Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Machismo]

Come on. Don't be shy. I can't wait to hear what you have to say!

- - - Updated - - -


I agree with the bolded. BTW...I love your doublespeak....so Orwellian!

Yes, it's a shame the GOP is pushing fake talking points, and ignoring evidence. It just shows how far people are willing to go to defend "their guy," even if that guy is a corrupt piece of shit.

(still talking about politicians, and not talking about anyone on these threads)

[DocSavageFan]

Really? By who? Because the only times he has EVER talked about Ukraine, is about Burisma, Hunter Biden, or Joe Biden.

Please point to me ANYWHERE where he has talked about someone else being corrupt in Ukraine that he was worried about.

Even in the notes of the transcript where he bribes them for a favor, he mentions the Bidens 8 fucking times. Doesn't say anything about anyone else though.

So please, show me where Trump has talked about "corruption", other than the fake bullshit he claims to be corruption with the Bidens.

- - - Updated - - -



Says TJ that says that Trump was worried about "corruption" besides the Bidens, even though there is literally no one else he talks about when he is talking about Ukraine.

I don't know why I'm doing this as you will undoubtedly rationalize it away. That said...sometimes even a blind hog finds an acorn....so here goes.

Trump's View of Ukraine as Corrupt Took Shape Early
https://pressfrom.info/us/news/polit...ape-early.html

[Machismo]

I don't know why I'm doing this as you will undoubtedly rationalize it away. That said...sometimes even a blind hog finds an acorn....so here goes.

Trump's View of Ukraine as Corrupt Took Shape Early
https://pressfrom.info/us/news/polit...ape-early.html

Then, why didn't Trump speak about that corruption? Why did he have his people write a speech for Zalensky to write, that was focused on the Bidens? If he cared so much about corruption, why did he spend an entire phone call singing the virtues of a corrupt prosecutor? Why did he send Giuliani there, whose role was to be corrupt, and get the anti-corruption diplomat fire?

It's weird how often you people keep getting caught in this bullshit.

[zenkai]

This guys statement is the first intelligent thing I have read through this whole mess

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...rley-testimony

President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.
7
That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided. Although I am citing a wide body of my relevant academic work on these questions, I will not repeat that work in this testimony. Instead, I will focus on the history and cases that bear most directly on the questions facing this Committee. My testimony will first address relevant elements of the history and meaning of the impeachment standard. Second, I will discuss the past presidential impeachments and inquiries in the context of this controversy. Finally, I will address some of the specific alleged impeachable offenses raised in this process. In the end, I believe that this process has raised serious and legitimate issues for investigation. Indeed, I have previously stated that a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven. Yet moving forward primarily or exclusively with the Ukraine controversy on this record would be as precarious as it would premature. It comes down to a type of constitutional architecture. Such a slender foundation is a red flag for architects who operate on the accepted 1:10 ratio between the width and height of


________________

In the current case, the record is facially insufficient. The problem is not simply that the record does not contain direct evidence of the President stating a quid pro quo, as Chairman Schiff has suggested. The problem is that the House has not bothered to subpoena the key witnesses who would have such direct knowledge. This alone sets a dangerous precedent. A House in the future could avoid countervailing evidence by simply relying on tailored records with testimony from people who offer damning presumptions or speculation. It is not enough to simply shrug and say this is “close enough for jazz” in an impeachment. The expectation, as shown by dozens of failed English impeachments, was that the lower house must offer a complete and compelling record. That is not to say that the final record must have a confession or incriminating statement from the accused. Rather, it was meant to be a complete record of the key witnesses that establishes the full range of material evidence. Only then could the body reach a conclusion on the true weight of the evidence—a conclusion that carries sufficient legitimacy with the public to justify the remedy of removal.

[Machismo]

This guys statement is the first intelligent thing I have read through this whole mess

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/4...rley-testimony

President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.
7
That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided. Although I am citing a wide body of my relevant academic work on these questions, I will not repeat that work in this testimony. Instead, I will focus on the history and cases that bear most directly on the questions facing this Committee. My testimony will first address relevant elements of the history and meaning of the impeachment standard. Second, I will discuss the past presidential impeachments and inquiries in the context of this controversy. Finally, I will address some of the specific alleged impeachable offenses raised in this process. In the end, I believe that this process has raised serious and legitimate issues for investigation. Indeed, I have previously stated that a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven. Yet moving forward primarily or exclusively with the Ukraine controversy on this record would be as precarious as it would premature. It comes down to a type of constitutional architecture. Such a slender foundation is a red flag for architects who operate on the accepted 1:10 ratio between the width and height of

If that's the case, then you haven't been paying attention.

[Breccia]

If that's the case, then you haven't been paying attention.

Wait, did...did the GOP just say that impeaching someone for only soliciting one bribe was a Slippery Slope?

Because that's the main charge. Trump soliciting a bribe. And I don't know about you, but I think the number of bribes an elected official should solicit is zero bribes.

[zenkai]

He only finds shit intelligent if he agrees with it.

Maybe you should try reading the whole thing and stay on topic instead of personal attacks.

[Machismo]

Wait, did...did the GOP just say that impeaching someone for only soliciting one bribe was a Slippery Slope?

Because that's the main charge. Trump soliciting a bribe. And I don't know about you, but I think the number of bribes an elected official should solicit is zero bribes.

"Look, if we are going to hold politicians accountable for things like bribery, then we clearly cannot do our jobs."

-GOP Congressmen of 2019-

- - - Updated - - -

Maybe you should try reading the whole thing and stay on topic instead of personal attacks.

So, you're saying that his corruption is OK, because it only happened once... or twice... maybe just a few times.

[The Royal We]

Wait, did...did the GOP just say that impeaching someone for only soliciting one bribe was a Slippery Slope?

Because that's the main charge. Trump soliciting a bribe. And I don't know about you, but I think the number of bribes an elected official should solicit is zero bribes.

The constitution agrees with you.

[DocSavageFan]

Then, why didn't Trump speak about that corruption? Why did he have his people write a speech for Zalensky to write, that was focused on the Bidens? If he cared so much about corruption, why did he spend an entire phone call singing the virtues of a corrupt prosecutor? Why did he send Giuliani there, whose role was to be corrupt, and get the anti-corruption diplomat fire?

It's weird how often you people keep getting caught in this bullshit.

Please man up and admit that you were wrong.

[Machismo]

Please man up and admit that you were wrong.

I'm not wrong, and you refused to answer some very probative questions.

What a shame.

That's fine, your refusal to answer is exactly what I expected.

I agree with you, Trump's corruption and lies are despicable. It's a shame that GOP politicians continue to lie for him, and ignore evidence for him.

[Cthulhu 2020]

So, you're saying that his corruption is OK, because it only happened once... or twice... maybe just a few times.

That's exactly what he's saying. He loves Trump, so we should clearly not convict a president for only committing one or two crimes. One or two, or even a few crimes is fine. If we impeach Trump over something so small like a few crimes, we'll just start impeaching every president because they all commit crimes, and we wouldn't want that! The only time we should impeach a president is if he's committed a lot of crimes, like a hundred or so. That's the time to impeach.

[Breccia]

Giuliani attempts to defend himself.

The mere fact I had numerous calls with the White House does not establish any specific topic. Remember, I’m the President’s attorney.

Yeah, cool, cool. Hey, is Giuliani also the attorney for the State Department? How about Mulvaney? No to all?

Actually, what this tweet read as is "the mysterious -1 number is exactly who you think it is". Which is kind of a dumb thing to admit since we're talking about phone records as a trail of evidence.

[omerome]

Giuliani attempts to defend himself.



Yeah, cool, cool. Hey, is Giuliani also the attorney for the State Department? How about Mulvaney? No to all?

Actually, what this tweet read as is "the mysterious -1 number is exactly who you think it is". Which is kind of a dumb thing to admit since we're talking about phone records as a trail of evidence.

Giuliani really has to be the worst attorney money can buy.

[Kujako]

Giuliani really has to be the worst attorney money can buy.

Well he's not in prison, like some of Trumps other attorneys. My Attorney Got Arrested.

[Kiri]

In the current case, the record is facially insufficient. The problem is not simply that the record does not contain direct evidence of the President stating a quid pro quo, as Chairman Schiff has suggested. The problem is that the House has not bothered to subpoena the key witnesses who would have such direct knowledge. This alone sets a dangerous precedent. A House in the future could avoid countervailing evidence by simply relying on tailored records with testimony from people who offer damning presumptions or speculation. It is not enough to simply shrug and say this is “close enough for jazz” in an impeachment. The expectation, as shown by dozens of failed English impeachments, was that the lower house must offer a complete and compelling record. That is not to say that the final record must have a confession or incriminating statement from the accused. Rather, it was meant to be a complete record of the key witnesses that establishes the full range of material evidence. Only then could the body reach a conclusion on the true weight of the evidence—a conclusion that carries sufficient legitimacy with the public to justify the remedy of removal.

That line of reasoning is still pretty silly. A lot of people predicted it, but that doesn't make it any less so. This source, too, simply omits the fact that said direct witnesses were forbidden to testify by the president. Heck, Mulvaney filed a lawsuit against the subpoena he's gotten. Just yesterday, Trump said that he would only allow them to testify in the senate and not the house, because it is "more fair". Now, of course he himself has presented no evidence that the House would not be fair, but that is immaterial.
Now, take these two arguments together, namely:
- Impeachment should not proceed without key witnesses/direct evidence
- Key witnesses/direct evidence can be withheld by the president
In that case, as long as a president can block key witnesses from testifying, he can't be impeached, according to the logic of this source. And that's just silly.

But, well, let's play the game for a moment. The question I have, for you, is a different one.
If you agree that impeachment should not proceed without having the fully body of evidence available, shouldn't you be out there urging Trump to unblock it? I mean, again, if he did nothing wrong, why would you want the only testimony available to be the sources already available, and not the key witnesses that, naturally, would exonerate him?
At least that's what I'd do if I agreed with the opinion you shared.

[zenkai]

I did read it, clearly the dude hasn’t been paying attention if he thinks evidence is thin. Maybe you should try reading the thousands of pages of testimony that have been released to the public.

I think I will pay more attention to what a legal scholar thinks over what you think.

[Skroe]

God bless the Democrats. With their report (worth the read), the hearings to date and the hearing today, they honor the Founders and defend the Constitution so fully.

They are patriots one and all. They have done a beautiful, wonderful thing that will echo through the ages as an exemplar of upholding the rule of law.

[Stormspark]

God bless the Democrats. With their report (worth the read), the hearings to date and the hearing today, they honor the Founders and defend the Constitution so fully.

They are patriots one and all. They have done a beautiful, wonderful thing that will echo through the ages as an exemplar of upholding the rule of law.

I agree, BUT, it won't do any good if the republicans just overturn it and install Trump as a dictator. Any moral high ground would instantly vanish when the country is a dictatorship.

[Skroe]

Also with Professor Karlan, we have yet another woman who is a highly respected expert is taking Donald Trump and his thugs to task. Feldman and Gerhardt are doing great, but totally sidekicks to Karlan.

Fitting.