out on her shit, so she was made to issue an apology in the same way that all people who lack genuine remorse do. Like a cunt:

I want to apologize for what I said earlier about the president's son. It was wrong of me to do that. I wish the president would apologize, obviously, for the things that he's done that's wrong, but I do regret having said that.

Also, a baron only has one r. Bitch.
 
Last edited:
One of the alleged-constitutional professors the Democrats invited today, a woman -no doubt a childless man-hater, because she looks like she smells like cat piss and lentils- sneered, in response to an ignorant question from ignorant media whore and funeral-crasher Sheila Jackson Lee about how the Constitution doesn't allow for kings, about how just because Donald Trump named his son Barron doesn't mean he gets to make him one.

She caught hell, and Melania Trump called her out on her shit, so she was made to issue an apology in the same way that all people who lack genuine remorse do. Like a cunt:



Also, a baron only has one r. Bitch.
Ah backhanded compliments, just as I expected. Also "apologize for the that he's done that's wrong" talk about being specific, it's so easy to tell what she's- she could've said literally any "ORANGE MAN BAD" thing like fucking ICE, like a lot of Never-Trumper spergs do, but she literally went into the vaguest direction that can let him off of it.
 
There seems to be another controversy brewing. Apparently a Adam Schiff used government resources to spy on Devin Nunes, and one or more Journalists and published their supposed call records. For those that missed it, there is no set of circumstances under which this can be viewed as even marginally legal.
 
Profs make impeachment case; Democrats say they’re all in

WASHINGTON (AP) — Three leading legal scholars testified Wednesday that President Donald Trump’s attempts to have Ukraine investigate Democratic rivals are grounds for impeachment, bolstering the Democrats’ case as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi made sure they’re prepared for that momentous next step.

Yet a fourth expert called by Republicans at the Judiciary Committee warned against rushing the process, arguing this would be the shortest of impeachment proceedings, with the “thinnest” record of evidence in modern times, setting a worrisome standard.

Meeting behind closed doors ahead of the initial Judiciary hearing to consider potential articles of impeachment, Pelosi asked House Democrats a simple question: “Are you ready?”

The answer was a resounding yes.

Though no date has been set, the Democrats are charging toward a Christmastime vote on removing the 45th president. It’s a starkly partisan undertaking, a situation Pelosi hoped to avoid but now seems inevitable.

Trump is alleged to have abused the power of his office by putting personal political gain over national security interests, engaging in bribery by withholding $400 million in military aid Congress had approved for Ukraine; and then obstructing Congress by stonewalling the investigation.

Youtube video thumbnail


Across the Capitol on Wednesday, the polarizing political divide over impeachment, only the fourth such inquiry in the nation’s history, was on display.

At the Judiciary hearing Democrats sided with the scholars who said Trump’s actions reached the Constitution’s threshold of “bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Republicans pointed to the lone professor they were allowed to invite, who said impeachment was not warranted.

Democrats in the House say the inquiry is a duty. Republican representatives say it’s a sham. And quietly senators of both parties conferred on Wednesday, preparing for an eventual Trump trial.

“Never before, in the history of the republic, have we been forced to consider the conduct of a president who appears to have solicited personal, political favors from a foreign government,” said Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., as he gaveled open the landmark House hearing.

Nadler said Trump’s phone call seeking a “favor” from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy wasn’t the first time he had sought foreign help to influence an American election, noting Russian interference in 2016. He warned against inaction with a new campaign underway

“We cannot wait for the election,” he said. “ If we do not act to hold him in check, now, President Trump will almost certainly try again to solicit interference in the election for his personal political gain.”

Trump, attending a NATO meeting in London called the hearing a “joke” and doubted many people would watch because it’s “boring.”

Once an outsider to the GOP, Trump now has Republicans’ unwavering support. They joined in his name-calling the Judiciary proceedings a “disgrace” and unfair, the dredging up of unfounded allegations as part of an effort to undo the 2016 election and remove him from office.

“You just don’t like the guy,” said Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the top Republican on the panel. Trump rewarded some of his allies with politically valuable presidential tweets as the daylong hearing dragged into the evening.

Despite the intent of America’s Founding Fathers to create a durable system of legal checks and balances, impeachment is an admittedly political exercise. Thus Pelosi asked her still-new majority if they were willing to press onward, aware of still-uncertain electoral risks.

At the Democrats’ private morning meeting, support for the impeachment effort was vigorous, though voting to remove Trump could come hard for some lawmakers in regions where the president has substantial backing.

The Democratic lawmakers also delivered a standing ovation to Rep. Adam Schiff, whose 300-page Intelligence Committee report cataloged potential grounds for impeachment, overwhelmingly indicating they want to continue to press the inquiry rather than slow its advance or call a halt for fear of political costs in next year’s congressional elections. The meeting was described by people familiar with it, who were unauthorized to discuss it by name and were granted anonymity.

Meanwhile, Trump’s team fanned out across the Capitol with Vice President Mike Pence meeting with House Republicans and White House officials conferring with Senate Republicans to prepare for what could be the first presidential impeachment trial in a generation.

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone, who has declined for now to participate in the House proceedings, relayed Trump’s hope that the impeachment effort can be stopped in the House and there will be no need for a Senate trial, which seems unlikely.

White House officials and others said Trump is eager to have his say. Sen. Roy Blunt, R-Mo., said, “He feels like he has had no opportunity to tell his side of the story.”

Trump lambastes the impeachment probe daily and proclaims his innocence of any wrongdoing at length, but he has declined to testify before House hearings or answer questions in writing.

At the heart of the inquiry is his July 25 phone call asking Ukraine to investigate rival Democrats including Joe Biden. Trump at the time was withholding $400 million in military aid from the ally, which faced an aggressive Russia on its border.

At Wednesday’s session, three legal experts called by Democrats said impeachment was merited.

Noah Feldman, a Harvard Law School professor, said he considered it clear that the president’s conduct met the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Said Michael Gerhardt, a University of North Carolina law professor, “If what we’re talking about is not impeachable ... then nothing is impeachable.”

Pamela Karlan, a Stanford Law School professor and former Obama administration Justice Department official, drew criticism for mentioning Trump’s teenage son, Barron, in a wordplay, violating an unwritten but firm Washington rule against dragging first family’s children into politics.

The only Republican witness, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, dissented from the other legal experts. He said the Democrats were bringing a “slipshod impeachment” case against the president, but he didn’t excuse Trump’s behavior.

“It is not wrong because President Trump is right,” Turley said. “A case for impeachment could be made, but it cannot be made on this record.”

New telephone records released with the House report deepened Trump lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s known involvement in what investigators call the “scheme.”

Asked about that, Trump told reporters he doesn’t know why Giuliani was calling the White House Office of Management and Budget, which was withholding the military aid to Ukraine.

“You have to ask him,” Trump said. “Sounds like something that’s not so complicated. ... No big deal.”

Based on two months of investigation sparked by a still-anonymous government whistleblower’s complaint, the Intelligence Committee’s Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report found that Trump “sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process and endangered U.S. national security.” When Congress began investigating, it says, Trump obstructed the investigation like no other president in history.

Republicans defended the president in a 123-page rebuttal claiming Trump never intended to pressure Ukraine when he asked for investigations of Biden and his son.

Democrats once hoped to sway Republicans to consider Trump’s removal, but they are now facing an ever-hardening partisan split over the swift-moving proceedings that are dividing Congress and the country.

While liberal Democrats are pushing the party to incorporate the findings from former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and other actions by Trump, more centrist and moderate Democrats prefer to stick with the Ukraine matter as a simpler narrative that Americans understand.

Democrats could begin drafting articles of impeachment in a matter of days, with a Judiciary Committee vote next week. The full House could vote by Christmas. Then the matter would move to the Senate for a trial in 2020.
Full Article | Archive
"Trump is alleged to have abused the power of his office by putting personal political gain over national security interests, engaging in bribery by withholding $400 million in military aid Congress had approved for Ukraine; and then obstructing Congress by stonewalling the investigation."

That is single-handedly the strangest definition for "bribery" that I think I've ever seen. I didn't actually think that they'd be insane enough to want to push this into a Senate trial, but it looks like they're planning to actually do it. No matter how many signs he put up, how many neon lights or megaphones he blared begging for them to try and impeach him, they ignored every single one of what should have been massive red flags and barreled straight ahead anyways.

There's a very good reason that he wanted them to go for it, and if they're actually stupid enough to vote for it, they're going to learn very quickly that they never should have sent this to the Senate.
 
Are you going to keep the denial up until orange man is actually put in jail?
Dude, the reason people speculate it’s not going to the Senate is because it’s going to backfire hilariously and despite Democrats being memed as terminally stupid they’re not actually that stupid.

If they gonna do it anyway, it’s still hilarious.
 
"It'll never go to the senate, th-there's no case! There's nothing actionable! The democrats have nothing!"
"A-actually, w-we wanted you to make impeachment official the whole time! I'm not owned, I'm not owned!"
Are you going to keep the denial up until orange man is actually put in jail?
@Ashy the Angel is fun. You're boring. Do a flip, faggot.
 
"It'll never go to the senate, th-there's no case! There's nothing actionable! The democrats have nothing!"
"A-actually, w-we wanted you to make impeachment official the whole time! I'm not owned, I'm not owned!"
Are you going to keep the denial up until orange man is actually put in jail?
That is because we thought they had some semblance of self-preservation, this is political Mutually Assured Destruction. Washington DC is the most corrupt place on the planet and now Both sides get to play the arms race of Who is the most corrupt fucker in the city.

PS. IT IS JOE BIDEN.
 
Back