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:
Listening to the VERDICT WITH TED CRUZ,

i think it's a shot across the bow. given what we know, it's too much of a coincidence.
Looks like Romney might be worried about a CRUZ MISSILE attack. Or Cocaine Mitch might be laying down the law. This shitshow might be wrapped up by Friday.



Also there is this clip from Aug 2019 of Bolton describing the phone call as warm & cordial.

 
Looks like Romney might be worried about a CRUZ MISSILE attack. Or Cocaine Mitch might be laying down the law. This shitshow might be wrapped up by Friday.



Also there is this clip from Aug 2019 of Bolton describing the phone call as warm & cordial.



i missed adam schiff's earlier example of President Obama and Mitt romney that facilitated Cruz's example of Obama and Romney. My Bad.

Still think it's a *wink wink* from both parties that they know something about romney and ukraine.
 
Can the Dems go Vexatious Litigant on the prez and start the whole shitshow over again with new made up charges once this is all shaken off this weekend?
 
  • Agree
Reactions: pwnest injun
I think the argument is Trump wanted something more specific, but it obviously doesn't help the case that he was trying to "extort" them into doing something they were already doing anyway of their own free will, and that he was trying to "extort" or "bribe" them using money he gave them anyway.

I also don't think Schiff's near admission that none of this would have constituted actual violations of any actual statute, but was "criminal" anyway is going to impress many people. How much shit can you think of where you could be charged, as a normal person, with a felony, for absolutely minor shit? Almost everything is a felony. So the claim that the "high crimes and misdemeanors" aspect of an impeachment need not actually be a statutory offense is, obviously, a truism, but it really invites doubt when they can't point to any actual statutes Trump violated that would give rise to a criminal prosecution of a normal person.

It's "extortion," but nothing was actually extorted. It's "bribery," but there was no actual bribe, just money from Congress that was delivered on time. You can point to a number of statutes here and say well, this one element was met. Where are the others? Where is the actual criminal offense where all elements are met?

This doesn't mean by itself, obviously, that something isn't impeachable. It doesn't even need to be against any actual law to be impeachable. But when you look at this as a normal person and think about how many things you could possibly be found guilty of a felony for, and the absolute lack of any of these actually applying to what Trump did, you have to be seriously doubtful about the validity of this bullshit.

If this impeachment actually stands, it would more or less cripple the Presidency as any President could just be impeached at will because the opposition really, really hated him and had a temporary majority in the House. That's where it's really at.

This sounds like it could be the bases for a political cartoon or something:

Pelosi: Bribery!
Trump: No bribe paid.
Pelosi: Abuse of Power!
Trump: Totally constitutional.
...
Trump: Lying under oath!
Pelosi: I’m not under oath.

I’m not planning to start a career in punditry anytime soon. Heyoo?
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: spiritofamermaid
i'm glad there are republicans calling bullshit on the Dems trying to sneak bribery and extortion under "abuse of power". It was nice seeing a WHC say something like "if you wanted to try bribery, you could've put it in the articles at anytime, you had control of the house, the process, the evidence and the witness. this would be prosecutorial misconduct in a normal trial."
 
They're worried about the whistleblower life? Weren't they asking for snowdens head during Obamas presidency?
Oh yeah, they fucking despised Snowden for leaking what he did - and unlike Tranny Manning, Snowden's shit was severe enough that in any just society he wouldn't have had to flee his country. It was what really woke me up to Obama's despicably shady side - Barack cared about face more than the Chinese do.
 
Oh yeah, they fucking despised Snowden for leaking what he did - and unlike Tranny Manning, Snowden's shit was severe enough that in any just society he wouldn't have had to flee his country. It was what really woke me up to Obama's despicably shady side - Barack cared about face more than the Chinese do.
Reminder, when Snowden was shitting on Bush they SUCKED HIS DICK, endlessly
 
Can the Dems go Vexatious Litigant on the prez and start the whole shitshow over again with new made up charges once this is all shaken off this weekend?

Well, considering the "best" evidence they had from 3 years of shaking him upside down by his gym socks and treating everything that fell out of his pockets as suspicious only was able to net them the two weakest impeachment articles ever leveled against a President, I don't know what they'd use as a "fall back" position for a fresh round if their plan is just "Moar Impeach!" .

Fall back positions are by definition weaker than your "A" plan, so what can they possibly try if their alleged best evidence includes one weak (obstruction) and one reflexive charge that justifies itself by being brought (abuse of power)?

Even though the rules of this "trial" aren't the same as for you and me, I'm pretty sure they'd NEVER be able to get over the double-jeopardy hump of just trying Trump for this Ukraine crap again, even if they were to allow witnesses next time and just put Schiff's playlist on "Shuffle"
 
Reminder, when Snowden was shitting on Bush they SUCKED HIS DICK, endlessly

Same with Assange. Hell, Sean Hannity interviewed Assange; I thought Assange was going to send him flowers and chocolates after the blowjob Hannity gave him. When Assange was milking Bradley Manning, he was getting nothing but high-fives from the left and the right was talking about sending a hit team after him. Then when he became less and less useful and started on about how compromised Hillary Clinton was, suddenly he's the Most Dangerous Man Alive. And now that he's of no use to the political left or right in the US, he's locked up.
 


In a pair of white-hot tweets Wednesday morning, President Trump slammed John Bolton over the recent leak of details from his forthcoming book that complicated the president's ongoing impeachment trial -- and needled his former national security adviser over his notoriously hawkish reputation on foreign policy.

"For a guy who couldn’t get approved for the Ambassador to the U.N. years ago, couldn’t get approved for anything since, 'begged' me for a non Senate [sic] approved job, which I gave him despite many saying 'Don’t do it, sir,' takes the job, mistakenly says 'Libyan Model' on T.V., and ... many more mistakes of judgement [sic], gets fired because frankly, if I listened to him, we would be in World War Six by now, and goes out and IMMEDIATELY writes a nasty & untrue book," Trump tweeted. "All Classified National Security. Who would do this?"

Trump's comments come after a New York Times report earlier this week said Bolton wrote in his book that Trump linked aid for Ukraine to his request for Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate 2020 rival Joe Biden and his family for corruption. Those developments are at the heart of the impeachment trial.

Democrats have said that connection was an abuse of power aimed at boosting Trump's reelection prospects. Trump's defense team has said that there was no such connection, and even if there was, Trump had good reason to think the Bidens should have been investigated for corruption and that such a "quid pro quo" is common in U.S. foreign policy.

A handful of moderate Republican senators, including Sens. Susan Collins, R-Maine, Mitt Romney, R-Utah and Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, have expressed interest in hearing from witnesses in the impeachment trial -- and especially Bolton, after the book leak -- to the chagrin of Trump and GOP leadership. Democrats would need four GOP defections to call witnesses.

Bolton has indicated that he would testify before the Senate impeachment trial if subpoenaed, but the Republican leadership is doing its best to prevent that from happening.

Despite the fact Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., privately said early Tuesday that he wasn't sure there were enough Republican votes to block witnesses in the impeachment trial, Tuesday night, a Senate leadership source told Fox News that Republicans were assessing two options to prevent witnesses, in a vote likely to happen near the end of this week.

One plan is to amend any resolution calling for a particular witness to also include a package of witnesses that assuredly wouldn't win enough support in the Senate. For example, if the Democrats seek to call Bolton, Republicans might subpoena Hunter Biden over his lucrative board position in Ukraine, and Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., over his inconsistent statements concerning his panel's contacts with the whistleblower at the center of the impeachment probe.

Another option, the congressional leadership source told Fox News, is for the White House to assert executive privilege to block witnesses, including Bolton. The administration could head to court to obtain an emergency injunction against his testimony, citing national security concerns.
 
Chief Justice John Roberts is being a total bitch and tried to block people from even asking questions about the whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella. The Republicans balked, so Roberts just shielded the name and makes people issue their questions to him on notecards. Rand Paul is so sick and tired of the Eric Ciaramella shit, he shouted, "I'm not going to sit here and be ignored and have people refuse to recognize me. If I have to fight for recognition, I will!"

I hope Rand Paul just starts screaming Eric Ciarmella while calling Schiff a liar and a pencil-necked geek.
 
Why is Roberts even there? This isn't a trial. The SCOTUS has NOTHING to do with this. They are diluting the power of the Senate to unelected SCOTUS judges that the electorate have no choice in and who will never receive pushback from the voters. This is literally the opposite of what the Impeachment system was created for.
 
Why is Roberts even there? This isn't a trial. The SCOTUS has NOTHING to do with this. They are diluting the power of the Senate to unelected SCOTUS judges that the electorate have no choice in and who will never receive pushback from the voters. This is literally the opposite of what the Impeachment system was created for.
It is a Trial, just a very different one and Roberts as Lead Justice is the one who officiates it.
 
Back