Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Masark]

Yeah it's pretty clear what they were searching for, and doubt they'll find anything. Sorry not gonna work this time.

Why do you think they want to find anything? Why can't they want to plant things for others to "find"?

[cubby]

Because if Mitch let's one person testify he has to open it up to everyone that means Mulvaney, Mnuchin, Pompeo. Trump has all this time been claiming absolute immunity his lawyers are arguing that he is above the law and everything he says is beyond investigation can't let anyone in his inner circle break that.

Exactly. And once those people start testifying, even with Moscow Mitch making it as unfavorable an environment as possible, people will see more of the truth.

[Shadowferal]

Why do you think they want to find anything? Why can't they want to plant things for others to "find"?

My thought exactly.
Give them something...suspicious.

[beanman12345]

Why do you think they want to find anything? Why can't they want to plant things for others to "find"?

I suppose they could put a deepfake in but that'd be easily debunked.

[Masark]

I suppose they could put a deepfake in but that'd be easily debunked.

So can better than 99% of what trump supporters believe. I note that those debunkings haven't made any significant progress on them.

[Thekri]

There is no US embassy in Benghazi Libya. There was an attack, the US Ambassador to Libya did die (at the hospital, after being transported there by the protesters). But all of this didn't happen at the US Libyan embassy (which is in Tripoli). Again, there was no major attack on a US embassy from 2008 to 2016, so the statement holds true.

Now that is just quibbling. It was an attack on embassy personnel in US diplomatic compounds, and the ambassador was killed. I count the attacks in Herat as attacks on an Embassy too, even though the actual embassy there is in Kabul.

[beanman12345]

So can better than 99% of what trump supporters believe. I note that those debunkings haven't made any significant progress on them.

True, but they don't need to put anything in there at all and 99% of these trump supporters still believe this crap.

[Dacien]

You know, now that I think about it, Republican and Democrat responses to the conclusion of the investigation into Benghazi and Trump/Russia, respectively, are quite similar.

[Orbitus]

You know, now that I think about it, Republican and Democrat responses to the conclusion of the investigation into Benghazi and Trump/Russia, respectively, are quite similar.

Not really. There was no evidence of wrongdoing with Benghazi, but there was PLENTY of wrongdoing with Trump and Russia, that is why so many Trump surrogates and campaign members went to jail.

[Edge-]

You know, now that I think about it, Republican and Democrat responses to the conclusion of the investigation into Benghazi and Trump/Russia, respectively, are quite similar.

Except the Democrats haven't opened 6 taxpayer funded, Democrat run, investigations into the same thing in the hopes of finding something.

Mueller, a non-Democrat and non-member of Congress, led that primary investigation, and House Democrats haven't seemed particularly interested in re-hashing it. They're investigating related matters, but that's neither the focus of their efforts nor are they specifically re-hashing the Mueller investigation.

What's so similar about the two in your eyes?

[Dontrike]

You know, now that I think about it, Republican and Democrat responses to the conclusion of the investigation into Benghazi and Trump/Russia, respectively, are quite similar.

How are they similar in any way?

[Orbitus]

How are they similar in any way?

He thinks they didn't find anything with the Mueller investigation. It is only that way if you ignore the 2 instances of collusion in the report, and the 10 instances of obstruction that he outlined.

[TexasRules]

No, because those are opinions that didn't matter. Nothing came of the calls from some Democrats to impeach Trump.

Except cheers when after years they finally impeached him. They tried year after year. I like how you guys are sugar coating impeachment that they tried for years. I guess The democratic senators who have not heard the trial yet and are saying they will vote to impeach are opinions too. So many hypocrites. You can pretend they did not say it, but what is the difference between democratic senators who have not seen allt he evidence saying they will impeach versus the republican senators saying they will not. Not a damn thing, you guys are just hypocrites.

[Dacien]

What's so similar about the two in your eyes?

I guess it's just how we can't all move on from the investigations' conclusions. When the Benghazi report was released and it was all over, I just accepted that the system had worked. Sure, there's plenty of unflattering stuff in the report, but the ordeal is concluded. To this day there are still Republicans saying she should have been nailed to the wall. And they're entitled to that opinion, not speaking for or against it. But me? Just moved on, same as Comey as I read his exoneration of Clinton's emails, on lunch break at an Irvine data center. "Whelp, that's the way it is."

But you see the same sort of reaction from Democrats in Trump/Russia. The investigation concluded by one of our best, and the system worked. Luckily, Trump and his campaign were not found to have "conspired or coordinated with the Russian government" in the report, but that hasn't stopped his critics. He was too slippery for Mueller, it actually happened just not enough, and on and on. This refusal to just admit that if there was something damning, it would get brought to light, same as Watergate, same as Monica Lewinksy. The system investigated and these were the results.

But when you look at Republicans and Democrats, as much as it pains people to hear it, they can be very much alike.

[Edge-]

Except cheers when after years they finally impeached him. They tried year after year.

If you're talking about the moment of celebration, Pelosi warned them against that and put an immediate stop to it after it started.

I like how you guys are sugar coating impeachment that they tried for years.

They didn't. Isolated Democrats did, but there was never a lick of support writ-large for any of them. And again, if what you say is true then why weren't the articles voted on in January back when the Democrats took the House? Why wait until November?

I guess The democratic senators who have not heard the trial yet and are saying they will vote to impeach are opinions too.

I disagree with them, actually. I don't think any Senator should make up their mind until the trial, on either side of the isle.

[For_The_Horde]

Diplomatic compound*

You're right, but I fear this is splitting hairs over minutia.

I'm just saying, the congressman said there were no embassy attacks, and he's correct. And it should matter when you think about it. If a US embassy was understaffed, unprotected, and burned to the ground killing Americans in the process, people should be SEETHING MAD at whoever was responsible, embassies represent the nation afterall. However, if small consulate (of questionable nature) gets attacked, its not really the same thing. Its like the difference between someone robbing a major bank, and someone robbing a small local bank branch inside of a Walmart.

I know it hardly matters anymore. I'm just tired of people consistently bringing up Benghazi to make some kind of point, and not know the first thing about what happened. Its been 8 years now, everything can be fact checked, people should know what and where an embassy is.

Now that is just quibbling. It was an attack on embassy personnel in US diplomatic compounds, and the ambassador was killed. I count the attacks in Herat as attacks on an Embassy too, even though the actual embassy there is in Kabul.

An embassy, and a consulate are not the same thing. One serves as a major diplomatic post and represents our nation inside a foreign country, providing a direct diplomatic line to and from the President of the United States, and deals with deals with diplomatic and sensitive intelligence in the host nation (that is what marines in embassies protect btw). The other one represents the people, serving US citizens residing in the host nation, and promoting trade and friendship with the host nation. Guess which one gets most of the security, and marines, and protection from the host country. The ambassador should have been evacuated to the embassy at the first sign of trouble in the region.

[TexasRules]

Given that neither statement contradicts the other, you apparently need to be reminded that your overactive imagination is not actually evidence.

Pelosi is confident in the case made in the Articles of Impeachment.
Schumer thinks more Articles can, and should, be drafted.
No contradiction whatsoever.



Without even reviewing the evidence and arguments, you know the Senate won't remove Trump from office, eh?

That's a straight-up admission that you know Senate Republicans will vote the partisan line rather than honestly considering the facts and evidence, as basic ethics would require. You're admitting that they're dishonest cheats who won't do their job and will put party ahead of country.

Which, y'know, just proves Pelosi right. You're admitting that she is.



Bill Clinton wasn't up for re-election. And given that the next election went to the Republican candidate, yeah. It hurt the Democrats.

How doe sit hurt Trump? he si going to win again against a very lackluster candidate no matter who it is. Please explain why it's okay for adam schiff to take over impeachment from the judiciary and not allow witnesses Republicans want, but shameful and a coverup as Pelosi calls it for McConnell to not allow witnesses that democrats want? It's the exact same thing, partisan politics...please explain why they are upset for getting treated the same way they treated Republicans?

[Endus]

How doe sit hurt Trump? he si going to win again against a very lackluster candidate no matter who it is.

Where'd you buy your crystal ball, incidentally? And do you have next week's lottery numbers, while you're at it?

Please explain why it's okay for adam schiff to take over impeachment from the judiciary and not allow witnesses Republicans want, but shameful and a coverup as Pelosi calls it for McConnell to not allow witnesses that democrats want?

Impeachment isn't a judicial process, to begin with; Adam Schiff did not "take over" anything from the judicial branch.

The Republicans were able to call witnesses. The only ones denied were, from what I recall, people who had no firsthand knowledge. Including the whistleblower, who was additionally excluded because Congress is legally required to protect their identity. Which forcing them to testify would, obviously, have breached. Anyone asking for the whistleblower was attempting to end-run around the law, for goals rooted in malice and dishonesty.

Which is why there's no inconsistency in Pelosi expecting the same considerations from the Senate. The House's process was fair and by the book.

It's the exact same thing, partisan politics...please explain why they are upset for getting treated the same way they treated Republicans?

That's what they're asking for.

You are lying about the facts. That's what gets people upset; bald-faced lying about basic shit like this.

[TexasRules]

And? Is he wrong? I mean there have been attempts at attacks sure, there are several every year, but they usually just amount to vandalism or minor damage to a wall or guardhouse. Can you name a single attack on an embassy during Obama's presidency where Americans died or were seriously injured?

Wow thanks for moving the goalpost. Technically, it's not an embassy but the Ambassador and American contractors died there. I guess you have to dig deep to get a win. I stand corrected, you and your buddies can pat each other on the back because you really got me on that. You should be proud that you think the difference is so huge. Pathetic.

- - - Updated - - -

Where'd you buy your crystal ball, incidentally? And do you have next week's lottery numbers, while you're at it?



Impeachment isn't a judicial process, to begin with; Adam Schiff did not "take over" anything from the judicial branch.

The Republicans were able to call witnesses. The only ones denied were, from what I recall, people who had no firsthand knowledge. Including the whistleblower, who was additionally excluded because Congress is legally required to protect their identity. Which forcing them to testify would, obviously, have breached. Anyone asking for the whistleblower was attempting to end-run around the law, for goals rooted in malice and dishonesty.

Which is why there's no inconsistency in Pelosi expecting the same considerations from the Senate. The House's process was fair and by the book.



That's what they're asking for.

You are lying about the facts. That's what gets people upset; bald-faced lying about basic shit like this.

Wow, you actually believe the shit you are shoveling. Even though you admit they disallowed witnesses, I am lying? And wow, you said they disallowed witnesses without first hand knowledge but then let over a dozen without first hand knowledge testify. How can you say that with a straight face? Please also link me the citation for breaking the law by having the whistleblower testify. You call me a liar , then pretend that Republicans were allowed to call witness, which could only be if Schiff approved of them, and you consider that a strong truthful argument. That only if they were allowed could they call witnesses. Only if Schiff allowed makes you a liar, I doubt you will admit it, but it does make you a liar. As usual, the truth as you see it, not as it is. Conditional witnesses. I am sure you will try to twist that in to your truth as you see it.

- - - Updated - - -

The fact that you think those two things are hypocritical demonstrate how out of touch you are with the facts of the situation.

Fact: Republicans could only call witnesses if Schiff allowed it.
Fact: Democrats could have went to court to get the witnesses Schumer wants, but did not.
Fact: Pelosi said that if they did not allow witnesses , it was a Republican cover up.

Am I out of touch with these facts or are they real? All of those happened.

So if Republicans do not allow witnesses the democrats did not go to court to get, it's a cover up. But if Republicans are not allowed witnesses they ask for, it's not a cover up?

[Thekri]

An embassy, and a consulate are not the same thing. One serves as a major diplomatic post and represents our nation inside a foreign country, providing a direct diplomatic line to and from the President of the United States, and deals with deals with diplomatic and sensitive intelligence in the host nation (that is what marines in embassies protect btw). The other one represents the people, serving US citizens residing in the host nation, and promoting trade and friendship with the host nation. Guess which one gets most of the security, and marines, and protection from the host country. The ambassador should have been evacuated to the embassy at the first sign of trouble in the region.

Dude, the Ambassador died. It doesn't much matter if his house is fine. I agree that he should have been evacuated to the embassy. EVERYONE agrees he should have been evacuated to the embassy. We have had about a thousand investigations into why that didn't happen.

I know the difference between an embassy and a consulate, but it is really nitpicky to pretend attacks on consulates don't count. I don't know what point you are trying to make, but it is a weird one. It is like if Camp David got overrun and the President was killed, and you claimed it was ok, because the White House wasn't attacked. That really isn't a useful point.