Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Fugus]

But that's not testimony. We saw that before. Bolton could just slap his book on the table and call it a day.

To be honest, if they tried that, I would HOPE to see Bloomberg or someone purchase them en mass like the "Triggered" book and give it to each Senator and each major news outlet to air. Watch it completely blow up in their faces.

- - - Updated - - -

As opposed to 4 more year of Trump?

I'd take a braindead squirrel.

Well, then you have Sanders or Warren to choose.

[Smitzelplix]

Because that strategy worked perfectly well for Hillary in regards to Benghazi, right??? She spent 12 hours detailing how she had nothing to do with Benghazi... and look where it landed her?

Please remember the real reason WHY they want Hunter up there - they (Both the Senate Repubs and their constituents) don't give a spit about anything he has to say up there or to get him convicted of anything. All they care about are headlines reading "Hunter Biden brought in for questioning!" to get to associate the name "Biden" with "Controversy" - just like they made Hillary's name associated with "Controversy" by those (the majority) who do NOT follow politics in this country to influence the 2020 elections in November!

That's ALL they need to convince their fellows and the general ignorant American Public that Hunter is a criminal and/or Joe Biden has something to hide. Guilt by being "Brought in". It worked for Hillary, and it will work again for Biden. They won't care about what Hunter has to say... they will get sound bytes of Republican Senators just angrily accusing him to post on Facebook with no reply attached. They'll get FOX headline pundits and all news media covering it, asking questions, asking why Hunter is up there. They'll get Youtube Pundits breaking down all the outrage into easily digestible balls of hatred that boost their ratings so well.

It hasn't even been four years since the last election, and you two have already forgotten the tactics used by Republicans in 2016. >_<

Here's an article that backs up what you're saying.

GOP Senator Joni Ernst Ponders Whether Senate Impeachment Trial Will Hurt Joe Biden

[cubby]

Because that strategy worked perfectly well for Hillary in regards to Benghazi, right??? She spent 12 hours detailing how she had nothing to do with Benghazi... and look where it landed her?

She gained enormous ethos from that testimony. Equating that event with her election loss is not correct.

Please remember the real reason WHY they want Hunter up there - they (Both the Senate Repubs and their constituents) don't give a spit about anything he has to say up there or to get him convicted of anything. All they care about are headlines reading "Hunter Biden brought in for questioning!" to get to associate the name "Biden" with "Controversy" - just like they made Hillary's name associated with "Controversy" by those (the majority) who do NOT follow politics in this country to influence the 2020 elections in November!

The only people who think Hunter Biden has done anything wrong are Trumpkins, and they aren't changing their minds.

That's ALL they need to convince their fellows and the general ignorant American Public that Hunter is a criminal and/or Joe Biden has something to hide. Guilt by being "Brought in". It worked for Hillary, and it will work again for Biden. They won't care about what Hunter has to say... they will get sound bytes of Republican Senators just angrily accusing him to post on Facebook with no reply attached. They'll get FOX headline pundits and all news media covering it, asking questions, asking why Hunter is up there. They'll get Youtube Pundits breaking down all the outrage into easily digestible balls of hatred that boost their ratings so well.

It hasn't even been four years since the last election, and you two have already forgotten the tactics used by Republicans in 2016. >_<

No, we haven't. It's you who've forgotten why Hillary lost.

Please keep in mind the goal of bringing witnesses and more evidence to the Senate Trial.

- - - Updated - - -

If this was 200 or even 50 years ago, I would agree with that level of revisionist history. In the age of the internet, they will have a much harder time pulling that off.

Most they will have is the equivalent of what Russia where a bunch of them live in a bubble while the rest of the world looks at us and just thinks, "You fucking gullible dumbass" for being that willing to be lied to.

Normally I'd agree, but the level of willful ignorance supported by Team Deplorable is frightening. It's just the foundation necessary to start the doublethink process on a national level.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm ok with this if only because I think Biden would be a poor candidate anyway. Do we really need the reddest dem as president?

Yes. Do you know why? Who is the constituency in defeating Trump?

[Fugus]

Normally I'd agree, but the level of willful ignorance supported by Team Deplorable is frightening. It's just the foundation necessary to start the doublethink process on a national level.

I can definitely agree with the Trump supporters, but they would have to cut us off from the internet and wait the better part of half a century before that actually took hold.

The Trump supporters will believe the fantasy no matter what. No historian would by it, no one outside of the US would by it and the world is effectively getting smaller by the year figuratively.

Those days are behind us short of shutting down the internet and closing borders. The benefits of the internet where everyone has a computer capable of holding hours or even years of footage and millions of documents, makes that much harder.

Not saying they could convince a large portion of the population, by the extremes that would take nowadays or rewriting history itself, that barrier is much higher than it was a century ago.

You would start seeing torrents of news footage or darkweb links where it was preserved elsewhere and so on.

[Kaleredar]

I can definitely agree with the Trump supporters, but they would have to cut us off from the internet and wait the better part of half a century before that actually took hold.

The Trump supporters will believe the fantasy no matter what. No historian would by it, no one outside of the US would by it and the world is effectively getting smaller by the year figuratively.

Those days are behind us short of shutting down the internet and closing borders. The benefits of the internet where everyone has a computer capable of holding hours or even years of footage and millions of documents, makes that much harder.

Not saying they could convince a large portion of the population, by the extremes that would take nowadays or rewriting history itself, that barrier is much higher than it was a century ago.

You would start seeing torrents of news footage or darkweb links where it was preserved elsewhere and so on.

I think you're missing the larger picture here.

While Trump's attempts to assert control over the media are hit-and-miss, what he has not failed at doing is systematically decreasing the power and potency of the US on the international stage and that will take some time, under the leadership of a president that is very much not him, to fix it.

That power does not just "disappear," it is a vacuum that other countries move in to fill. Right now, those countries are Russia and China, who exert massive control over the narratives and information that their citizens have access to. As their relative power increases, so does the normalcy of how they comport themselves across the globe.

For a small example, look at the US film industry- a multi-billion dollar enterprise that actively curtails itself to Chinese censorship in order to gain access to their markets. The video game industry does it too. (Just look at Blizzard's knee-jerk reaction to the Hong Kong debacle.)

As the US, under Trump/Republican's incompetent leadership, becomes less and less reliable (why do you think the Russians support them? Because they know they're damaging to the US) countries may begin to look for stability elsewhere. And they might see Russia and China as plausibly offering that. But in order to sit at their table, China and Russia could demand that countries wanting to cooperate with them play ball with their way of doing things, so to speak. They'll have a vested interest in supporting politicians and systems within those countries that are beneficiary to their established rule, which, of course, will look more and more like how they do things in their respective countries. And I'd imagine information control would be on the top of that docket.

I admit it is a slippery slope argument. But China and Russia have shown no interest in changing their rather draconian systems of control. The only shifting variable here is the slow loss of US influence under Trump's malignant incompetence.

[ati87]

I think you're missing the larger picture here.

While Trump's attempts to assert control over the media are hit-and-miss, what he has not failed at doing is systematically decreasing the power and potency of the US on the international stage and that will take some time, under the leadership of a president that is very much not him, to fix it.

That power does not just "disappear," it is a vacuum that other countries move in to fill. Right now, those countries are Russia and China, who exert massive control over the narratives and information that their citizens have access to. As their relative power increases, so does the normalcy of how they comport themselves across the globe.

For a small example, look at the US film industry- a multi-billion dollar enterprise that actively curtails itself to Chinese censorship in order to gain access to their markets. The video game industry does it too. (Just look at Blizzard's knee-jerk reaction to the Hong Kong debacle.)

As the US, under Trump/Republican's incompetent leadership, becomes less and less reliable (why do you think the Russians support them? Because they know they're damaging to the US) countries may begin to look for stability elsewhere. And they might see Russia and China as plausibly offering that. But in order to sit at their table, China and Russia could demand that countries wanting to cooperate with them play ball with their way of doing things, so to speak. They'll have a vested interest in supporting politicians and systems within those countries that are beneficiary to their established rule, which, of course, will look more and more like how they do things in their respective countries. And I'd imagine information control would be on the top of that docket.

I admit it is a slippery slope argument. But China and Russia have shown no interest in changing their rather draconian systems of control. The only shifting variable here is the slow loss of US influence under Trump's malignant incompetence.

Doesn't have to be so hypothetical honestly, just look at 8 years of Bush and what resulted from his foreign policy mistakes. Pre Bush jr the EU would follow the US on allot of foreign policies but that definitely changed after Bush, Obama tried to restore the US moral authority which is why the warmongers hated the fact that he didn't just solo bomb ME countries.

Trump has doubled down on the Bush stupidity doctrine and the fact that Merkel told in public that the EU cannot rely on the US anymore confirms this.


Infracted.

[mvaliz]

She gained enormous ethos from that testimony. Equating that event with her election loss is not correct.




The only people who think Hunter Biden has done anything wrong are Trumpkins, and they aren't changing their minds.




No, we haven't. It's you who've forgotten why Hillary lost.

Please keep in mind the goal of bringing witnesses and more evidence to the Senate Trial.

- - - Updated - - -



Normally I'd agree, but the level of willful ignorance supported by Team Deplorable is frightening. It's just the foundation necessary to start the doublethink process on a national level.

- - - Updated - - -



Yes. Do you know why? Who is the constituency in defeating Trump?

...wow, I think I just lost a large amount of respect for you if you think only "trumpkins" believe she's a criminal due to the Benghazi nonsense. =/ There are people today who still believe she's some sort of Criminal.

Have you ever spoken to an indipendent? I can't tell you how many I talked to (even good friends of mine) who said they thought she was a criminal because of "all the investigations into her".

The only Ethos she gained was from people who paid attention to that deposition - which was next to nobody percentage wise in regards to voters.

And you're also splitting hairs, there's a LOT of tactics the Republicans used to go after Hillary, and you, of all people, are still falling for one of them... >.>

[Reeve]

Because that strategy worked perfectly well for Hillary in regards to Benghazi, right??? She spent 12 hours detailing how she had nothing to do with Benghazi... and look where it landed her?

Please remember the real reason WHY they want Hunter up there - they (Both the Senate Repubs and their constituents) don't give a spit about anything he has to say up there or to get him convicted of anything. All they care about are headlines reading "Hunter Biden brought in for questioning!" to get to associate the name "Biden" with "Controversy" - just like they made Hillary's name associated with "Controversy" by those (the majority) who do NOT follow politics in this country to influence the 2020 elections in November!

That's ALL they need to convince their fellows and the general ignorant American Public that Hunter is a criminal and/or Joe Biden has something to hide. Guilt by being "Brought in". It worked for Hillary, and it will work again for Biden. They won't care about what Hunter has to say... they will get sound bytes of Republican Senators just angrily accusing him to post on Facebook with no reply attached. They'll get FOX headline pundits and all news media covering it, asking questions, asking why Hunter is up there. They'll get Youtube Pundits breaking down all the outrage into easily digestible balls of hatred that boost their ratings so well.

It hasn't even been four years since the last election, and you two have already forgotten the tactics used by Republicans in 2016. >_<

Honestly I’m pretty OK with Biden losing the primary.

- - - Updated - - -

...wow, I think I just lost a large amount of respect for you if you think only "trumpkins" believe she's a criminal due to the Benghazi nonsense. =/ There are people today who still believe she's some sort of Criminal.

Have you ever spoken to an indipendent? I can't tell you how many I talked to (even good friends of mine) who said they thought she was a criminal because of "all the investigations into her".

The only Ethos she gained was from people who paid attention to that deposition - which was next to nobody percentage wise in regards to voters.

And you're also splitting hairs, there's a LOT of tactics the Republicans used to go after Hillary, and you, of all people, are still falling for one of them... >.>

Yeah, the number of people I spoke to who regarded Hillary as corrupt based on vagaries with no concrete stuff... it was a lot of people, including Democrats.

[zenkai]

Exactly where I thought it'd end up. With Bolton's manuscript out there, they don't have a choice but to say "bad Donald" and slap him on the wrist. Thereby ignoring the large corruption pit they just opened for future presidents.

But how trusty is a word of a man who was fired, never once said anything about the call, refused to testify in the House, and then is writing a book for financial gain? Doesn't matter if you believe him or not, you can't deny that raises red flags about his credibility.

[Machismo]

But how trusty is a word of a man who was fired, never once said anything about the call, refused to testify in the House, and then is writing a book for financial gain? Doesn't matter if you believe him or not, you can't deny that raises red flags about his credibility.

Considering he's corroborating the claims of a dozen other people... I'd say you are deflecting.

Or, were you trying to describe Trump?

Well, this just got awkward.

[DocSavageFan]

Doesn't have to be so hypothetical honestly, just look at 8 years of Bush and what resulted from his foreign policy mistakes. Pre Bush jr the EU would follow the US on allot of foreign policies but that definitely changed after Bush, Obama tried to restore the US moral authority which is why the warmongers hated the fact that he didn't just solo bomb ME countries.

Trump has doubled down on the Bush stupidity doctrine and the fact that Merkel told in public that the EU cannot rely on the US anymore confirms this.

Obama tried to restore US moral authority? You've got to be joking. What he did in Libya was immoral as hell...and the human death and suffering in that country as a direct result of his stupid warmongering continues to this day in that failed State.

Libya: An endless cycle of suffering
https://www.doctorswithoutborders.or...ycle-suffering

You're living in an alternate reality if you think that Obama somehow restored US moral authority. That said, I'm glad that Trump hasn't done anything nearly as horrible....and I hope it stays that way.


Infracted.

[Machismo]

Obama tried to restore US moral authority? You've got to be joking. What he did in Libya was immoral as hell...and the human death and suffering in that country as a direct result of his stupid warmongering continues to this day in that failed State.

Libya: An endless cycle of suffering
https://www.doctorswithoutborders.or...ycle-suffering

You're living in an alternate reality if you think that Obama somehow restored US moral authority. That said, I'm glad that Trump hasn't done anything nearly as horrible....and I hope it stays that way.

The world disagrees with you.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2...ues-to-suffer/

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...t-in-9-charts/

[Tenlo]

But how trusty is a word of a man who was fired, never once said anything about the call, refused to testify in the House, and then is writing a book for financial gain? Doesn't matter if you believe him or not, you can't deny that raises red flags about his credibility.

All the more reason we should have him on the stand then. If he's blatently lying he should be easy to expose

[Breccia]

But how trusty is a word of a man who was fired, never once said anything about the call, refused to testify in the House, and then is writing a book for financial gain?

Well, that sounds like Trump, actually.
1) He went bankrupt multiple times and was forced to abdicate his shares
2) He didn't tell anyone about the call either, not until it was whisteblown
3) He sure as hell didn't take the stand
4) And he's intentionally profiting off of being President

So I'd suggest your outrage is misplaced. In the meantime, I'll also ask "how many other members of Team Trump refused to testify?" Until you answer that question, I don't think you can use "I can't trust XXX because he didn't testify".

[DocSavageFan]

Looks like Republicans are considering allowing witnesses from both sides...in a reciprocal ratio that Dems allowed Republicans in the House. Oh the ironing!

- - - Updated - - -

The world disagrees with you.

https://www.pewresearch.org/global/2...ues-to-suffer/

https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tan...t-in-9-charts/

Perhaps they need to poll the people of Libya...the ones that are still alive at least.

[Reeve]

But how trusty is a word of a man who was fired, never once said anything about the call, refused to testify in the House, and then is writing a book for financial gain? Doesn't matter if you believe him or not, you can't deny that raises red flags about his credibility.

It might, if he wasn't corroborated by dozens of other people and the call log itself. Plus, Bolton is a died in the wool conservative who left his dream job of National Security Advisor over this stuff.

Plus, if we're talking about credibility, I think Trump has a MUCH larger credibility problem. I know Trump claims that he fired Bolton, but I haven't yet seen him say something where the exact opposite wasn't true. When you have as many conservative former employees of the White House telling us about Trump's lies as have existed in this case, I'm gonna believe the former employees.

[Machismo]

Looks like Republicans are considering allowing witnesses from both sides...in a reciprocal ratio that Dems allowed Republicans in the House. Oh the ironing!

- - - Updated - - -


Perhaps they need to poll the people of Libya...the ones that are still alive at least.

Like I said, the world disagrees with you.

[Breccia]

The funny part is watching Trump explain how stupid he was to hire Bolton in the first place.

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 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, 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. All Classified National Security. Who would do this?

For someone who hired the best people, this is Trump explaining he did not hire a good person at all.

We've seen this before, such as Cohen. Trump loves someone so much until suddenly they tell the truth, then WHAMMO "I never liked him, covfefe boy, he was the worst the whole time, yes I hired him for some reason".

Trump is claiming the book's claim is false. Fine. Let's put him on the stand.

"Bolton or Trump?"

Honestly, it should be both. In fact, I'll let this Democrat explain:

You know, I think so. I really do. I don't have a problem there, because this is why we are where we are. Now, I think that he could clear himself. Of what I know and what I've heard, but being afraid to put anybody that might have pertinent information is wrong — no matter if you're a Democrat or Republican, and not go home and say well, I protected one. No. If it's relevant, then it should be there.

"Wow, they said that about Trump?"

No, they said that about Hunter Biden. Doesn't matter. Does Trump want to clear his name? Awesome. Take the stand, say you didn't do the illegal thing, and walk away. Problem solved forever. Unless you lied and actually did do it, of course.

[swiftowner]

Looks like Republicans are considering allowing witnesses from both sides...in a reciprocal ratio that Dems allowed Republicans in the House. Oh the ironing!

- - - Updated - - -


Perhaps they need to poll the people of Libya...the ones that are still alive at least.

If it’s anything less than both sides being allowed to call witnesses then you are being disingenuous and are lying since house republicans WERE allowed to call witnesses and DID call witnesses.

The only ‘irony’ here would be Trumphadis’ projection.

[Reeve]

Obama tried to restore US moral authority? You've got to be joking. What he did in Libya was immoral as hell...and the human death and suffering in that country as a direct result of his stupid warmongering continues to this day in that failed State.

Libya: An endless cycle of suffering
https://www.doctorswithoutborders.or...ycle-suffering

You're living in an alternate reality if you think that Obama somehow restored US moral authority. That said, I'm glad that Trump hasn't done anything nearly as horrible....and I hope it stays that way.

As I recall, France decided to attack Libya, and requested assistance from the US. Obama respected our alliance with France.