Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Somewhatconcerned]

I love that you skip all the issues of right and wrong being dragged out here in the Impeachment process - it's the classic Trumpkin tactic of avoiding reality and facts, because they never work well for you.

Impotent Trump is such because he can no longer conduct foreign policy beyond the borders of the United States. He was literally laughed out of the NATO summit yesterday. No foreign leader wants his call or his visit. He'll of course still be able to do so, because the other country's leaders aren't spoiled man-children, but to actually conduct business on the international level is no longer possible.

Because at the end of the day that's why a lot of people voted for him in 2016 and will in 2020 - supreme court picks.

Ok so he got laughed out of NATO, so what? You cant say that the strong likelihood of appointing at least one more SC pick is "impotent."

[Machismo]

I love that you skip all the issues of right and wrong being dragged out here in the Impeachment process - it's the classic Trumpkin tactic of avoiding reality and facts, because they never work well for you.

Impotent Trump is such because he can no longer conduct foreign policy beyond the borders of the United States. He was literally laughed out of the NATO summit yesterday. No foreign leader wants his call or his visit. He'll of course still be able to do so, because the other country's leaders aren't spoiled man-children, but to actually conduct business on the international level is no longer possible.

That's because he's been caught lying about his allegiances in the past. Mind you, the name alone should give you a strong indication of what he's about.

They want to ignore how corrupt and morally bankrupt their guy is, and pretend to actually care about such things. Never let them get away with it, because they are lying:

https://www.mmo-champion.com/threads...ampaign-Thread

[cubby]

Because at the end of the day that's why a lot of people voted for him in 2016 and will in 2020 - supreme court picks.

Ok so he got laughed out of NATO, so what? You cant say that the strong likelihood of appointing at least one more SC pick is "impotent."

No, it's not. But we're not going to get into that here.

Yes, I can. Do you know why? Because Pence can nominate the same judges. So why do you need Trump?

Honestly, his behavior at the NATO summit could qualify as another impeachment act. He was the antithesis of Presidential and embarrassed himself and the country with his glass jaw ego.

[DarkTZeratul]

Because at the end of the day that's why a lot of people voted for him in 2016 and will in 2020 - supreme court picks.

Ok so he got laughed out of NATO, so what? You cant say that the strong likelihood of appointing at least one more SC pick is "impotent."

If that's all you care about, then why aren't you in favor of kicking his corrupt narcissistic ass to the curb and letting Pence do the job?

[Draco-Onis]

Because at the end of the day that's why a lot of people voted for him in 2016 and will in 2020 - supreme court picks.

Ok so he got laughed out of NATO, so what? You cant say that the strong likelihood of appointing at least one more SC pick is "impotent."

SC picks were barely bought up during the election aside from the religious crazies who want to repeal Roe V. Wade, repeal marriage equality and destroy LGBTQ rights not many Americans care. I agree with your sentiment that it should be important but only a small percentage of the population cared about it at the time maybe the next election that will be different but that has never been the case.

[Edge-]

SC picks were barely bought up during the election aside from the religious crazies who want to repeal Roe V. Wade, repeal marriage equality and destroy LGBTQ rights not many Americans care. I agree with your sentiment that it should be important but only a small percentage of the population cared about it at the time maybe the next election that will be different but that has never been the case.

Oh no, it's been brought up.

A lot.

Usually by chickenshits looking for a reason to explain their support of Trump without owning their support of his racism, sexism, bigotry, lies, ignorance, and general awfulness. They're usually quick to point out they DON'T like all that, but they voted for him for something like "conservative fiscal policy" or "SCOTUS picks", which literally any Republican president would do, not just Trump.

[Surlybottle]

So what is the point? Multifaceted, but the overarching goal is to effectively destroy President Trump and render him impotent as a President.

I think you are projecting your dislike for Trump a bit too much there. Getting impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate will change nothing on how he is seen on the world stage or with domestic leaders. People have made their minds up about him since the day he announced his candidacy.

No minds of have been changed on him since 2016, the House could have held a floor vote to impeach the day the new Congress was in session after the 2018 elections and it would have passed. The hearings and testimonies and inquiries and investigations didn't move the needle one bit; this notion of "right or wrong" is irrelevant given the degree of partisanship in this country. The blind hate/love and Us vs Them is actually far more dangerous to the future of the country. Trump could cure cancer tomorrow and the democrats would still find a way to make it racist, misogynist, nationalist etc etc. The fact there will not be a single republican to vote to impeach in the House and likely one or two democrats to vote no speaks volumes about the current state of our government.

Trump will conduct his presidency the same after his acquittal and world leaders will see him the same. Impeachment doesn't in any way make him less effective than he already is, other than perhaps more ribbing from world leaders. But as long as he is President, world leaders will have to deal with him if they want to do any business with the US and many countries need the US for all sorts of things. On the domestic front, the democrats still won't allow him any victories before the election and after will probably have to pick and choose their battles if he is re-elected. So again, him being impeached changes nothing, other than to make his enemies happy there is that black mark on his legacy. Clinton has weathered his pretty well and I assume Trump will also.

[Draco-Onis]

Oh no, it's been brought up.

A lot.

Usually by chickenshits looking for a reason to explain their support of Trump without owning their support of his racism, sexism, bigotry, lies, ignorance, and general awfulness. They're usually quick to point out they DON'T like all that, but they voted for him for something like "conservative fiscal policy" or "SCOTUS picks", which literally any Republican president would do, not just Trump.

True because before that they didn't bring it up any excuse to support Trump.

[Skroe]

Is he an impotent President when/if fills RBG's seat sometime between now and 2024? Or all the other judiciary positions?

There is far, far, far more to Presidenting than appointing judges.

You know, how old are you? Because there was a time, before 2011, when Presidential budget requests generally were put into action, and that electing a different President truly meant a likely end to some programs, a start to others, and the budget getting turned upside down. Presidents generally got their budget. For example, many of us knew that voting for Obama in 2008 would mean the end to F-22 Raptor production, just as voting for Bush in 2000 was going to mean the end of certain late-Cold War defense programs.

I ask your age (rhetorically) because if you weren't politically active back then, you wouldn't understand how depreciated the power of the President to craft a budget - and budgets is how things get done in the US - is over the last decade, compared to the way things used to be. It's been completely shattered. And the 2 year deal model that's emerged since 2015, of which we're in the third iteration of and looking forward to the fourth starting negotiations in 2020, is the biggest modernization to the American budgetary process since the 1970s and has turned Presidential Budget Requests into purely political documents that get entirely ignored.

This started under Obama, but it matured until Trump, who next summer will likely either sign a CR into 2021, or the fourth two year budget deal. And in doing so he is signing away his ability to do things as President to Congress.

So he can engage in policy mischief that loses in the courts. He can appoint judges. And certain, if RBG croaks in the next few years, Democrats have nobody but themselves to blame for that (they should have pressured her to retire in 2013, like the Bush White House did Sandra Day O'Connor). But a Presidency that's been reduced to just appointing judges is a pale immitation of what it was domestically. And a President that can't act externally in international affairs - and Trump cannot with any kind of seriousness - loses more than half their power.

So what is the point of Trump? To squat in the office until 2024 when a Democrat will win if not in 2020? Clinton got judges, budgets, massive international influence, and big new policy. Bush got judges, budgets, international influence and big new policy. Obama got judges, budgets (for a while), huge international influence and big new policy. Trump gets no budgets, no policy, laughable international influence, and just judges.

So what's the fucking point?

When Nancy Pelosi announced the inquiry several months ago, I said that same day "We Have Taken Your President Away From You" to the Trumphadis. I stand by that. An impeached President is a broken President, regardless of removal. And specifically because of why THIS President was impeached - foreign entanglements - the neutering is even greater, because it makes other governments cautious in having anything to do with him, to the point of avoidance.

So we've won. Decisively. The Trumphadis can keep their squatter. We've taken the ability to be a meaningful President from them.

[omerome]

When Nancy Pelosi announced the inquiry several months ago, I said that same day "We Have Taken Your President Away From You" to the Trumphadis. I stand by that. An impeached President is a broken President, regardless of removal. And specifically because of why THIS President was impeached - foreign entanglements - the neutering is even greater, because it makes other governments cautious in having anything to do with him, to the point of avoidance.

So we've won. Decisively. The Trumphadis can keep their squatter. We've taken the ability to be a meaningful President from them.

I think once he's impeached, we can call him Captain Placeholder.

[Skroe]

I think you are projecting your dislike for Trump a bit too much there. Getting impeached by the House and acquitted by the Senate will change nothing on how he is seen on the world stage or with domestic leaders. People have made their minds up about him since the day he announced his candidacy.

No minds of have been changed on him since 2016, the House could have held a floor vote to impeach the day the new Congress was in session after the 2018 elections and it would have passed. The hearings and testimonies and inquiries and investigations didn't move the needle one bit; this notion of "right or wrong" is irrelevant given the degree of partisanship in this country. The blind hate/love and Us vs Them is actually far more dangerous to the future of the country. Trump could cure cancer tomorrow and the democrats would still find a way to make it racist, misogynist, nationalist etc etc. The fact there will not be a single republican to vote to impeach in the House and likely one or two democrats to vote no speaks volumes about the current state of our government.

Trump will conduct his presidency the same after his acquittal and world leaders will see him the same. Impeachment doesn't in any way make him less effective than he already is, other than perhaps more ribbing from world leaders. But as long as he is President, world leaders will have to deal with him if they want to do any business with the US and many countries need the US for all sorts of things. On the domestic front, the democrats still won't allow him any victories before the election and after will probably have to pick and choose their battles if he is re-elected. So again, him being impeached changes nothing, other than to make his enemies happy there is that black mark on his legacy. Clinton has weathered his pretty well and I assume Trump will also.

This is flatly inaccurate. World leaders have always been cautious around Trump, but had tried flattery and engagement up until this summer, when they got fed up with his antics. When the Trump-Ukraine scandal broke, it was replaced with outright avoidance of engagement. But things like I described, like not being able to trust their conversations with Trump remain confidential, and the lingering fear that Democrats may uncover any kind of conversations they have, is brand new, and will continue to undermine Trump's power for as long as he is President. They'll never put themselves in a situation where they are remotely close to Trump, lest that causes them problems with the House of Representatives or their own political opposition. The tenor has definitely changed from engagement and tolerance to passive aggressiveness and avoidance.

Or let me put it like this. A lot of this is from late 2018 and 2019:


Trump's power, internationally, is utterly broken. Unrecoverable.



And "right or wrong" does matter. Morally. Ethically. If Morals and ethics don't matter... if principles don't matter... then what are we fighting over? The US is done in that case. There is no point to it, other than as a designation of the geographical container that holds 330 million people on one of Earth's seven continents. We have a moral responsibility to stand for what's right.

Democrats should be very proud of their performance during impeachement. They've handled everything absolutely perfectly and have done great honor to American ideals. And I will be writing them a fat, fat check for Christmas to show my gratitude.

- - - Updated - - -

Because at the end of the day that's why a lot of people voted for him in 2016 and will in 2020 - supreme court picks.

Ok so he got laughed out of NATO, so what? You cant say that the strong likelihood of appointing at least one more SC pick is "impotent."

It absolutely is. Are you new to the power of the Presidency or something?

Clinton, Bush, and Obama (to name the most recent three) all had:

-An ability to shape budgets to the point that Congress largely just tweaked Presidential Budget Requests (rather than outright ignore them, as they do today)
-An ability to advance new and transformative major policies.
-Significant International power and influence. And going with that the ability to shape domestic political opinion to drive forward a consequential foreign policy.
-The ability to appoint judges on Federal Courts and the Supreme court.

Trump voters can vote for him for any reason they like. And sure, Trump is appointing more appeals and circuit court judges than his Predecessor. But so far, he's just gotten two Supreme court picks, like Obama and Bush. And Obama technically had three (the third being robbed from him). I believe Bill Clinton had one, and I can't recall how many George W Bush and Reagan had.

But any voter who justifies a vote for any candidate for JUST court picks is basically cutting down the potential ambitions of their President by a massive. Is that Supreme Court job important? Absolutely. Is it the end all be all? Hell no. Most of what every President does has nothing to do with the Supreme Court.

Trump is basically squatting in Obama's Government. He has reformed none of it. He has instituted no new major policies. The only thing he has done is run a skeleton crew, as his shambolic White House can't find willing volunteers to take big jobs, because nobody wants in on this radioactive White House.

So it's absolutely neutered. It's even a joke we're talking about the President of the United Stares, the leader of the free world, as principally a Supreme Court Justice appointer. Like that's their primary rationale. That's HILARIOUS shrunken ambition.

Let me put it like this. Is there any circumstance that President Trump could rally domestic political opinion for a foreign war under any circumstances? Not even an Iraq War. Like a Libya (2011). Or an Operation Allied Force (Kosovo War, 1999)? No. He would never get the Authorization for Use of Military Force. He'd never get a war budget. He'd never see the public support numbers Bush, Clinton and Obama saw. Nobody trusts him. Only his supporters thinks he can make good decisions. Opposition wouldn't necessarily be about the war, but the man picking it. Far more than any prior President.

Or conversely, is there any circumstance where Trump could rally domestic political opinion for a major change to the budget? One that the political opposition would go along with? Obama did that. Bush and Clinton did it too. It's not just "polarization" that makes it harder. It's how he has squandered his own power, or had it taken from him. Presidents don't shape the budget anymore - again Obama lost that power after Sequestration. And Trump has seen even a further retreat.

So yes. Neutered. Bigly. So Trump can win in 2020 and serve to 2024. But he would find himself weaker than Obama was in 2013 (which was to say, real weak), and nothing like Bush was in 2005 or Clinton in 1997. So what's the damn point?

We've won. God bless the Democrats.

[Edge-]

You cant say that the strong likelihood of appointing at least one more SC pick is "impotent."

Literally anyone with an "(R)" next to their name will choose from the same carefully crafted list of nominees from the Heritage Foundation/Federalist Society, as both organizations are devoted to grooming and promoting activist conservative judges.

They don't need Trump for that. Trump won't do anything with the SCOTUS that any other Republican out there wouldn't do.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.thedailybeast.com/adam-s...-phone-records

Democrats apparently have to remind Republicans that the reason that folks like Nunes and Solomon are popping up in call logs isn't because they're being surveiled for being conservatives, as some allege without evidence, but because they also spoke with Lev Parnas, who is currently under indictment, and Rudy Giuliani, who is currently under investigation.

[Bodakane]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/whit...ry?id=67502822



So the alleged quid pro quo is about Joe Biden and his son, but Biden said he will not testify if a trial goes forward in the senate. I am sure he has nothing to hide.

So since you want to get down to the truth and are tired of people accused of corruption fighting getting to the truth, when do you plan on wanting Trump to release his tax returns, be interviewed in front of Mueller and Congress and also release that actual transcript of his Ukraine call....or is your righteous indignation just a bunch of bullshit?

[Machismo]

Literally anyone with an "(R)" next to their name will choose from the same carefully crafted list of nominees from the Heritage Foundation/Federalist Society, as both organizations are devoted to grooming and promoting activist conservative judges.

They don't need Trump for that. Trump won't do anything with the SCOTUS that any other Republican out there wouldn't do.

- - - Updated - - -

https://www.thedailybeast.com/adam-s...-phone-records

Democrats apparently have to remind Republicans that the reason that folks like Nunes and Solomon are popping up in call logs isn't because they're being surveiled for being conservatives, as some allege without evidence, but because they also spoke with Lev Parnas, who is currently under indictment, and Rudy Giuliani, who is currently under investigation.

The best part about this, is that Nunes was caught working with Solomon trying to create fake news.

The utter irony of Trumpsters being proven time and time again to being exactly what they claim the other guys are (without evidence) shows just how ludicrous GOP politicians are.

[Edge-]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/whit...ry?id=67502822



So the alleged quid pro quo is about Joe Biden and his son, but Biden said he will not testify if a trial goes forward in the senate. I am sure he has nothing to hide.

Then why hasn't the DOJ begun an investigation into Joe Biden?

And why should Joe Biden testify about things that Trump did in office while Biden was a private citizen? Again, if Republicans want to investigate Biden they absolutely can. And they could have started these investigations while they controlled both the House and Senate if they wanted, too.

But this didn't seem like a priority for Republicans until...

*checks notes*

Oh right, until Trump decided to ask a foreign head of state to investigate Biden for personal gain, and Republicans tried to spin it into a real, serious investigation that wasn't done through irregular backchannels using non-government staff acting in an official capacity.

- - - Updated - - -

The best part about this, is that Nunes was caught working with Solomon trying to create fake news.

Potentially. We don't know what was discussed on the calls, so while that's quite likely, we can't say that for certain yet.

The utter irony of Trumpsters being proven time and time again to being exactly what they claim the other guys are (without evidence) shows just how ludicrous GOP politicians are.

Self awareness has vacated Congressional Republicans minds, for the most part.

[Shadowferal]

Are you saying that Trump is not a U.S. citizen? Are you saying the rights afforded to American citizens are not afforded to him? Are you saying the single foundation upon which the American legal system is built is something other than the Constitution? These are not rhetorical questions. I'd like you to answer each of them, please.

Are you okay with Trump demanding foreign countries to investigate US citizens to help him win elections?

[Machismo]

Then why hasn't the DOJ begun an investigation into Joe Biden?

And why should Joe Biden testify about things that Trump did in office while Biden was a private citizen? Again, if Republicans want to investigate Biden they absolutely can. And they could have started these investigations while they controlled both the House and Senate if they wanted, too.

But this didn't seem like a priority for Republicans until...

*checks notes*

Oh right, until Trump decided to ask a foreign head of state to investigate Biden for personal gain, and Republicans tried to spin it into a real, serious investigation that wasn't done through irregular backchannels using non-government staff acting in an official capacity.

- - - Updated - - -



Potentially. We don't know what was discussed on the calls, so while that's quite likely, we can't say that for certain yet.



Self awareness has vacated Congressional Republicans minds, for the most part.

Yes, you are correct... it is only potentially abut that. Of course, we already know Nunes is nothing more than Trump's direct line into all matters involving investigations. We already know he has leaked information to Trump in the past, and worked with him to spread lies about the Mueller investigation. All this would be... is literally the exact same thing we already know he has done.

I mean it could be about a pizza pedo ring, but I know where I'm placing my bets.

[nonameelf]

Are you saying that Trump is not a U.S. citizen? Are you saying the rights afforded to American citizens are not afforded to him? Are you saying the single foundation upon which the American legal system is built is something other than the Constitution? These are not rhetorical questions. I'd like you to answer each of them, please.

Impeachment is not a legal process. It's a process of removing someone from office. It's an entirely separate process laid out in the constitution.

[Edge-]

https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciar...onathan-turley

Some details on the Republican academic, Jonathan Turley, and his questionable and spotty history when it comes to his views on impeachment, and whether or not his views were correct in instance where there was a potential impeachment (they weren't).

[Breccia]

Some details on the Republican academic, Jonathan Turley

My favorite part:

In 1998 he testified before Congress in the Clinton impeachment hearings, taking the position that “If you decide that certain acts do not rise to impeachable offenses, you will expand the space for executive conduct." This proposition would surely argue for Trump’s impeachment, but Turley conveniently forgot to mention this in his testimony.

I guess all those people pointing at him and saying "See? SEE? We're just being objective!" miiiiiiiiiiight want to rethink that approach. But, hey, if they want to find out what those other three people said in 1998, feel free to post that, too.