Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Captain N]

WaPo reports that the GOP (specifically the Senate) are prepared to acknowledge that what Trump did was, in fact, a quid pro quo to withhold Congressional aid to Ukraine in exchange for attacking a political rival. They just don't care.

What are the odds that they'll do anything about it though?

I mean we're in a world of: "Well technically its illegal but it wasn't a Democrat so it's OK"

[mvaliz]

You act like it's ancient history instead of something that was released in the last ~6 months...

The better response would be "I'll take 10 years of Benghazi bullshit for 20, Trebek!" :P

[Fugus]

WaPo reports that the GOP (specifically the Senate) are prepared to acknowledge that what Trump did was, in fact, a quid pro quo to withhold Congressional aid to Ukraine in exchange for attacking a political rival. They just don't care.

What would you say the odds of the Democrats also bringing up the Mueller Report results and bringing in those people as part of the impeachment stuff as Mueller suggested in his report?

Honestly think they should and this would be even this shallow attempt at a defense out of the water I would think.

[Polyxo]

At the same time though, I don't think that, as... well-intentioned... as their aims might be, that things like (and I'm going to use this as a broader example) "allow prisoners taxpayer funded sex changes in prison" plays as well as they think it does to the wider American audience. That's the kind of, and I'm going to be honest here, "fringe policy" that will probably put off more people than it engenders to them. And the kind of stuff that Trump and Fox will immediately glom on to and weaponize against them.

If Warren or whomever wants to make that kind of stuff law because they really do believe in it (rather than their likely ploy of trying to garner primary votes to become the frontrunner,) then... do it AFTER becoming president. I highly doubt that the vast majority of people truly concerned about prisoners getting government funded sex changes would have THAT kind of thing be the deciding factor between voting for the democratic nominee and Trump. No. Anyone that had ANY hope for LGBT individuals to gain rights in this world... sure as hell wouldn't be voting for Trump.

The Democrats need to be following the straight and narrow of "Trump is an awful piece of garbage and a horribly inept leader. I'm a responsible, efficient leader that will actually lead America. And to do that here's new fancy job sounding stuff, cool stuff about education, and a future we can believe in!" Bing bang boom done. Congrats, newly elected democrat president, you snatched America's soul away from the jaws of the apocalypse.

Those niche policies can become "dangerous" to center-of-the-road Americans. Like I said, the Democratic nominee doesn't have to sell themself to already progressive people. All they have to do is not inspire complete apathy in progressive voters. (Though, honestly, I think it is a COLOSSALLY moronic idea for any truly "progressive" individual to "sit out the election because the democratic nominee wasn't progressive enough." There's TOO much at stake for America... and the world... at having Trump remain president to be so petulantly myopic that they need a prince charming candidate to sweep them off their feet or they'll abstain.) The nominee needs to sell themself to the middle-of-the-road voter who will probably be more concerned with things that affect them or their families directly than niche policies.

I mean, think of how this sounds to the average voter... "Well, Trump is foul mouthed and has a lot of controversy around him, but I'm not personally affected by this Mueller report business, or that stuff about Ukraine... But Warren wants me to pay more in taxes to fund sex changes? For prisoners?! No thanks!" That's the kind of thing that can dominate a narrative. And because Trump and co don't have any actual policies of their own beyond "brown people bad," it's the kind of thing they're going to be bringing up. A lot.

If it sounds like I'm harping that point, it's because it's something that will definitely be harped.

I'm not super worried. That's primary season talk. That all goes away in the general race. As long as they have enough general soundbites by the time the nominee's ready, they'll be fine.

[Kaleredar]

I'm not super worried. That's primary season talk. That all goes away in the general race. As long as they have enough general soundbites by the time the nominee's ready, they'll be fine.

And, as I said, I hope that is indeed the case.

[Stormspellz]

I noticed democrats are so positive about Ukraine that Nancy Pelosi is open to dredging up the mueller report again....because nobody is tired of that news story.

yes the document that says "Trump would be in jail if he wasn't president", I have no idea why she would that little thing up.

[PACOX]

I noticed democrats are so positive about Ukraine that Nancy Pelosi is open to dredging up the mueller report again....because nobody is tired of that news story.

You don't remember the impeachment proceedings that were going on about a month before Pelosi's?

They were never done with the Mueller report, Trump found new and fresher ways to be corrupt.

[Benggaul]

What are the odds that they'll do anything about it though?

I mean we're in a world of: "Well technically its illegal but it wasn't a Democrat so it's OK"

They pretty much said that. More are willing to agree that it was QPQ but the consensus among them is: So what? Not illegal!

[Xeones]

I noticed democrats are so positive about Ukraine that Nancy Pelosi is open to dredging up the mueller report again....because nobody is tired of that news story.

I'm really not sure what you're referring to, I just figured it would be mentioned on an obstruction charge.

[Dontrike]

I noticed democrats are so positive about Ukraine that Nancy Pelosi is open to dredging up the mueller report again....because nobody is tired of that news story.

You mean the story that Trump obstructed plenty and got foreign aid? That one?

[Kaleredar]

We can't allow ourselves to fall into complacency and think Trump is guaranteed to lose. The odds are really stacked against him, but it's definitely not impossible for him to win. He's unlikely to be convicted by the senate, and will have to answer to the voters directly for his criminal and corrupt behavior.

Precisely.

Democrats need to move as a cohesive whole during the entirety of the election cycle in instrumentally denigrating Donald Trump in the eyes of the people as well as pitching why whoever the nominee is is good for middle class America in the key swing states.

Like, i know that sounds stupidly obvious, but... they didn't do it in 2016.

[TexasRules]

Precisely.

Democrats need to move as a cohesive whole during the entirety of the election cycle in instrumentally denigrating Donald Trump in the eyes of the people as well as pitching why whoever the nominee is is good for middle class America in the key swing states.

Like, i know that sounds stupidly obvious, but... they didn't do it in 2016.

Elizabeth Warren is going to do great in the middle class where all the Republicans are going to show how their taxes will be raised. Beyond this tax raising for medicare for all and a hatred of Trump, what is she going to run on? She's currently everyone's favorite to win the nomination, what is she running on besides this?

[Xyonai]

Elizabeth Warren is going to do great in the middle class where all the Republicans are going to show how their taxes will be raised. Beyond this tax raising for medicare for all and a hatred of Trump, what is she going to run on? She's currently everyone's favorite to win the nomination, what is she running on besides this?

Well health care was an exceedingly popular platform going into 2018's house election, so it's still an issue people care about, and in a world divorced of six-second sound-bites she could explain how the decrease in individual payments in spite of a tax hike can still make the platform more affordable to most Americans. But the particulars of this discussion belong better in the appropriate megathread.

[TexasRules]

Well health care was an exceedingly popular platform going into 2018's house election, so it's still an issue people care about, and in a world divorced of six-second sound-bites she could explain how the decrease in individual payments in spite of a tax hike can still make the platform more affordable to most Americans. But the particulars of this discussion belong better in the appropriate megathread.

I'm just replying to the posts that are derailing the thread? Can you tell me how this will be affected by Warren wanting to give health care to all illegal immigrants?

[Kaleredar]

Elizabeth Warren is going to do great in the middle class where all the Republicans are going to show how their taxes will be raised. Beyond this tax raising for medicare for all and a hatred of Trump, what is she going to run on? She's currently everyone's favorite to win the nomination, what is she running on besides this?

She isn't a human piece of garbage up to her ears in legal proceedings, a revolving door staff, mired in controversy over Russia, mired in controversy over Ukraine, facing internal derision from her own party and an impeachment hearing whilst simultaneously shedding US allies left and right.

What's Trump got on her? That he's totally going to bring back all those jobs and factories that he failed to bring back in his first term?

[Xyonai]

I'm just replying to the posts that are derailing the thread? Can you tell me how this will be affected by Warren wanting to give health care to all illegal immigrants?

You've been using this fishing line enough in the Nomination thread, we don't need it cluttering here too.

So instead I'll bring things back on track, because I didn't see this posted here yet: "Testimony: White House lawyer told Vindman not to discuss Ukraine call."

Edit: Some extra links from other outlets on the same thing -
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9181866.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...6ef_story.html

[TexasRules]

She isn't a human piece of garbage up to her ears in legal proceedings, a revolving door staff, mired in controversy over Russia, mired in controversy over Ukraine, facing internal derision from her own party and an impeachment hearing whilst simultaneously shedding US allies left and right.

What's Trump got on her? That he's totally going to bring back all those jobs and factories that he failed to bring back in his first term?

So ......as i said, your feelings versus actual platforms on health care, foreign relations, military spending, education...etc etc, you have nothing but your hatred and her medicare for all. I understand you hate Trump, and that is the major platform that democrats are going to run on because they have nothing....but how do you get someone to change their vote when you can't have rational discussions. You do understand that what you typed is great for the echo chamber here, i am sure 30 people who hate Trump with vitriol like you do will be in here to pat you on the back. But how does that help get voters? I mean, they all know where you stand but how is your feelings going to change their mind?

- - - Updated - - -

You've been using this fishing line enough in the Nomination thread, we don't need it cluttering here too.

So instead I'll bring things back on track, because I didn't see this posted here yet: "Testimony: White House lawyer told Vindman not to discuss Ukraine call."

Edit: Some extra links from other outlets on the same thing -
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9181866.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...6ef_story.html

Let's bring it back to the topic. Tell me about this whistleblower that started this whole thing and who the democrats do not want to interview because he worked with Joe Biden and John Breenan and makes a terribly biased witness.

And if Vindman say, takes the stand in an actual impeachment hearing is going to get roasted. He nor anyone else who has testified can not say whether the President was after Joe Biden specifically or if he asked that the 2016 corruption be investigated in general. You can say it could go either way. This man also said he was protecting his office...the people around him etc...none of whom make United States foreign policy decisions. The President does that.

[Elegiac]

Let's bring it back to the topic. Tell me about this whistleblower that started this whole thing and who the democrats do not want to interview because he worked with Joe Biden and John Breenan and makes a terribly biased witness.

You mean the one who is functionally irrelevant to the case at this point because there have been multiple corroborating testimonies?

We get that you want the whistleblower's identity so that you can attack them rather than the substance of the case presented, but Pelosi and Schiff aren't falling for it.

[Orbitus]

Let's bring it back to the topic. Tell me about this whistleblower that started this whole thing and who the democrats do not want to interview because he worked with Joe Biden and John Breenan and makes a terribly biased witness.

I have a question for you, why does the whistleblower matter anymore? Considering how the complaint was confirmed by the notes of the transcript that Trump released, how Volker's testimony confirmed it, how Vindman's testimony confirmed it, and how just about everyone but Sondland confirmed it? Sondland will be lucky if he doesn't get a perjury charge for lying.

- - - Updated - - -

You mean the one who is functionally irrelevant to the case at this point because there have been multiple corroborating testimonies?

We get that you want the whistleblower's identity so that you can attack them rather than the substance of the case presented, but Pelosi and Schiff aren't falling for it.

They claim they have it, just because some random guy fits the description. And he just happens to be tied to Biden and Brennan somehow, based on some retard from some right wing blog/twitter.

[Dontrike]

Another good video that makes things simple for us dummies out there.

Let's bring it back to the topic. Tell me about this whistleblower that started this whole thing and who the democrats do not want to interview because he worked with Joe Biden and John Breenan and makes a terribly biased witness.

So because you worked for a person means you are automatically biased? Tell me about how it's more important who the person is and who they worked for rather than if the information is correct, which so far seems to be backed up quite bit at this point. The whistleblower got near the "transcript" almost perfectly and at this point many others have come forward to say similar.

I'll wait while you flounder about and move those goalposts.