Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Machismo]

This may be the most accurate portrayal I have seen, so far:

ALL THE WITNESSES: Ok we all agree. This is what happened.

REPUBLICANS: None of you were in the room!

BOLTON: *raises hand* Well I was in the...

REPUBLICANS: Who asked you?! Shut up! You’re a liberal pawn!

BOLTON: Um... I’m actually I’m a lifelong Republican and I was literally Trump’s national security advi...

REPUBLICANS: Shut your mustache! Somebody bring back the first national security advisor.

FLYNN: *in orange jumpsuit* Hey sorry guys I’m in jail lol.

REPUBLICANS: What? Why?

FLYNN: For lying to the FBI about the Russia investigation.

REPUBLICANS: Well what idiot told you to do that?!

FLYNN: The Pres...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! No one believes either of you!

KELLY: *raises hand* I believe them. And I was Trump’s Chief of sta...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! Let’s talk to the current chief of staff. Who is he?

MULVANEY: *raises hand* It’s me. Sort of. Well, I'm the act...

REPUBLICANS: Shit. Never mind.

PARNAS: *raises hand* I was also in the room. In fact, here’s a cell phone video of the President saying that...

REPUBLICANS: Wait what?! How in hell did you sneak a cell phone into a meeting with the President?

PARNAS: It was easy I just walked right in and...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! You’re a criminal!

PARNAS: Correct. So I just walked right into...

TRUMP: I don’t know him.

PARNAS: And here’s 500 pictures of me with the President because we’re besties.

REPUBLICANS: Wait... What idiot introduced you to the President??

PARNAS: His personal lawyer.

REPUBLICANS: Cohen??

COHEN: *also in orange jumpsuit* Hey no sorry guys I’m in jail too. Oops.

REPUBLICANS: Why?

COHEN: For campaign finance violations.

REPUBLICANS: Whose campaign?

COHEN: The Pres...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! Who was the campaign chair??

MANAFORT: *also in orange jumpsuit* Yeah. Me. Also in jail. Heyyyy.

REPUBLICANS: IS EVERYBODY IN JAIL?!?

PARNAS: It was Giuliani.

YOVANOVITCH: Giuliani! That’s the guy who had me fired from my job!

REPUBLICANS: Who are you??

YOVANOVITCH: I was the ambassador to Ukraine.

REPUBLICANS: Wait, you had her fired? Do you work for the government??

GIULIANI: Nope. But I figured no one really follows any rules around here so...

REPUBLICANS: Well who is the ambassador to the European Union??

SONDLAND: *raises hand* It's me. I was also in the roo...

REPUBLICANS: F@$&!!!

PUTIN: *rubs his bare chest*

[cubby]

I think witnesses in regards to what Dump did is OK, because when they shreik and holler about Hunter it's not going to make headlines, just propaganda videos that they normally would do. Having ACTUAL witnesses to Dump's crimes is a good thing - having Hunter up on the stand is a BAD thing is what I'm saying because of the headlines and insane levels of propaganda they could generate by just having Hunter up there.

But the rules, outside of Robert's authority to call witnesses, allow for the GOP to call whomever they want. They could call Hunter and Bolton, drastically hurt Biden's campaign, and "we already knew that" re Bolton, and then claim they did the right thing.

[Shadowferal]

Someone should mention aloud the "secret ballot" idea.
Just to see...

[cubby]

Except that’s factually inaccurate. Thus far nobody has testified that Trump told them directly the hold was about investigating the Bidens. Bolton claims that happened.

Except that the GOP is already saying Bolton's testimony doesn't add anything new. We're talking about the messaging that will come out of this Impeachment. We don't want the end results being a Democratic candidate's campaign is hurt while Trump gains traction and the Senate GOP gets stronger. Which will happen if they just call Bolton and Hunter.

[cubby]

Biden isn’t a Democrat any more than Manchin is.

Wrong thread. Let's stay on topic please.

The issue is the gains the Democrats can get from having or not having witnesses called. IMO, it seems that the Dems can gain a lot more at this point by not having them called - notwithstanding Robert's ability to subpoena.

McConnell controls the witness list - we aren't going to see anyone the Democrats want called up, but we sure as shit will see ones they don't. The campaign messaging available to witness calling being denied is huge compared to what we'd gain from hearing from witnesses who's testimony we already know.

[DarkTZeratul]

Bloomberg doesn't give a shit about anything other than himself.

He's indicated that if he isn't the nominee, he'll continue spending money to support the nominee. We'll see if that proves true, though I honestly don't see any great reason to doubt him.

[cubby]

You’re the one who keeps bringing up the election, I just responded. And McConnell doesn’t control the witness list. If he did there’d be no threat of witnesses at all as he wants none.

I'm bringing up how the Impeachment proceedings affect the election. You're bringing up Democratic primary topics that are best for another thread.

Where are you getting that information about the witness list. Please elaborate with any cites you have. It was my understanding that there will be a vote on each witness to be called or not. If that's the case, McConnell certainly controls the witness list.

[Orbitus]

So Biden was saying "I'm withholding aid from your country, unless quid-pro-quo, you investigate my son's bribes HARDER."?

First off, there is no quid pro quo with Joe Biden. He was doing it with the backing of the ENTIRE US government, the EU, the IMF, 3 Democratic Senators and 3 Republican Senators. They all signed the same letter that Joe Biden sent in 2014 or whenever they said it. And secondly, there is no evidence of anyone bribing Hunter Biden or Joe Biden. But yes, the firing of Shokin led to the investigation ACTUALLY BEING INVESTIGATED.

[Shadowferal]

Sounds as if Rand Paul got shutdown by Roberts on his question about the whistleblower.

[Orbitus]

Sounds as if Rand Paul got shutdown by Roberts on his question about the whistleblower.

As he should be. Rand Paul should be voted out alongside that piece of shit Mitch McConnell.

[Blur4stuff]

So at this point republicans are just arguing that Trump is king and can do whatever he wants.

[cubby]

Riiiight. Except if he actually controlled it there wouldn’t even be a vote on each witness. After the Q&A they’ll have another vote on whether to subpoena documents and/or witnesses. If one of them passes then they vote on each issue. He currently doesn’t have the votes to block witnesses, hence someone else is controlling the list. He wants this done before SOTU. Witnesses ensure that won’t happen.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/mcc...es-bolton-book

I realize he's losing/lost votes to control calling witnesses. My point is that once that's been breached, he will still retain the authority of voting on each witness, or perhaps more precisely, each witness gets voted on by the Senate rather than it just being open season on anyone that even one Senator wants to call. Given that reality, calling witnesses at all might work in favor of Trump/GOP, because of what I outlined above. If that doesn't make sense, or more precisely, if I'm not making sense, ask me for a clarification - I'm not being flippant, I'm just trying to draw a fine line here, and I realize that line might not be as clear as I'd like.

- - - Updated - - -

Sounds as if Rand Paul got shutdown by Roberts on his question about the whistleblower.

I like how Roberts is handling this affair.

[xChurch]

I really wish one of the democratic candidates would publicly ask Russia or China to find all that material Trump is supposedly hiding from impeachment investigators. Pretty much any candidate would work since it would just be to get some Republicans on record as being fine with a Democrat doing it. Bonus points if it was Biden though.

[Reeve]

Wrong thread. Let's stay on topic please.

The issue is the gains the Democrats can get from having or not having witnesses called. IMO, it seems that the Dems can gain a lot more at this point by not having them called - notwithstanding Robert's ability to subpoena.

McConnell controls the witness list - we aren't going to see anyone the Democrats want called up, but we sure as shit will see ones they don't. The campaign messaging available to witness calling being denied is huge compared to what we'd gain from hearing from witnesses who's testimony we already know.

If you’re going to impeach, do it full throatedly. Stop worrying about what the GOP night or night not do. As a party, we’ve got to stop reacting to what the GOP might do, and start making our own moves based in our own principles. Because what’s the point if we don’t go whole hog here?

[Breccia]

As expected, Bolton's lawyer responds.

We do not believe that any of that information could reasonably be considered classified, but given that Ambassador Bolton could be called to testify as early as next week, it is imperative that we have the results of your review of that chapter as soon as possible. Please do give me a call to let me know how we can work together toward that end.

He then regenerated 3 hp/round until damaged by fire or acid.

[Dontrike]

You're wasting your time here...these are the same people who think Avenatti and Cohen are credible. Their bubble is much too thick to allow honest and sober judgement of such things.

For someone that trusts Trump you really have no room to talk when it comes to who isn't trustworthy.

[mvaliz]

But the rules, outside of Robert's authority to call witnesses, allow for the GOP to call whomever they want. They could call Hunter and Bolton, drastically hurt Biden's campaign, and "we already knew that" re Bolton, and then claim they did the right thing.

Ahhhh, gotcha.

Well then, Biden's fucked thanks to Republican abuse of rule of law then. =/

[Grapemask]

Dershowitz's argument seems to change every time he's at the mic, and each one is baffling at best, and all of them often contradicting each other.

Earlier today, it was that anything a president believes to be in the public interest is permissible. If he wants to tamper with an election because he believes his being president is in the public interest, that is permissible - that's not an assumption based on his argument, that was literally the argument he made.

Later, it seemed to be that impeachment isn't even a thing you should be able to do against presidents, despite the fact that the constitution specifically outlines the process against presidents. He claimed that the founders wanted the voters to hold them accountable via election, again, despite the founders specifically stating that they believed an election was not enough to hold an executive accountable.

And throughout it all, he kept claiming the founders dismissed maladministration/"abuse of power" as an impeachable offense, despite being corrected again and again that they dismissed it because they instead put in a broader category that covered it. Just like arguing with a conservative on the internet, correcting Dershowitz's nonsense just means he'll wait 10 minutes to repeat it all over again rather than taking the opportunity to absorb and react to this new knowledge.

[Fugus]

But it's more complicated that just firing up the base. Raking Biden over the coals, or at least giving the Trump campaign video clips to campaign on, will hurt turnout of people that we need to turn out. No one cares how many people in NY or CA vote, those EC's are going blue.

So how the Impeachment plays out regarding witnesses could dramatically affect the election.

Given how we know things will turn out and we know Biden was trending downward anyways before this to the point Bloomberg came in. I would HOPE that he sees the righting on the wall and bows out. Preferable just before the end of the primary so they blow all their ammo on him and the general starts with them facing another while they are stuck with the wannabe dictator who generally ends up being a dicktoter for Putin.

[Polyxo]

Dershowitz's argument seems to change every time he's at the mic, and each one is baffling at best, and all of them often contradicting each other.

Earlier today, it was that anything a president believes to be in the public interest is permissible. If he wants to tamper with an election because he believes his being president is in the public interest, that is permissible - that's not an assumption based on his argument, that was literally the argument he made.

Later, it seemed to be that impeachment isn't even a thing you should be able to do against presidents, despite the fact that the constitution specifically outlines the process against presidents. He claimed that the founders wanted the voters to hold them accountable via election, again, despite the founders specifically stating that they believed an election was not enough to hold an executive accountable.

And throughout it all, he kept claiming the founders dismissed maladministration/"abuse of power" as an impeachable offense, despite being corrected again and again that they dismissed it because they instead put in a broader category that covered it. Just like arguing with a conservative on the internet, correcting Dershowitz's nonsense just means he'll wait 10 minutes to repeat it all over again rather than taking the opportunity to absorb and react to this new knowledge.

Also, they impeached and convicted guys for specifically that.