Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Reeve]

With next to nobody, just you and me and a handful of others. With the majority of Americans she was instantly 'confirmed' a Criminal, and many still sadly believe it to this day.

My point was that throwing Hunter Biden up there would be disastrous. For every "ethos" person gained, probably 200+ people would believe "The Bidens" are criminals just by proxy of questioning. It also validates the whole Ukrane Biden BS controversy in the eyes of many, and will become a subject hammered onto Biden until the end of the election if what that happens.

As far as respect, I was speaking for myself as I put you up there with Endus for knowledge and info, which is why I PMed you a couple times prior. Not saying I lost total respect, mind you! Just saying I'm shocked you, of all people, can't see the obvious. It was actually a genuine thing as a person, not meant as a meaningless "internet insult". =/

Funny how just investigating Trump, or even impeaching him, doesn't seem to malign him at all in the eyes of his base, and very little with the center.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9308546.html

So, apparently Parnas is getting impatient. He showed up on the hill and is basically demanding that he be allowed to tell "his side" of the story to Senators.

I'm not particularly interested in what he has to say, even under oath. I'm far more interested in the documents he can provide to back up his claims.

He seems like a weird dude. "Hey, look at all these criminal conspiracies I'm a part of!" feels like a strange thing to be shouting at the top of your lungs.

[Breccia]

I'm not particularly interested in what he has to say, even under oath.

We'll disagree slightly on that. I'm interested in what he has to say, in that if he has enough to say, it will make it even harder for McConnell to block new evidence and testimony. If he's ready to testify under oath, blocking that will be a conscious, public choice McConnell will have to make and live with, even if Parnas has every intention to lie.

Basically, I want to see McConnell tell the dirty guy in rags on the corner "I'm not giving you any money, get a job" or "Here's a fiver" before he finds out if the guy is actually billionaire Bruce Wayne.

[Edge-]

He seems like a weird dude. "Hey, look at all these criminal conspiracies I'm a part of!" feels like a strange thing to be shouting at the top of your lungs.

When you're looking for PR bumps and potential plea deals, you generally want to talk. A lot : P

[mvaliz]

but please don't lie about what I said. It's unbecoming. Someone might lose respect for you....

Ahhh, I see the mixup on my part. I was mentally equating this statement to basically being the same thing (it was also 2.5 am. I don't do my best thinking at that time ;P

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

Basically you're again making the assumption that only Dump Supporters will care about Hunter Biden - and I'm telling you that you're flat-out wrong BECAUSE of what happened with Hillary/Benghazi - which is why I said about "If you believe only Trumpkins believed Hillary" because that's the exact same scenario you would be creating by putting Hunter up for questioning.

Indipendents and news corps will be pasting healiness for weeks on end about Biden being investigated, and that alone will get a lot of indipendent people thinking Biden is Corrupt, exactly the same way the BS Benghazi hearings worked against Hillary.

Let me shorten this for you and I have said for the past several years: Benghazi hearings wasn't about getting Hillary convicted, it was about getting the average voter to equate her name with "Controversy" come election time. Getting Biden up there will be the exact same tactic and result in the exact same thing.

And no need for the pedantic condescension, You and I have talked in the past - you know damn well I'm not trying to "internet troll" you. :P

[cubby]

With next to nobody, just you and me and a handful of others. With the majority of Americans she was instantly 'confirmed' a Criminal, and many still sadly believe it to this day.

My point was that throwing Hunter Biden up there would be disastrous. For every "ethos" person gained, probably 200+ people would believe "The Bidens" are criminals just by proxy of questioning. It also validates the whole Ukrane Biden BS controversy in the eyes of many, and will become a subject hammered onto Biden until the end of the election if what that happens.

As far as respect, I was speaking for myself as I put you up there with Endus for knowledge and info, which is why I PMed you a couple times prior. Not saying I lost total respect, mind you! Just saying I'm shocked you, of all people, can't see the obvious. It was actually a genuine thing as a person, not meant as a meaningless "internet insult". =/

Ah, gotcha - and I do agree that having Hunter up there wouldn't be good for Joe. Agreed as well that with Hunter up there, "The Bidens" would have an increased criminal label because of the association with validating the GOP's claims. Ok, I'm seeing what you mean here, that Biden will fall the way of Hillary because of the criminal association, and that association will increase with independents as it did with Hillary, regardless of truth or facts.

I don't want to get too far off and into the Democratic Primary, but I would definitely agree that there would be long term impacts to Biden's campaign if Hunter got on the stand. It's certainly an interesting calculus when combined with the net gain in Senate seats we might see from having no witnesses called at all.

I appreciate that, I also hold you up there with the knowledgeable ones. I did appreciate the PM's.

Given the above thought process, and assuming I've correctly understood your point, I wonder if this is something McConnell is thinking. Wouldn't having witnesses help him hold the Senate AND hurt Bidens campaign?

- - - Updated - - -

Ahhh, I see the mixup on my part. I was mentally equating this statement to basically being the same thing (it was also 2.5 am. I don't do my best thinking at that time ;P



Basically you're again making the assumption that only Dump Supporters will care about Hunter Biden - and I'm telling you that you're flat-out wrong BECAUSE of what happened with Hillary/Benghazi - which is why I said about "If you believe only Trumpkins believed Hillary" because that's the exact same scenario you would be creating by putting Hunter up for questioning.

Indipendents and news corps will be pasting healiness for weeks on end about Biden being investigated, and that alone will get a lot of indipendent people thinking Biden is Corrupt, exactly the same way the BS Benghazi hearings worked against Hillary.

Let me shorten this for you and I have said for the past several years: Benghazi hearings wasn't about getting Hillary convicted, it was about getting the average voter to equate her name with "Controversy" come election time. Getting Biden up there will be the exact same tactic and result in the exact same thing.

And no need for the pedantic condescension, You and I have talked in the past - you know damn well I'm not trying to "internet troll" you. :P

Fair enough, and good point, and my bad. I think I got it with my response above, shout if I didn't though. Now I just feel stupid for my initial response.

[Reeve]

When you're looking for PR bumps and potential plea deals, you generally want to talk. A lot : P

Or you want to get a plea deal in place before you give up the dirt. Because once you do, the prosecution doesn't have any real incentive to play ball. At best they might be a little lenient in the sentencing.

[mvaliz]

Fair enough, and good point, and my bad. I think I got it with my response above, shout if I didn't though.

Yeah, I seemingly wrote that while you posted your response! I went back to edit mine to reflect that, but saw you ALREADY posted a response to the second one! XD

Damn, you got speedy reading and posting fingers! :P

[Belize]

He seems like a weird dude. "Hey, look at all these criminal conspiracies I'm a part of!" feels like a strange thing to be shouting at the top of your lungs.

It makes it a lot less likely that he'll get balcony poisoning if he's as open as possible.

The more public attention he garners on himself, the easier it is to avoid gun-wielding stairs.

[mvaliz]

Ah, gotcha - and I do agree that having Hunter up there wouldn't be good for Joe. Agreed as well that with Hunter up there, "The Bidens" would have an increased criminal label because of the association with validating the GOP's claims. Ok, I'm seeing what you mean here, that Biden will fall the way of Hillary because of the criminal association, and that association will increase with independents as it did with Hillary, regardless of truth or facts.

I don't want to get too far off and into the Democratic Primary, but I would definitely agree that there would be long term impacts to Biden's campaign if Hunter got on the stand. It's certainly an interesting calculus when combined with the net gain in Senate seats we might see from having no witnesses called at all.

Yupyup! There's sadly an information war going on behind the scenes, and one of the lessons I learned from 2016 was that what WE see is not what the majority sees. We pay attention, and most sadly do not. =/ Benghazi, to me, was a prime example of this as I really really thought most Americans would've been smart enough to have seen through that. =/

Given the above thought process, and assuming I've correctly understood your point, I wonder if this is something McConnell is thinking. Wouldn't having witnesses help him hold the Senate AND hurt Bidens campaign?
.

I'm almost certain McDurtle is planning that. It worked like a gem for Hillary, so why not do it again?

It's also the same tactic they used durring the congressional hearings. To you and me watching, it sounded stupid about the Republicans going emo-raging about Biden when the hearings had nothing to do with it - but to average joe-q citizen who gets tons of edited/isolated clips of all the "outraged Republicans fighting the inherent corruption to restore freedom in the system against evil libz!" via Facebook, News outlets and youtube won't see it that way. THAT'S the game they're playing!

[cubby]

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-a9308546.html

So, apparently Parnas is getting impatient. He showed up on the hill and is basically demanding that he be allowed to tell "his side" of the story to Senators.

I'm not particularly interested in what he has to say, even under oath. I'm far more interested in the documents he can provide to back up his claims.

I would be very interested in what he has to say.

Does anyone know how the witness calling works in the Senate Trial. Is it open to anyone once witnesses are a "go" or do they vote on each one?

[Paranoid Android]

The White House has issued a formal threat to former national security adviser John Bolton to keep him from publishing his book, "The Room Where It Happened: A White House Memoir," sources familiar with the matter tell CNN.

More to thread of you choose to read link from Jake Tapper.

Trump 101. Threaten to sue the person, yet likely more they will claim the good ole "Executive Privilege" on Bolton. Yet, for many reason idk how they can. The biggest one is how can you claim E.P. when you care committing a crime or this case violation of dut? I'm sure it will be a delay and I guess depends the right judge they may get the ruling.

[Breccia]

Threaten to sue the person

Um, isn't this way too late? I mean, the WH admitted they got the copy early. Trump is only now threatening to sue?

Trump has two options, both bad.

1) Claim the book contains sensitive intelligence materials, then explain why not only didn't he stop it earlier, but also, why Bolton (of all people) would somehow not know this and attempt to publish classified material with a straight mustache.

2) Claim the book contains lies, at which point, he has the same ability as anyone else going for the slander/libel option: demonstrate that not only does Bolton know the material to be false, but also damaging. This, incidentally, happens in a courtroom, under oath, and also (maybe @cubby can confirm) won't stop the book from being published anyhow.

"The book makes me look bad" is not sufficient reason to sue.

[cubby]

Yupyup! There's sadly an information war going on behind the scenes, and one of the lessons I learned from 2016 was that what WE see is not what the majority sees. We pay attention, and most sadly do not. =/ Benghazi, to me, was a prime example of this as I really really thought most Americans would've been smart enough to have seen through that. =/



I'm almost certain McDurtle is planning that. It worked like a gem for Hillary, so why not do it again?

It's also the same tactic they used durring the congressional hearings. To you and me watching, it sounded stupid about the Republicans going emo-raging about Biden when the hearings had nothing to do with it - but to average joe-q citizen who gets tons of edited/isolated clips of all the "outraged Republicans fighting the inherent corruption to restore freedom in the system against evil libz!" via Facebook, News outlets and youtube won't see it that way. THAT'S the game they're playing!

Interesting. I have to say depending on the rules of witness calling, I'm leaning towards closing the trial up early, to keep Biden in tact.

- - - Updated - - -

They vote on each one.

Now witness calling is looking worse to me. Close it up now and the GOP looks like they are hiding something, which is good for the Democrats/Country in the long term.

- - - Updated - - -

Um, isn't this way too late? I mean, the WH admitted they got the copy early. Trump is only now threatening to sue?

Trump has two options, both bad.

1) Claim the book contains sensitive intelligence materials, then explain why not only didn't he stop it earlier, but also, why Bolton (of all people) would somehow not know this and attempt to publish classified material with a straight mustache.

2) Claim the book contains lies, at which point, he has the same ability as anyone else going for the slander/libel option: demonstrate that not only does Bolton know the material to be false, but also damaging. This, incidentally, happens in a courtroom, under oath, and also (maybe @cubby can confirm) won't stop the book from being published anyhow.

"The book makes me look bad" is not sufficient reason to sue.

Option #2 for Trump will come only after the book is published. He can sue for slander/libel/whatever and see how it plays out in court, but that's not his style - Trump sues to prevent things from happening, mostly him going to jail or prevent damaging things released.

Which makes Option #1 his only strategically sound move, but like you said, he admitted he's had a copy for weeks. Suing now is an obvious ploy playing into Option #2. If there was any sensitive material Team Deplorable would have already filed. Also, love him or hate him or loathe him, Bolton isn't stupid, at least classically - his book has already been vetted for sensitive material.

[Trunksee]

Interesting. I have to say depending on the rules of witness calling, I'm leaning towards closing the trial up early, to keep Biden in tact.

- - - Updated - - -

I don't think the democrats actually wanted to get witnesses up there. It was the idea that the republicans were blocking them that sounded better and they could run on. If we get witnesses and say they get Bolton and what he has is exactly what we have already seen then its not going to sway any trump supporter from voting for him. There has to be something new not just corroboration. If the republicans decide to muddy the waters and just call Joe and Hunter that's all they have to do and most people will only see the fact that they were called. The average American is not watching the trial. Trump has pretty much locked up 43% of the vote and its not going to change. Its that 3% in the middle that is honestly more than likely not watching the news all that much who is waiting for a bombshell they cant ignore. If there is nothing other than yup he did this its not going to change all that much if they remove him. Its going to be 10X worse for democrats if the republicans carry this thing into April and basically bury Bidens chance, hold Bernie and Warren basically hostage by having to be at the trial and not campaign, and honestly there are 3 Dems who could vote not to remove right now. Manchin seems to have already shown his hand and flipped.

Now witness calling is looking worse to me. Close it up now and the GOP looks like they are hiding something, which is good for the Democrats/Country in the long term.

- - - Updated - - -



Option #2 for Trump will come only after the book is published. He can sue for slander/libel/whatever and see how it plays out in court, but that's not his style - Trump sues to prevent things from happening, mostly him going to jail or prevent damaging things released.

Which makes Option #1 his only strategically sound move, but like you said, he admitted he's had a copy for weeks. Suing now is an obvious ploy playing into Option #2. If there was any sensitive material Team Deplorable would have already filed. Also, love him or hate him or loathe him, Bolton isn't stupid, at least classically - his book has already been vetted for sensitive material.

I don't think the democrats actually wanted to get witnesses up there. It was the idea that the republicans were blocking them that sounded better and they could run on. If we get witnesses and say they get Bolton and what he has is exactly what we have already seen then its not going to sway any trump supporter from voting for him. There has to be something new not just corroboration. If the republicans decide to muddy the waters and just call Joe and Hunter that's all they have to do and most people will only see the fact that they were called. The average American is not watching the trial. Trump has pretty much locked up 43% of the vote and its not going to change. Its that 3% in the middle that is honestly more than likely not watching the news all that much who is waiting for a bombshell they cant ignore. If there is nothing other than yup he did this its not going to change all that much if they remove him. Its going to be 10X worse for democrats if the republicans carry this thing into April and basically bury Bidens chance, hold Bernie and Warren basically hostage by having to be at the trial and not campaign, and honestly there are 3 Dems who could vote not to remove right now. Manchin seems to have already shown his hand and flipped.

The democrats are going to get what they asked for. A vote on each person and if they don't get who they want and the republicans can use this to muddy the waters its not going to look good to the average voter whos undecided.

[szechuan]

I don't think the democrats actually wanted to get witnesses up there. It was the idea that the republicans were blocking them that sounded better and they could run on.

The Republicans ARE blocking the Democrats and the Democrats for three days straight were arguing for Witnesses to appear. The Democrats had PLENTY of Witnesses willing to Talk.

[Breccia]

Bolton isn't stupid, at least classically - his book has already been vetted for sensitive material.

Agreed, Bolton would not risk putting his mustache in jail for leaking classified info for a few dollars.

And, yet, here we are:

Under federal law and the nondisclosure agreements your client signed as a condition for gaining access to classified information, the manuscript may not be published or otherwise disclosed without the deletion of this classified information

-- Records, Access, and Information Security Management

Yep, Trump is going with Option #1 just like you said. Trump is now accusing one of his own appointees, and a Republican darling, of trying to leak classified information.

Have fun with that.

[cubby]

Agreed, Bolton would not risk putting his mustache in jail for leaking classified info for a few dollars.

And, yet, here we are:


-- Records, Access, and Information Security Management

Yep, Trump is going with Option #1 just like you said. Trump is now accusing one of his own appointees, and a Republican darling, of trying to leak classified information.

Have fun with that.

Well then, here we go.

It's interesting, we haven't seen (or perhaps heard) of other books getting this kind of scrutiny, including the anonymous one. This is a legal area that I have little knowledge outside the basics. I wonder where the onus lies for publishing it - can the publisher do it and have any fallback land on just the author? Or will this letter actually halt the publication of the book? Or, IIRC, the publication date wasn't for awhile yet - late this year maybe?

Bolton had to see this coming though. He knows about the NDA's and Classified Material Federal Law (that's not the exact name). And if those are the Trump NDA's, they are mostly worthless, and can be ignored and sued upon after the fact. Only the Classified Material Act issue can be used to prevent publication, I think.

[Trunksee]

The Republicans ARE blocking the Democrats and the Democrats for three days straight were arguing for Witnesses to appear. The Democrats had PLENTY of Witnesses willing to Talk.

This is what most people don't get. Depending on which news source you watch or what people you know tell you its being said by both sides. I understand the facts believe me. Yes the republicans had just as much the right but they can still claim they were denied certain people and its a fact. To the average person whos voting they don't know who they were and why or even care. We are in late January, its an eternity in the current news cycle from November. The what have you done for me lately effect happened in the last election weeks before. The facts before them are what is going to swing the vote. This will be ancient history by November news wise. The big deal is it is going to effect the democratic nomination 10X more than the upcoming election.

- - - Updated - - -

Well then, here we go.

It's interesting, we haven't seen (or perhaps heard) of other books getting this kind of scrutiny, including the anonymous one. This is a legal area that I have little knowledge outside the basics. I wonder where the onus lies for publishing it - can the publisher do it and have any fallback land on just the author? Or will this letter actually halt the publication of the book? Or, IIRC, the publication date wasn't for awhile yet - late this year maybe?

Books not coming out. Its dead in the water now if there is one piece of Top Secret classified info in it. It is probably really minor but it can block the whole book for the time being.

[Edge-]

Yes the republicans had just as much the right but they can still claim they were denied certain people and its a fact.

Hunter Biden isn't a fact witness to these events. That's like Democrats claiming that they're being prevented from calling in witnesses because they want to interview Sebastian Gorka. He's irrelevant in this matter.

To the average person whos voting they don't know who they were and why or even care.

Then they're uninformed and ignorant. Which, if we look at the Fox News audience, is exactly the goal of their reporting.

The facts before them are what is going to swing the vote.

Not if Republicans can find a way to successfully bury their heads in the sand as they've been doing thus far.

This will be ancient history by November news wise.

That's the Republican goal. And Democrats won't let that happen, I bet.

The big deal is it is going to effect the democratic nomination 10X more than the upcoming election.

How do you figure?

[cubby]

Books not coming out. Its dead in the water now if there is one piece of Top Secret classified info in it. It is probably really minor but it can block the whole book for the time being.

But it wasn't being published tomorrow. I thought I saw it wasn't coming out until end-ish of this year. So plenty of time. And containing classified material doesn't kill the book - the law states that the classified material must merely be redacted, with the remainder of the book able to move forward.