Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[draynay]

“Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation.”

Even worse than that, they wanted a public declaration that they were conducting the investigations, which puts to rest the laughable excuse that it was an attempt to root out corruption and not an obvious political maneuver.

[Breccia]

Sondland testified last week, for instance, that he wasn’t able to vouch for the lack of a quid pro quo.

Jumping out in front of this one before there's a problem.

It is not possible to prove a negative. At least not realistically. Unless Trump was under 100% constant surveilance whi...surveilence...surveillance...there we go, fucking red underline. Unless Trump was being recorded 24/7 and we have the tapes, it won't be possible to prove there was never a quid pro quo.

Good news: we no longer have to. We now have multiple people saying yes, there was a quid pro quo, and it came from Trump directly.

By the way, we've seen that recent effort by Team Trump to paint the Bidens as corrupt basically fall apart. It probably had something to do with the Trump family saying "Hey, using your father's position of wealth and power for your own ends is wrong! What? Why is does everyone look at me funny when I say that?"

[Jotaux]

How long does this process generally take?

[Shadowferal]

Mulvaney is one of a few people I was focused on...because these vile bastards need to have their reputations destroyed before they bite it.

[Skroe]

Trump is looking to replace Mulvaney.

IIRC, Mulvaney is a link to serious conservative GOP leaders who still back Trump. Dumping him would create a rift that might get Trump more Conviction votes. Can someone remind me of that connection, if I have it remotely correct?

This is massive news if confirmed. Massive and important.

Mulvaney was one of the leaders of the freedom caucus, and certainly the "intellectual leader". The "Paul Ryan" of the group in a sense.

Removing him and replacing him with a Trumphadi won't sever the ex-Freedom Caucus from their fawning devotion to drump, but it will stress it. Trump's entire self-preservation strategy the first two years as built upon forging links to existing power bases. That's why you had Mulvaney brought on. That's why you had Elaine Chao (Moscow Mitch's wife). That's how you got Mattis and Dan Coats too. He's loosened himself of most of those, probably because he figures he doesn't need them anymore to ensure loyalty.

I wouldn't be so sure about that if I were him. Especially with regards to Senators.

Regardless Mulvaney going will damage Trump's relationship with house members to a degree.

- - - Updated - - -

4 takeaways from Bill Taylor’s huge opening statement

1. There was a quid pro quo on military aid, he believes
In his opening statement, he says nothing has disavowed him of that belief.
“I believed that then, and I still believe that,” he says.

2. But it wasn’t the only one
One of the big questions here was whether Trump might have gotten leverage from a) withholding hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid, or b) from withholding an Oval Office meeting that new Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky badly wanted.
Taylor says it’s both.

3. He says Gordon Sondland relayed an explicit quid pro quo to Ukraine
During this same phone call I had with Mr. Morrison, he went on to describe a conversation Ambassador Sondland had with Mr. Yermak at [a meeting in] Warsaw,” Taylor says. “Ambassador Sondland told Mr. Yermak that the security assistance money would not come until President Zelenskyy committed to pursue the Burisma investigation.”
That’s about as explicit as it gets — although it’s secondhand. Morrison’s testimony now appears it will be key.
Taylor also says Sondland later told him directly that both a meeting and military aid depended on the investigations.

4. Sondland has explaining to do
Sondland testified last week, for instance, that he wasn’t able to vouch for the lack of a quid pro quo. But Taylor suggests he was directly involved in communicating one. Taylor suggests Sondland tried to put a good face on it -- and that Trump and Sondland took care to say it wasn’t a “quid pro quo” -- but that that’s what it effectively was.
“Ambassador Sondland said that he had talked to President Zelenskyy and Mr. Yermak and told them that, although this was not a quid pro quo, if President Zelenskyy did not ‘clear things up’ in public, we would be at a ‘stalemate,' " Taylor says of his Sept. 8 phone call with Sondland. “I understood a ‘stalemate’ to mean that Ukraine would not receive the much-needed military assistance.”
Sondland also testified last week, “I recall no discussions with any State Department or White House official about former Vice President Biden or his son, nor do I recall taking part in any effort to encourage an investigation into the Bidens.”
But Taylor describes Sondland relaying a direct request involving the Bidens to Ukraine.

The testimony so far as we know, confirms and expands upon everything we've heard from prior witnesses.

Donald Trump, very simply, can't be President anymore, if rule of law is still a thing in this country. He didn't break a generous reading of the constitution... he broke a very explicit reading of the grounds for impeachment.

It's time for him to go. Good thing we elect a back-up in the VP.

[Skulltaker]

https://www.thedailybeast.com/imaad-...dicted-by-feds



Why is it that Trump seems to be completely surrounded by criminals?

There is a german saying that goes 'Gleich und gleich gesellt sich gern.' 'Two equals enjoy each others company.'

[Skroe]

I guess all those articles explaining how they should impeach Trump or could before he even took office are imaginary. I am sure government agents saying the y have an insurance policy in case Trump was electe3d are also imaginary. I am so glad none of that happened.

Also all you defenders of a shame of an inquiry, how come only democrats can ask questions? Also the whistleblower did not testify to anything in front of congress because they know his testimony is invalid. If you have a transcript, you don't need falsified testimony so that guy will never testify. This is all a partisan sham that you guys won't admit because it's your party conducting the sham. How can you only let ceertain people ask questions? Oh because you are afraid of the answers. Why wasn't the whistleblower called to testify, you know the one who worked with Joe Biden in the past?

There was no formal impeachment effort until the past month. Every President in modern times is subject to "he should be impeached for X" feelings. Obama saw it for the Benghazi non-converup. Bush saw it for Iraq War intelligence and torture. Clinton was impeached. Reagan saw it for Iran Contra. Investigating Trump's ties to Russia before hand was not an impeachment effort. It was an investigation by law enforcement and intelligence that could have yielded information that brought about that.

Republicans and Democrats both ask questions.

The whistleblower's testimony is being held back because of concerns about their saftey and protection from reprisal. Because what would happen is that once Devin Nunes got their name, he would tell it to Trump, and Trump would blast it on twitter. At the very least, he'd try witness intimidation (something that, even without they're name, the whistleblowers have expressed concern over). At most, one of his maniac supporters, already having seen them commit terrorist violence, would attack them or their family.

The law plainly states Whistleblowers must be protected from reprisal. The unique circumstance of the target being the President means it will be held until its absolutely needed. But I'm just gonna say... I wouldn't count on that being the case forever. There is a good chance, before this is over, you'll get your wish and not only will the Whistleblowers testify, but we'll know their names. And it will be devastating to the President.


I just want to point something crucial out TexasRules.... your entire posting strategy here is to run interference for Trump on a matter where he clearly committed wrong doing. Today his own ambassador confirmed with evidence a monster of a quid pro quo. It is almost like he read what the founders, chief among them, Alexander Hamilton had in mind, and decided to act upon it.

Do you care about the future? Because you should. Because this is what happens if Trump prevails. He will be gone in January 2021 or January 2025. But he will have established a new norm. A norm where future Presidents can do what he just did in Ukraine, and get away with it.

There will be Democratic Presidents in the future... and what would they be entitled to do? Seek help from the international community as a whole... say the European Union, in short circuiting any domestic Republican challenger. So long as they operated on the same grounds Trump laid, there is nothing to stop them from using their office and turning it against domestic enemies. That may sound great when your side is power. It won't be in power for ever.

Is that really what you want out of the Presidency? Because that's what we're going to get if Trump's wrong doing is validated. On top of that, add the corruption, the self dealing and everything else.

Fact is, Trump continuing to be President fundamentally undermines the integrity of the system. It's time for him to go. We have Pence.

You know why knows this most of all? Senate Republicans.
https://www.thedailybeast.com/mcconn...all-with-trump

Mitch McConnell just said he doesn't recall ever talking to Trump about Ukraine, after Trump claimed McConnell said there was nothing wrong with Trump's Ukraine activities.

In other words McConnell just threw Trump under the bus. They're getting ready to cash out.

You should too. Before its too late.

[Breccia]

Mitch McConnell just said he doesn't recall ever talking to Trump about Ukraine, after Trump claimed McConnell said there was nothing wrong with Trump's Ukraine activities.

In other words McConnell just threw Trump under the bus. They're getting ready to cash out.

So here's a question: which really happened?
A) McConnell is telling the truth. Or their talks with Ukraine were not related to the current context, same thing.
B) McConnell is lying, but McConnell knows he was not recorded/nobody heard him that will rat him out.
C) McConnell is lying, and he knows he might be recorded/ratted out, but figures it doesn't matter anymore?

[Skroe]

So here's a question: which really happened?
A) McConnell is telling the truth. Or their talks with Ukraine were not related to the current context, same thing.
B) McConnell is lying, but McConnell knows he was not recorded/nobody heard him that will rat him out.
C) McConnell is lying, and he knows he might be recorded/ratted out, but figures it doesn't matter anymore?

Most likely a mix of A and B.

McConnell and Trump had a phone call. Trump talked about it in his stream of consciousness rant mode for 15 minutes. McConnell puts down the phone to go heat up a buritto while Trump rants. He comes back in the last 90 seconds, and dismissively says "sure, Mr. President". In the knuckle-dragger-in-chief's crazy mental filter, that transforms into an endorsement by McConnell.

More seriously, Trump has phone calls all the time, and basically makes up fictions about what happens in them. So there is great reason to believe that he and McConnell "talked", in the sense that Trump did the ranting, McConnell - not being an idiot who would go out on a limb on this - did the listening. And in Trump's defective brain, that became "perfect".

[Skulltaker]

More seriously, Trump has phone calls all the time, and basically makes up fictions about what happens in them. So there is great reason to believe that he and McConnell "talked", in the sense that Trump did the ranting, McConnell - not being an idiot who would go out on a limb on this - did the listening. And in Trump's defective brain, that became "perfect".

I think he might actually be ill. He might, somewhat, not be lying, even though he's not telling the truth. He cannot differentiate anymore. He's lying only to himself, and being as dumb as he is, he believes it.

[Skroe]

I think he might actually be ill. He might, somewhat, not be lying, even though he's not telling the truth. He cannot differentiate anymore. He's lying only to himself, and being as dumb as he is, he believes it.

I think he's someone who has not seen any consequence to lying in his entire life, so he can't separate the fiction he has usually sold as reality, from actual objective reality.

He's mentally diseased.

[mvaliz]

Are you saying Gabbard is a Russian agent? Really?

Stop lying... You damn well know what you're doing here, and you damn well know he's not saying Gabbard is a Russian agent

[Orbitus]

How would anyone know if this is a nothing burger if you hold all your meetings in secret? If this is truly as damning as democrats say and Trump has truly broken laws and is corrupt, why are they hiding it from everyone? Why is it not open testimony? Why is there no whistleblower testifying? Why not just show everyone if this is so damaging and threatening?

They aren't holding their meetings in secret, it is like you are saying that Republicans aren't allowed on these depositions, but they are. Just not people that aren't on the 3 committees. So if you are trying to defend shitgibbons like Matt Gaetz, then you are the problem, not the impeachment process. And it is just like every other trial, you don't want other people to say the same thing. So, you conduct depositions and interviews separate from others. It is like you have never watched a law show like law and order.

- - - Updated - - -

How long does this process generally take?

For what? Impeachment? This is the fastest it has gone.

[D Luniz]

How would anyone know if this is a nothing burger if you hold all your meetings in secret? If this is truly as damning as democrats say and Trump has truly broken laws and is corrupt, why are they hiding it from everyone? Why is it not open testimony? Why is there no whistleblower testifying? Why not just show everyone if this is so damaging and threatening?

its funny how with all these people testifyng for 8-10 hours each, NONE of the GOP committee members that actually sit in there are backing this "its a witchhunt/lynching" rants, they just stay silent

yet other people think thats a sign that this is gonna end well

and they dont have them open because, GOP backers have shown, they will GLADLY lie for this president, so why let them sync their stories

if thye are all telling the truth, they can watch till if, I guess when now, an impeachment trial starts in the Senate

[cubby]

its funny how with all these people testifyng for 8-10 hours each, NONE of the GOP committee members that actually sit in there are backing this "its a witchhunt/lynching" rants, they just stay silent

yet other people think thats a sign that this is gonna end well

and they dont have them open because, GOP backers have shown, they will GLADLY lie for this president, so why let them sync their stories

if thye are all telling the truth, they can watch till if, I guess when now, an impeachment trial starts in the Senate

Once again, when the true is coming at them through a fire hose, the GOP's silence is deafening. I guess we're just waiting on their latest talking-points-of-lies to hit the streets (or the DNC email list - whichever comes first).

[Zaydin]

On a scale of 1 to Screwed, just how bad would people say today was for Trump?

The non-partisan hacks I've seen weighing in on it are stating it's pretty bad for Trump. Republicans like Mark Meadows have gouged their own eyes out so they can't see Trumps wrong doings are declaring there's nothing new here.

[Breccia]

On a scale of 1 to Screwed, just how bad would people say today was for Trump?

The latest testimony was behind closed doors. We don't know.

[Fugus]

Off-topic but I have been hugely busy for the past few months and missed out a lot but, did we EVER get the unredacted Mueller report yet? Or is Barr still refusing to give Congress information that are authorized and required to have to do their jobs?

[Breccia]

Off-topic but I have been hugely busy for the past few months and missed out a lot but, did we EVER get the unredacted Mueller report yet?

Because Mueller was also looking into Russians attacking the election, it's probably not safe to do that yet.

[Fugus]

Because Mueller was also looking into Russians attacking the election, it's probably not safe to do that yet.

ah, k. Thanks. Wanted to ask that before bed. Later man.

I swear it feels like I keep getting less and less time to post but still try to read when I can. Helps keep me updated. Have a good one.