Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Dontrike]

While I condemn the veiled "civil war" threats from some on this forum just as much as the next rational guy, I do think there is something uniquely dangerous about this situation. The typical way that we would heal as a nation, if removal was voted for, would be that Republicans eventually join Democrats and the sycophants feel too alienated and outnumbered to escalate things to violence. The big difference with Trump is, his supporters view many Republicans to also be the enemy. He's gone as far as one can go towards creating a viable third party without actually doing it. So without some slam dunk reasoning that makes his followers go "oh shit, maybe I was wrong", there is a high risk that they are going to genuinely feel that the government apparatus was abused to remove their man from power and that they need to do something about it. That being said, the average person in modern America is a giant pussy and wouldn't join a movement unless it was already going and big enough to make them feel safe in doing so. That's why at most it would be lone wolf attacks.

You know what? Thank you for the first normal response I've seen from you in years. I do have one problem with it though, and it's the bolded.

There's very little chance that even if there was a slam dunk case, which by the way there basically is already, that they would accept it. These are the people that will even turn Trump's own words inside out to make it seem like that's not what he actually said and cry foul at laws that go against him. If they were going to step away from Trump they would have done it already, if they need a slam dunk case then there's no hope in that department.

[Thepersona]

How's going? Anything new in this shitshow?

Around here shit hit the fan. Santiago is burning ATM.

[Mormolyce]

True, I was just bored and tired but you are correct.

How is this post is flaming?

Why not infract the troll rather than anyone who reacts to it?

[Santti]

How is this post is flaming?

Why not infract the troll rather than anyone who reacts to it?

You called him the T-word.

Guess which one is going to be infracted.

Prepare thy juicy butt.

[PACOX]

Except the true Trump supporters are really a small slither of the population if polling is around 15-16% of the population and if you take into the account the average American and their level of laziness most of them aren't going to do anything except bitch and moan.

Are we really afraid of bunch of people whose mortal enemy is a "soy boy". They've shown time and time again that they get their ass kicked at any rally where "big bad Antifa" shows up. Their only tactic seems to be suicidal mass shootings, when caught they cry "it was just a prank bro".

Technology and critical thinking is 'liberal proganda' in their book.

Their only saving grace would be swift mass incarceration before things get serious. No one fears the MAGA Hat.

[Draco-Onis]

Are we really afraid of bunch of people whose mortal enemy is a "soy boy". They've shown time and time again that they get their ass kicked at any rally where "big bad Antifa" shows up. Their only tactic seems to be suicidal mass shootings, when caught they cry "it was just a prank bro".

Technology and critical thinking is 'liberal proganda' in their book.

Their only saving grace would be swift mass incarceration before things get serious. No one fears the MAGA Hat.

We shouldn't be lying to ourselves about it while there will be no civil wars there will be lone wolves. Donald Trump is not going to leave office peacefully even if he is put in prison his nut job family will sound the blow horn for him advancing conspiracy theories if not only to try to save themselves or make a buck. They will not go quietly into that good night they will be kicking and screaming and riling up the neanderthals.

[Toppy]

Anyone else noticing the sudden re-emergence of "Lets focus on Hillary" in the last few days?

[Lanrefni]

Anyone else noticing the sudden re-emergence of "Lets focus on Hillary" in the last few days?

Yup,and it reeks of pure desperation and fear.

[Shalcker]

Anyone else noticing the sudden re-emergence of "Lets focus on Hillary" in the last few days?

It likely comes from media pushing her into forefront with attack on Tulsi Gabbard.

[Grapemask]

It likely comes from media pushing her into forefront with attack on Tulsi Gabbard.

Not really the media. Just specifically conservative media.

Fox brushed close to self awareness when they wrote an article criticizing CNN and MSNBC for not giving Clinton's comments primetime coverage like Fox did. Probably because literally no one except Fox cares.

[Dontrike]

It likely comes from media pushing her into forefront with attack on Tulsi Gabbard.

And that whole little tiff if fucking stupid to focus on anyways, but this allows Fox to put a spotlight on their boogeyman.

[Mormolyce]

You called him the T-word.

Guess which one is going to be infracted.

Prepare thy juicy butt.

I can't deny that it's juicy.

[draynay]

How is this post is flaming?

Why not infract the troll rather than anyone who reacts to it?

I would attempt to answer your question but I would just get my post deleted again, which seems somehow worse than an infraction.

[Shalcker]

Not really the media. Just specifically conservative media.

Right, MSNBC doing "Tulsi never denied she was Russian asset" is "conservative media".

[Azadina]

Because Thwart wouldn't be able to infract the people reacting to the troll that he left uninfracted as a bait.

I've said it before, but I guess it bears repeating until bans roll in: It's unbelievable how transparent that crap is, and no one does jack shit about it. It's beyond ridiculous.

There it is. Eeeek! Let's see if this gets infracted or deleted again to hide anything happening.

I would attempt to answer your question but I would just get my post deleted again, which seems somehow worse than an infraction.

I don't particularly care at this point anymore. It's gone on for far too long.

[Breccia]

Mulvaney tries to hide on FOX News to continue to walk back his "there was a quid pro quo" announcement.

It did not go as planned.

Mulvaney repeatedly insisted his remarks at a Thursday press conference were taken out of context, saying he never used the "reporters" language of "quid pro quo."

"That’s not what I said. That’s what people said that I said," he told a skeptical Wallace early on in the interview.

“Can I say that people took that the wrong way? Absolutely," Mulvaney later said in the interview. "But I never said there was a quid pro quo because there isn’t.”

Mulvaney said the withheld aid to Ukraine was kept back because Trump wanted to make sure that European allies were also delivering aid to Ukraine, and because Trump wanted answers about corruption in Ukraine.

Wallace challenged Mulvaney on that point, saying that he believed "that anyone listening to what you said in that briefing could only cone to one conclusion."

"Cone?"

I just cut and paste, dude. But I do like the analogy of Mulvaney wearing a dunce cap.

Fox then replayed video of Mulvaney's Thursday press conference, during which Wallace pointed out that Mulvaney listed three reasons, not the two he listed on Sunday, for why the aid had been withheld.

"You were asked specifically by Jonathan Karl was investigating Democrats one of the conditions for holding up the aid, was part of the quid pro quo, and you said 'it happens all the time,'" Wallace said, referring to the ABC reporter who had questioned Mulvaney on Thursday.

Mulvaney said Trump mentioned the investigations in passing, but the chief of staff then stuck to his position that corruption and ensuring that aid was provided by other countries were the reasons for the delayed aid.

Wallace then pressed Mulvaney again.

"You know, I hate to go through this, but you said what you said, and the fact is after that exchange with Jonathan Karl, you were asked another time why the aid was held up, what was the condition for the aid, and you didn't mention two conditions, you mentioned three conditions," Wallace said.

Wallace then showed video of Mulvaney saying "three issues for that" while holding up three countries during the Thursday press conference. The third issue cited by Mulvaney on Thursday was whether Ukraine was cooperating with an ongoing investigation by the Justice of Department.

The Justice Department has said the linking of Ukraine aid to its investigation was "news to us," according to a senior Justice official cited by Fox.

Mulvaney conceded that he could see how people took his comments "the wrong way" but again insisted he never used the words "quid pro quo."

He also said that the fact that the aid to Ukraine was eventually sent should "put the matter to bed."

When even FOX News is saying "dude, we have you on video" you know it's a problem. Not that it's only them.

But I also want to address that last bit with two things:

A) Stopping doing a bad thing is not a good thing. Stopping doing a bad thing is just doing less of a bad thing. If I run into a bank, pull a gun, take a pregnant lady hostage and demand all the money, but then four hours later say "eh fuck it" and leave, I should not be praised. I should be arrested. The fact that the WH went with "we stopped extorting them" as their defense is pretty damning, and they're the ones saying it.

B) As a reminder, while they did stop the extortion, they're once again lying about the reason by omission. Trump claims he released the funds on Sept 11 because he talked to the Freedom Caucus, but it was coincidentally the day Democrats threatened to withhold billions from defense spending -- more than Trump had managed to steal for the wall. Plus they were ready to push forward an amendment forcing Trump to spend the money anyhow. Based on comments at the time, it almost certainly would have passed.

And of course, there's still the overall lame-ass limp-dick IMPOTUS excuse of "this was always about corruption" when nobody in Team Trump can name a single target other than Biden and But Her Emails. Considering it turns out Trump via Giuliani was also trying to take over Ukraine's natural gas industry, the "corruption" angle is defeated by Trump's own words and actions.

[Grapemask]

Right, MSNBC doing "Tulsi never denied she was Russian asset" is "conservative media".

Mentioning a thing happened is a far cry from the obsessing over it that Fox is doing.

[Bodakane]

Republicans believe the democrats are total criminals across the board because they support and endorse illegal immigration across the border which makes the entire democrat party a domestic threat to the nation and a group that does not believe in the rule of law. Then you have people like Maxine Waters who make a call for action to confront republicans on the street which is a clear inciting of violence in the view of republicans and nothing happens to her. Furthermore, if the leadership in DC fails to correct the problem and then the House impeaches Trump, you WILL get civil unrest and this goes WAY beyond being irrational and disagreeing with the democrats. For republicans, impeachment is a clear act of war on the people on the nation.

Its gonna happen. There will be civil unrest if Trump is impeached. The nation will permanently change. Forever. If you don't understand why that is coming, you need to back off a laser focus on the Trump impeachment and look at everything else going on.

And it doesn't have to be a "convincing argument". The Trump base isn't going to respond to these events by sitting down at a conference and talking it out. You are gonna see a large rise in militias and marches and protests. Fighting will break out. The nation ends with Trump's impeachment.

All the more reason to impeach then.

[cubby]

While I condemn the veiled "civil war" threats from some on this forum just as much as the next rational guy, I do think there is something uniquely dangerous about this situation. The typical way that we would heal as a nation, if removal was voted for, would be that Republicans eventually join Democrats and the sycophants feel too alienated and outnumbered to escalate things to violence. The big difference with Trump is, his supporters view many Republicans to also be the enemy. He's gone as far as one can go towards creating a viable third party without actually doing it. So without some slam dunk reasoning that makes his followers go "oh shit, maybe I was wrong", there is a high risk that they are going to genuinely feel that the government apparatus was abused to remove their man from power and that they need to do something about it. That being said, the average person in modern America is a giant pussy and wouldn't join a movement unless it was already going and big enough to make them feel safe in doing so. That's why at most it would be lone wolf attacks.

This is one of the few times we might see some common ground in the politics arena. You make a very good point, but I think you also miss one major deficiency of Trump cultists - they don't think he can do any wrong (that NY Times Square quote comes to mind - about shooting someone).

I know we usually but heads a lot, so I want to iterate that I'm not attacking your position above - I actually agree with most of it, especially the "how we heal as a nation past Trump's removal". And I honestly don't know how we will ever be able to move forward. The Trump cultists believe they are right, believe Trump can do no wrong, and continue to ignore any facts that say otherwise.

How do we start conversations with people like that?

And if we can't, and Trump survives or continues as a political creature (his own tv show/channel, etc.) and does in fact create a viable third party, what then?

[minteK917]

Republicans believe the democrats are total criminals across the board because they support and endorse illegal immigration across the border which makes the entire democrat party a domestic threat to the nation and a group that does not believe in the rule of law. Then you have people like Maxine Waters who make a call for action to confront republicans on the street which is a clear inciting of violence in the view of republicans and nothing happens to her. Furthermore, if the leadership in DC fails to correct the problem and then the House impeaches Trump, you WILL get civil unrest and this goes WAY beyond being irrational and disagreeing with the democrats. For republicans, impeachment is a clear act of war on the people on the nation.

Its gonna happen. There will be civil unrest if Trump is impeached. The nation will permanently change. Forever. If you don't understand why that is coming, you need to back off a laser focus on the Trump impeachment and look at everything else going on.

And it doesn't have to be a "convincing argument". The Trump base isn't going to respond to these events by sitting down at a conference and talking it out. You are gonna see a large rise in militias and marches and protests. Fighting will break out. The nation ends with Trump's impeachment.

By your own logic. This will happen even if he loses next year or once he is forced to go out of office after 8 years. What exactly would be benefical to let time pass and have perhaps more people join such a group? Personally i welcome your civil war. Mabye next time youll be smarter about making your consitution.