Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Shadowferal]

Calling for an investigation is not considered a criminal offensive or an abuse of power unless unless ill intent is behind the request . And not a single piece of evidence did that . This a dud

Wow, you really don't know anything...political favors are against the law.

[Stormspellz]

Oh FFS dont pin your hopes on Bolton because nothing he has said so far is either impeachable or a criminal offence. At this point the democrats are grasping at straws here ans they know it

yes, him literally verifying article I impeachment with his first hand knowledge of it is no big deal at all. Once more you are wrong, hey at least you had one thing right tonight.

[DKjaigen]

Oh, no, no, no. He's not saying that.

The law is. It's a requirement of our mutual legal assistance treaty with Ukraine.

MLAT is nothing more then a tool that allows the DoJ to operate in foreign territory . Its neither a requirement nor relevant. Trump asked in an informal way to investigate but that's not criminal

[Shadowferal]

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

[Orbitus]

Calling for an investigation is not considered a criminal offensive or an abuse of power unless unless ill intent is behind the request . And not a single piece of evidence did that . This a dud

Except, there is no evidence other than "ill intent". Considering they weren't asking for an investigation, they were asking for a fucking announcement of investigation. Which means basically fuck all, other than appeasement to his moronic gullible followers.

[Shadowferal]

At this point Trump could wear a tan suit and his zealots would cheer him.

[DKjaigen]

GAO finds Trump administration broke law by withholding Ukraine aid

The GAO can definitely claim that. Claiming something however means nothing let them bring their accusations to court.

[Edge-]

MLAT is nothing more then a tool that allows the DoJ to operate in foreign territory . Its neither a requirement nor relevant.

It is a tool, and a legal one, and it matters because that's literally the legal tool to allow the DoJ to investigate Americans in foreign territories with the approval of the home country. It's literally the tool to use if Trump, Republicans, and/or the DoJ felt that there was potentially unlawful behavior on the part of Hunter Biden, and wanted to pursue a legal, above-board investigation into his time working for Burisma.

If you don't think this matters, that say more about you than it does the treaty.

Trump asked in an informal way to investigate but that's not criminal

Inherently, no. But what goes into the sausage, the "what and how he says it", matters. And in this case, he asked for a foreign head of state to announce an investigation into his political rival, informally, over the phone, as what by all accounts was a precondition for Ukraine to receive the legally mandated Congressional aide that the Pentagon signed off on.

You're basically casually dismissing key facts because they don't sync up with your narrative of events, which would mean that it's your narrative of events, not the facts, that's at issue here.

The GAO can definitely claim that. Claiming something however means nothing let them bring their accusations to court.

Again, casual dismissal of facts that are unhelpful to your narrative. Case. In. Point.

The GAO exists, in part, as a watchdog to call out illegal behavior from the government as a whole. This isn't a casual opinion. Here's the report, feel free to start flipping through as they thoroughly document the evidence supporting their opinion - https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

They're non-partisan, and have "gone after" both parties in office because it's not their job to support either side, it's their job to be a non-partisan watchdog for both sides.

[Orbitus]

The GAO can definitely claim that. Claiming something however means nothing let them bring their accusations to court.

I will go with the GAO over a Trump supporter that ignores any and all evidence in fucking reality to support him.

[Xyonai]

Man I'm really enjoying this 'Why Trump is being Impeached' Recap we've got going on with DK. Always nice to get a refresher course on the issues at hand.

[DKjaigen]

It is a tool, and a legal one, and it matters because that's literally the legal tool to allow the DoJ to investigate Americans in foreign territories with the approval of the home country. It's literally the tool to use if Trump, Republicans, and/or the DoJ felt that there was potentially unlawful behavior on the part of Hunter Biden, and wanted to pursue a legal, above-board investigation into his time working for Burisma.

If you don't think this matters, that say more about you than it does the treaty.

I agree he should have used MLAT. But not using it is not a criminal offence.

Inherently, no. But what goes into the sausage, the "what and how he says it", matters. And in this case, he asked for a foreign head of state to announce an investigation into his political rival, informally, over the phone, as what by all accounts was a precondition for Ukraine to receive the legally mandated Congressional aide that the Pentagon signed off on.

You're basically casually dismissing key facts because they don't sync up with your narrative of events, which would mean that it's your narrative of events, not the facts, that's at issue here.

I'm dismissing this because its pure speculation on your part.

Again, casual dismissal of facts that are unhelpful to your narrative. Case. In. Point.

The GAO exists, in part, as a watchdog to call out illegal behavior from the government as a whole. This isn't a casual opinion. Here's the report, feel free to start flipping through as they thoroughly document the evidence supporting their opinion - https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

They're non-partisan, and have "gone after" both parties in office because it's not their job to support either side, it's their job to be a non-partisan watchdog for both sides.

A simple google search will find you plenty of people that can tear this document apart. Im neither an advocate or a juror so until this accusation stand in court i´m simply going to dismiss it.

- - - Updated - - -

The DoJ has a policy not to indict a sitting president. But you know this and are gaslighting. As you have been all day.

Then sue the OMB.

[Breccia]

Calling for an investigation is not considered a criminal offensive or an abuse of power unless unless ill intent is behind the request

Perhaps you've missed the over six hundred pages of this thread. Here are some things you may have missed:
1) Trump had a standard, legal way to open an investigation. I know you saw that, because I replied to you directly and cited it.
2) Trump did not use this standard, legal way to open an investigation. He did not open an investigation at all.
3) Trump illegally (as determined by the GAO, recently) withheld aid to Ukraine.
4) Which multiple people have testified under oath was to force Ukraine to open an investigation. Which, again, Trump could legally have done himself through standard, legal ways. But he didn't.
5) Extortion is a felony. I believe the Constitution even calls out blackmail as a reason to impeach.
6) As for intent, once again, you and/or Team Trump are free to name any person to be investigated -- which, again, Trump could have done by standard, legal means and did not -- who is not a Clinton or Biden.

I urge you to please read the contents of any thread in which you engage. Otherwise, people might think you were being intentionally disingenuous or intentionally ill-informed, neither of which are redeeming qualities.

- - - Updated - - -

let them bring their accusations to court.

They are. The GAO's role, in this context, is to advise Congress. They are doing so. Their findings, including the specific law they show Trump broke, are passed along to the House and Senate. Which are now involved in impeachment hearings.

They are doing exactly what you said they should be doing. The end.

[swiftowner]

Man I'm really enjoying this 'Why Trump is being Impeached' Recap we've got going on with DK. Always nice to get a refresher course on the issues at hand.

Maybe, I’d argue that it was a waste of 5-10 pages. You can’t fix someone who wants to be willfully ignorant.

[Fugus]

Finally got to the computer, anything happen after I left? Still going to try and get caught up, but still got 8 more pages to read.

[draynay]

Finally got to the computer, anything happen after I left? Still going to try and get caught up, but still got 8 more pages to read.

I don't think anything interesting happened, but texasrules getting himself banned forever was at least amusing.

[Fugus]

I don't think anything interesting happened, but texasrules getting himself banned forever was at least amusing.

I watched about an hour of the Senate Hearings. My favorites so far was a White House lawyers defense stating.

"Commission of a crime, isn't enough to remove a duly elected official" Exact quote BTW.
He stated that Abuse of Power wasn't impeachable because it didn't include enough crimes. And.....
He stated that no matter how many crimes he commits it doesn't matter, all that matters is the 2/3rds consensus.

That was what I heard in that time, i wanted to know of any other gems that might have come from the Republican defense team.

[Edge-]

I agree he should have used MLAT. But not using it is not a criminal offence.

This is a meaningless blanket statement, usually made when trying to connect two unconnected ideas - that he should have used the MLAT, and that not using one isn't criminal - to make an unrelated insinuation - that his failure to use the MLAT was the grounds for his impeachment.

It's not sophisticated, and it's not discussing in good faith. And it's flat-out a pointless thing to say unless your goal is to misdirect.

I'm dismissing this because its pure speculation on your part.

It's not. While the record of the call isn't a transcript as there were omissions we know of, by all accounts Trumps words were largely verbatim. We have him, Donald Trump, asking a foreign head of state about an investigation into his political opponent. Not about corruption, as he alleged.

We have the connected facts, from Gordon Sundland and others who were direct witnesses, and now reportedly from Jon Bolton himself, that Donald Trump withheld the legally mandated military aide as a bargaining chip in return for the president of Ukraine, at the request of his personal lawyer outside of normal diplomatic channels but with the support of certain members of the State Department, rather than through official channels, making a public announcement of the investigation of Hunter and Joe Biden. Not that they actually needed to investigate them, but that they needed to announce it, which literally can only mean it was done for political benefit against a likely primary rival.

Now that we've caught up on the past 4 months of this investigation, maybe we can get back on topic.

A simple google search will find you plenty of people that can tear this document apart.

Who, in particular?

A simple google search can tell me that most of the internet has fucked my, and your, mothers. But like...I don't know if my mom still gets around (she's pretty old and into the monogamy thing, but if she is then more power to her!), but I know she doesn't get around that much and isn't traveling the globe for this. And I won't speak for your mother, but I'd hazard a guess that's similarly false.

Who is "tearing this document apart" matters. If they're not a lawyer or a legal scholar, then they likely don't have a ton of valuable input in the matter.

Im neither an advocate or a juror so until this accusation stand in court i´m simply going to dismiss it.

The report is there. I linked it to you. Feel free to read it and make your own determination, as many of us have done.

[Reeve]

The GAO can definitely claim that. Claiming something however means nothing let them bring their accusations to court.

You can’t bring a sitting President to court under the current opinion of the Office of Legal Council, and moreover, Trump runs the department with the ability to charge him for that crime.

That’s why we have impeachment.

[Fugus]

Has anyone here seen the Senate stuff today?

[beanman12345]

Has anyone here seen the Senate stuff today?

I did not, but Gaetz is still butthurt over not being part of the team.