Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Daelak]

So anyone who has a different opinion is lying, rather than just having a different opinion? Interesting.

The Democrats have repeatedly said they were working on impeaching Trump even before he was elected. So yeah, I think they are willing to impeach him for just doing things they don't like.

Congressman Al Green saying literally that yesterday:
https://www.dailywire.com/news/democ...ing-for-office

Because he refused to divest himself from his businesses which are profiting off of the federal government. A violation of the emoluments clause to a T. There is also an investigation into money laundering through his inauguration committee that received over $100 million dollars from sources unknown to the public. He violated the constitution the day he said he wouldn't abide by it. It's not about hatred, it's about breaking the law.

[cubby]

The other issue that I couldn't remember was more damning emails from the Executive that clarifies the Ukraine and other corruption re election graft.

“This is working beautifully for her, and for the country,” says Norm Ornstein, a political scientist and resident scholar at the American Enterprise Institute. “In the weeks since the House voted for Impeachment, there have been more damning emails, and there’s no reason to believe we have seen the end of it.”

[Edge-]

https://lawandcrime.com/impeachment/...broke-the-law/

So we have a lot of redacted DoJ emails about the Ukrainian aide being held up.

And apparently a site got a look at the unredacted emails, and the redactions were to remove comments from the DoJ expressing concerns over the legality of the hold on the aide, pointing out that while withholding aide is legal there are processes to go through including informing Congress that legally mandated aide is being withheld.

[cubby]

https://lawandcrime.com/impeachment/...broke-the-law/

So we have a lot of redacted DoJ emails about the Ukrainian aide being held up.

And apparently a site got a look at the unredacted emails, and the redactions were to remove comments from the DoJ expressing concerns over the legality of the hold on the aide, pointing out that while withholding aide is legal there are processes to go through including informing Congress that legally mandated aide is being withheld.

Whoa. That would be pretty damning if the DoJ's own internal team found legal issues with Trump's actions. Not to mention that the DoJ is now covering up illegal behavior by Trump. It's going to take decades to unravel the litany of crimes Trump and his cronies committed.

[Edge-]

Whoa. That would be pretty damning if the DoJ's own internal team found legal issues with Trump's actions. Not to mention that the DoJ is now covering up illegal behavior by Trump. It's going to take decades to unravel the litany of crimes Trump and his cronies committed.

Bill Barr will forever leave a stain on the DoJ, damaging its reputation and making it a purely political office working for the president, not the American people.

That he was ever approved to begin with is infuriating, and that he continues to serve despite his myriad conflicts of interest and ethical issues (dropping $30K+ on Trump properties for a party, which is a gross conflict of interest and not remotely right) is maddening.

Whoever takes over next is going to have a hell of a lot of investigating and cleanup to do across all agencies. I don't envy them or the staffers that will have to undertake this work, and can only hope they can bring back some of the longtime staff who have since left/been fired so that they can get things back in order.

[MasterK]

Bill Barr will forever leave a stain on the DoJ, damaging its reputation and making it a purely political office working for the president, not the American people.

That he was ever approved to begin with is infuriating, and that he continues to serve despite his myriad conflicts of interest and ethical issues (dropping $30K+ on Trump properties for a party, which is a gross conflict of interest and not remotely right) is maddening.

Whoever takes over next is going to have a hell of a lot of investigating and cleanup to do across all agencies. I don't envy them or the staffers that will have to undertake this work, and can only hope they can bring back some of the longtime staff who have since left/been fired so that they can get things back in order.

I wonder how far a moderator can go with slander, insults and conspiracy theories? Because someone is not serving your needs, he gets all the abuse you can give. Maybe you should look at things a bit more unbiased, because you have nothing to proof your allegations with. You are just looking after anything with the intent to make it the worst ever, and most of the time you are just wrong. Your example is just a good example of that.

[Machismo]

I wonder how far a moderator can go with slander, insults and conspiracy theories? Because someone is not serving your needs, he gets all the abuse you can give. Maybe you should look at things a bit more unbiased, because you have nothing to proof your allegations with. You are just looking after anything with the intent to make it the worst ever, and most of the time you are just wrong. Your example is just a good example of that.

Exactly what was slanderous or a conspiracy theory about her comment?

How would you know she's wrong most of the time? You are a brand-new account.

- - - Updated - - -

I wonder how far a moderator can go with slander, insults and conspiracy theories? Because someone is not serving your needs, he gets all the abuse you can give. Maybe you should look at things a bit more unbiased, because you have nothing to proof your allegations with. You are just looking after anything with the intent to make it the worst ever, and most of the time you are just wrong. Your example is just a good example of that.

Exactly what was slanderous or a conspiracy theory about her comment?

How would you know she's wrong most of the time? You are a brand-new account.

I look forward to you being able to produce evidence of her pushing slander, conspiracy theories, and her being wrong "most of the time" in those accusations.

[MasterK]

Exactly what was slanderous or a conspiracy theory about her comment?

How would you know she's wrong most of the time? You are a brand-new account.

- - - Updated - - -



Exactly what was slanderous or a conspiracy theory about her comment?

How would you know she's wrong most of the time? You are a brand-new account.

I look forward to you being able to produce evidence of her pushing slander, conspiracy theories, and her being wrong "most of the time" in those accusations.

Check your own posts... Too funny the only thing you can do is talking about "brand-new account" which is against forum rules anyway.

[Machismo]

Check your own posts...

That doesn't make any sense, you just made multiple accusations, and cannot seem to back them up with evidence.

For a guy with only 94 posts, this seems to be happening a lot with you.

[Edge-]

I wonder how far a moderator can go with slander, insults and conspiracy theories?

This is none of the above. This is criticism.

Because someone is not serving your needs, he gets all the abuse you can give.

Somehow I don't think Bill Barr reads the MMO-Champion forums, so I'm not sure how I'm "abusing" him in the slightest.

It has nothing to do with "serving my needs" and everything to do with his behavior that's been criticized from both sides of the isle. Most Republicans in Congress love him because he acts like Trump's personal attorney.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/u...r-critics.html

Maybe you should look at things a bit more unbiased, because you have nothing to proof your allegations with.

1. His pre-Mueller Report press conference. The one where he mislead the public on the contents of the report to the point where Mueller sent him a note critical of his handling of it.
2. His arguments for expansive executive power that functionally would make a president an unaccountable despot.
3. His $30K+ buyout of rooms for a holiday party at a Trump property. The AG should never, ever, be spending money at any establishment owned by or associated with the POTUS. That's a clear conflict of interest, as the AG is the top lawyer for the American people, not the president.

[MasterK]

This is none of the above. This is criticism.



Somehow I don't think Bill Barr reads the MMO-Champion forums, so I'm not sure how I'm "abusing" him in the slightest.

It has nothing to do with "serving my needs" and everything to do with his behavior that's been criticized from both sides of the isle. Most Republicans in Congress love him because he acts like Trump's personal attorney.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/22/u...r-critics.html



1. His pre-Mueller Report press conference. The one where he mislead the public on the contents of the report to the point where Mueller sent him a note critical of his handling of it.
2. His arguments for expansive executive power that functionally would make a president an unaccountable despot.
3. His $30K+ buyout of rooms for a holiday party at a Trump property. The AG should never, ever, be spending money at any establishment owned by or associated with the POTUS. That's a clear conflict of interest, as the AG is the top lawyer for the American people, not the president.

1. Correct.cAbout the way he handled it, not the contents.
2. A personal opinion. Ok, I hope it isn't a case where you didn't understand what he was meaning?
3. Not a "conflict of interest"in anyway except in OUR opinion. So he could never buy anything at a store of somebody who supports either political party with a lot of money? This is just getting ridiculous.

-edit- You have been long enough a moderator that you know there was a time that attacks on public persons and the use of belittling terms (at that time Putanista, now Trumphadi and worse) was a reason for an infraction?

[Machismo]

1. Correct.cAbout the way he handled it, not the contents.
2. A personal opinion. Ok, I hope it isn't a case where you didn't understand what he was meaning?
3. Not a "conflict of interest"in anyway except in OUR opinion. So he could never buy anything at a store of somebody who supports either political party with a lot of money? This is just getting ridiculous.

Yes, it is a conflict of interest to be paying money to the President.

You have not shown any evidence that points to her comments being slanderous or conspiracy theories.

- - - Updated - - -

1. Correct.cAbout the way he handled it, not the contents.
2. A personal opinion. Ok, I hope it isn't a case where you didn't understand what he was meaning?
3. Not a "conflict of interest"in anyway except in OUR opinion. So he could never buy anything at a store of somebody who supports either political party with a lot of money? This is just getting ridiculous.

-edit- You have been long enough a moderator that you know there was a time that attacks on public persons and the use of (at that time Putanista, now Trumphadis and worse) was a reason for an infraction?

How would you know how long she's been a moderator, you are brand new here. How would you know about those supposed old rules?

[Edge-]

1. Correct.About the way he handled it, not the contents.

Both. He misrepresented the contents of it, which is what caused Mueller to write the letter to him.

2. A personal opinion. Ok...

Yes, a personal opinion. Because that's what my disagreements with him are based off of. This is all my personal opinion/criticism.

3. Not a "conflict of interest"in anyway except in OUR opinion. So he could never buy anything at a store of somebody who supports either political party with a lot of money? This is just getting ridiculous.

By any measure.

This isn't about a store "supporting a party", this is about him spending tens of thousands at a business owned by his "boss", whom he doesn't actually directly work for (he works for the American people). Between this and the previously mention issues, it further gives the appearance that he think he only works for Trump and is seeking to curry favor.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/bi...s-of-interest/

[MasterK]

Both. He misrepresented the contents of it, which is what caused Mueller to write the letter to him.



Yes, a personal opinion. Because that's what my disagreements with him are based off of. This is all my personal opinion/criticism.



By any measure.

This isn't about a store "supporting a party", this is about him spending tens of thousands at a business owned by his "boss", whom he doesn't actually directly work for (he works for the American people). Between this and the previously mention issues, it further gives the appearance that he think he only works for Trump and is seeking to curry favor.

https://www.citizensforethics.org/bi...s-of-interest/

Strange, he never misrepresented it. Maybe to the letter, but the general gist was correct. And if you think differently, please show me some proof.

If he is not actually directly working for Trump, how can it be a conflict of interest? Again, you see things you want to see.

And the biggest hypocrisy here? Linking obscure and biased websites when it's promoting your case, but never linking them when it's doing the opposite.

[Endus]

And the biggest hypocrisy here? Linking obscure and biased websites when it's promoting your case, but never linking them when it's doing the opposite.

CREW is neither obscure, nor partisan. They're deliberately nonpartisan.

If you think the idea that expecting "responsibility and ethics in Washington" is a partisan agenda, you're doing a lot to self-condemn.

[Edge-]

Strange, he never misrepresented it. Maybe to the letter, but the general gist was correct. And if you think differently, please show me some proof.

https://thehill.com/policy/national-...letter-to-barr

The summary letter the Department sent to Congress and released to the public late in the afternoon of March 24 did not fully capture the context, nature, and substance of this Office's work and conclusions. We communicated that concern to the department on the morning of March 25. There is now public confusion about critical aspects of the results of our investigation. This threatens to undermine a central purpose of which the Department appointed the Special Counsel: to assure full public confidence in the outcome of the investigations.

He did. That's a direct quote from the letter Mueller sent to Barr after his press conference. You can find the full letter in the link.

If he is not actually directly working for Trump, how can it be a conflict of interest? Again, you see things you want to see.

Trump his his boss. He appointed him. But he doesn't work for him specifically, that's not what the office is supposed to do. The DoJ is not a political agency like HUD, Energy, or others. He is the top attorney for the American people, not Trump. So even if Trump is his "boss", he doesn't represent Trump. He represents the American people, which includes representing them against Trump if he's found to have violated the law.

And the biggest hypocrisy here? Linking obscure and biased websites when it's promoting your case, but never linking them when it's doing the opposite.

CREW is non-partisan and goes after both parties.

Criticism of Obama's handling of transparency - https://www.citizensforethics.org/pr...ort-on-change/

Suing the Obama administration to gain access to visitor records - https://www.citizensforethics.org/pr...sitor-records/

Another battle against Obama's administration - https://www.politico.com/story/2009/...of-hunt-020710

[MasterK]

https://thehill.com/policy/national-...letter-to-barr



He did. That's a direct quote from the letter Mueller sent to Barr after his press conference. You can find the full letter in the link.



Trump his his boss. He appointed him. But he doesn't work for him specifically, that's not what the office is supposed to do. The DoJ is not a political agency like HUD, Energy, or others. He is the top attorney for the American people, not Trump. So even if Trump is his "boss", he doesn't represent Trump. He represents the American people, which includes representing them against Trump if he's found to have violated the law.



CREW is non-partisan and goes after both parties.

Criticism of Obama's handling of transparency - https://www.citizensforethics.org/pr...ort-on-change/

Suing the Obama administration to gain access to visitor records - https://www.citizensforethics.org/pr...sitor-records/

Another battle against Obama's administration - https://www.politico.com/story/2009/...of-hunt-020710

Any proof of Barr not representing the American people against Trump? And for your reference, frivolous law suits or anything the "public" can ask which he doesn't do, is not not representing.

[Dacien]

Trump his his boss. He appointed him. But he doesn't work for him specifically, that's not what the office is supposed to do. The DoJ is not a political agency like HUD, Energy, or others. He is the top attorney for the American people, not Trump. So even if Trump is his "boss", he doesn't represent Trump. He represents the American people, which includes representing them against Trump if he's found to have violated the law.

I think it's just political. Nobody calling for Barr's head was crying out for the same when Holder ignored subpoenas, or when, in the midst of being held in contempt of Congress, he declared himself "Obama's wingman". I can't think of any voices on the left objecting at the time that he works for the American people, not Obama.

You see a lot of this, where people didn't really get fired up about the detainment conditions of children in immigration detention centers under Obama (so-called "kids in cages"), but then once Trump took over it was hair-on-fire time. Or the time the outrage du jour was tear gas at the border, and a possible war criminal stain on Trump's legacy. Then we found out Obama did the same thing, in about the same number of incidents. Again, there was no national conversation about it until Trump took over.

I think a lot of people scratching their heads wondering why more people do not have their hair on fire over Trump should recognize that a lot of the underpinnings of their outrage are on false platforms. And casual observers note this and adjust their opinions accordingly. Which is usually not hair-on-fire.

[Edge-]

Any proof of Barr not representing the American people against Trump?

Why should he be right now? There's no reason to.

But again, look to the letter. You asked for evidence I provided. This is a pivot since your previous line of argument was debunked, and it's not a particularly good one.

And for your reference, frivolous law suits or anything the "public" can ask which he doesn't do, is not not representing.

Never said it was. And CREW is still not a leftist group, by the way. Just want to make sure you noticed those links.

[Machismo]

I think it's just political. Nobody calling for Barr's head was crying out for the same when Holder ignored subpoenas, or when, in the midst of being held in contempt of Congress, he declared himself "Obama's wingman". I can't think of any voices on the left objecting at the time that he works for the American people, not Obama.

You see a lot of this, where people didn't really get fired up about the detainment conditions of children in immigration detention centers under Obama (so-called "kids in cages"), but then once Trump took over it was hair-on-fire time. Or the time the outrage du jour was tear gas at the border, and a possible war criminal stain on Trump's legacy. Then we found out Obama did the same thing, in about the same number of incidents. Again, there was no national conversation about it until Trump took over.

I think a lot of people scratching their heads wondering why more people do not have their hair on fire over Trump should recognize that a lot of the underpinnings of their outrage are on false platforms. And casual observers note this and adjust their opinions accordingly. Which is usually not hair-on-fire.

Plenty of people were calling for Holder's head, that is an outright lie.

- - - Updated - - -

Any proof of Barr not representing the American people against Trump? And for your reference, frivolous law suits or anything the "public" can ask which he doesn't do, is not not representing.

I'm still waiting on all your evidence to back up your numerous allegations and accusations.

Shall we assume your silence is your way of admitting you were lying?