The Impeachment Thread

[ajvol01]

You know how i feel about politicians. I am constitutional libertarian in ideology.

Being as impartial as possible, it all seems to be on Sondland's credibility. The only moment in the transcript where he mentions the qpq is with Guiliani.
Also, that 2nd article of impeachment is weak af.

So is the 1st

 

[AM64]

I've stopped following it that closely, the outcome is obvious at this point. The House will vote to impeach, the Senate will acquit, and we will move on to something else.

And you have to really love the irony in dims basically calling the senate republicans blindly biased while ignoring the fact that they are playing the very same game in the house. House dims = We don't need no stinking trial - he's guilty - we're in out for the big smear. Senate GOP - not on our watch.

The real irony is that one group is abusing their power to charge and investigate a president of abusing his power in calling for the investigation of another political hack for abuse of his power (or position if you prefer). Since neither side seems inclined to investigate their own, and investigation of someone in the other party is apparently "abuse of office", I guess there's not much chance that DC is ever going to be anything but swampland.

 

[C-south]

Disagree. Supreme Court in U.S. v. Nixon has already held that the constitutional responsibilities of the other branches supersede executive privilege. I’d be pretty surprised if Trump won. So far he’s like 0-5 on similarly frivolous executive privilege claims so it’s sort of like picking the winner in the fourth quarter.

YGHN?

 

[RockyTop85]

YGHN?

Weak. I’ve never assumed he would be removed.

 

[RockyTop85]

Also, that 2nd article of impeachment is weak af.

So how do you hold a president accountable for anything if he holds the keys to the evidence and there’s no repercussions for not turning it over?

You don’t think these facts are impeachable. That’s fine I’m not trying to change your mind on that, but lay out a system in which the President doesn’t have to cooperate and can order his staff not to cooperate but he’s still accountable. How does that work, in your mind?

 

[AM64]

It's more than the phone call. It's the back channels headed by Rudy that made it clear. Trump may be a complete moron, but he does know how to break the law, especially when it comes to bribery and strong arming.

What exactly is Giuliani's official position ... what office has he been sworn into? Where in all of this crap does Giuliani's word mean anything. The guy's a fool and certainly a loose cannon. If you want to blame Trump for any sin, it's having that incompetent, doddering, senile, old fool any place around DC. If you want to say Trump is an idiot of the first order for having a current affiliation of any sort with Giuliani, I'd be the first to agree with you. I'll even go so far as to say if Rudy had been Obama's albatross, he'd have bus tire tread all over his mangy butt.

 

[zeppelin128]

And you have to really love the irony in dims basically calling the senate republicans blindly biased while ignoring the fact that they are playing the very same game in the house. House dims = We don't need no stinking trial - he's guilty - we're in out for the big smear. Senate GOP - not on our watch.

The real irony is that one group is abusing their power to charge and investigate a president of abusing his power in calling for the investigation of another political hack for abuse of his power (or position if you prefer). Since neither side seems inclined to investigate their own, and investigation of someone in the other party is apparently "abuse of office", I guess there's not much chance that DC is ever going to be anything but swampland.

Don't misunderstand me, I firmly believe Trump abused his office by withholding Congressionally mandated aid to Ukraine in exchange for dirt on Joe Biden to aid in his reelection campaign for 2020. I believe he obstructed justice in the follow-up investigation. I also believe he has done much worse than what we know.
What I am aware of is that impeachment is a political exercise. Which means the House will impeach, and the Senate will acquit. Mitch already said it was dead on arrival before the House has even voted yet. So yeah, we will move on to the next thing soon enough.

 

[CagleMtnVol]

 

[C-south]

Lol. Sounds like they’re getting cold feet and don’t want to be exposed as the morons they are.

 

[zeppelin128]

That, that isn't how this works.

 

[BowlBrother85]

though no one could testify that they were told by Rudy or anyone else that it was a quid pro quo. they just had that "feeling".

The word that Gordon Sondland used was "presumed". He was a part of this and had the understanding that there was a quid-pro-quo ultimatum being presented by the Trump Administration to the Ukrainian President Zelensky. Sondland was in a position to know what terms the Ukraine would have to meet in order to receive the military aid. You want everything spelled out for you in black and white but that is not the reality that juries across this country are given in their instructions. There was sufficient evidence presented during the impeachment hearings for a reasonable person to reach the conclusion that the Trump Administration had placed conditions on the release of the military aid, and those conditions included Zelensky making an announcement on CNN that he was opening an investigation into the Bidens.

 

[zeppelin128]

The word that Gordon Sondland used was "presumed". He was a part of this and had the understanding that there was a quid-pro-quo ultimatum being presented by the Trump Administration to the Ukrainian President Zelensky. Sondland was in a position to know what terms the Ukraine would have to meet in order to receive the military aid. You want everything spelled out for you in black and white but that is not the reality that juries across this country are given in their instructions. There was sufficient evidence presented during the impeachment hearings for a reasonable person to reach the conclusion that the Trump Administration had placed conditions on the release of the military aid, and those conditions included Zelensky making an announcement on CNN that he was opening an investigation into the Bidens.

Man, I've got to give you guys credit. You've been laying out the case for damn near two months now with people that are never going to agree with you or anyone else besides Lord Red Hat.

 

[C-south]

The word that Gordon Sondland used was "presumed". He was a part of this and had the understanding that there was a quid-pro-quo ultimatum being presented by the Trump Administration to the Ukrainian President Zelensky. Sondland was in a position to know what terms the Ukraine would have to meet in order to receive the military aid. You want everything spelled out for you in black and white but that is not the reality that juries across this country are given in their instructions. There was sufficient evidence presented during the impeachment hearings for a reasonable person to reach the conclusion that the Trump Administration had placed conditions on the release of the military aid, and those conditions included Zelensky making an announcement on CNN that he was opening an investigation into the Bidens.

What was the reasonable evidence? There is zero actual evidence only their word salad and the word they were suppose to to use was “assume” not “presume”. Nobody actually KNOWS s***. Lol at comparing this to a jury trial. Based on the “evidence” this case would’ve never made it to trial. You can’t charge someone for assault just because someone has a black eye especially when the person with the black eye says he didn’t do it.

 

[37L1]

So how do you hold a president accountable for anything if he holds the keys to the evidence and there’s no repercussions for not turning it over?

You don’t think these facts are impeachable. That’s fine I’m not trying to change your mind on that, but lay out a system in which the President doesn’t have to cooperate and can order his staff not to cooperate but he’s still accountable. How does that work, in your mind?

I don't know. How about we ask an attorney like Eric Holder?

 

[BowlBrother85]

What was the reasonable evidence? There is zero actual evidence only their word salad and the word they were suppose to to use was “assume” not “presume”. Nobody actually KNOWS s***. Lol at comparing this to a jury trial. Based on the “evidence” this case would’ve never made it to trial. You can’t charge someone for assault just because someone has a black eye especially when the person with the black eye says he didn’t do it.

The July 25th phone call transcript in conjunction with the testimonies from Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman (who was on the call) and Sondland and William Taylor.

...and give me a break about Zelensky saying he wasn't pressured. That is what he has to say while Trump is still in office.

 

[newyorkvol]

And you have to really love the irony in dims basically calling the senate republicans blindly biased while ignoring the fact that they are playing the very same game in the house. House dims = We don't need no stinking trial - he's guilty - we're in out for the big smear. Senate GOP - not on our watch.

The real irony is that one group is abusing their power to charge and investigate a president of abusing his power in calling for the investigation of another political hack for abuse of his power (or position if you prefer). Since neither side seems inclined to investigate their own, and investigation of someone in the other party is apparently "abuse of office", I guess there's not much chance that DC is ever going to be anything but swampland.

This is the unfortunate truth of it all.

 

[MontyPython]

If there's any insight that I've learned from Trump's "adventures in presidenting", it's the gullibility of the general public.

Gaslighting really works.

It's an amazing human psychological condition to see otherwise perfectly normal, reasonable people brought to heel by an unrelenting, false, parallel reality of facts.

Shocking, amazing, and confounding all rolled into one.

I truly believe that such cult of personality is exactly what fueled the insanity of 1930's Germany. With 20/20 hindsight, it's obvious now how stupid, hateful and abhorrent it all was. But at the time, the rise of hate-mongering nationalism was likely a source of pride for many.

Hope we don't go down that rabbit hole as a nation...

 

[ajvol01]

So how do you hold a president accountable for anything if he holds the keys to the evidence and there’s no repercussions for not turning it over?

You don’t think these facts are impeachable. That’s fine I’m not trying to change your mind on that, but lay out a system in which the President doesn’t have to cooperate and can order his staff not to cooperate but he’s still accountable. How does that work, in your mind?

Why should we create a system where the President must be “held accountable” to anyone but the voters if no crimes were committed?

This impeachment is the most obvious political exercise in my lifetime. Total waste of time and tax dollars.

Mueller’s testimony (7/24) really tanked so let’s find something to use for impeachment on the phone call with Ukraine (7/25).

 

[ajvol01]

If there's any insight that I've learned from Trump's "adventures in presidenting", it's the gullibility of the general public.

Gaslighting really works.

It's an amazing human psychological condition to see otherwise perfectly normal, reasonable people brought to heel by an unrelenting, false, parallel reality of facts.

Shocking, amazing, and confounding all rolled into one.

I truly believe that such cult of personality is exactly what fueled the insanity of 1930's Germany. With 20/20 hindsight, it's obvious now how stupid, hateful and abhorrent it all was. But at the time, the rise of hate-mongering nationalism was likely a source of pride for many.

Hope we don't go down that rabbit hole as a nation...

The irony of this post is amazing.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

The July 25th phone call transcript in conjunction with the testimonies from Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman (who was on the call) and Sondland and William Taylor.

...and give me a break about Zelensky saying he wasn't pressured. That is what he has to say while Trump is still in office.

Quit assuming and putting words in to mouths you don't agree with.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

If there's any insight that I've learned from Trump's "adventures in presidenting", it's the gullibility of the general public.

Gaslighting really works.

It's an amazing human psychological condition to see otherwise perfectly normal, reasonable people brought to heel by an unrelenting, false, parallel reality of facts.

Shocking, amazing, and confounding all rolled into one.

I truly believe that such cult of personality is exactly what fueled the insanity of 1930's Germany. With 20/20 hindsight, it's obvious now how stupid, hateful and abhorrent it all was. But at the time, the rise of hate-mongering nationalism was likely a source of pride for many.

Hope we don't go down that rabbit hole as a nation...

I picture every single one of you like this.

 

[Orange_Vol1321]

Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment

 

[hog88]

If you believe Trump wanted to investigate corruption, then why did he want the Biden investigation to be announced publicly? Why wouldn’t he just ask the President of Ukraine to investigate it and keep him updated?

I believe that nobody ever heard him say that.

 

[hog88]

So how do you hold a president accountable for anything if he holds the keys to the evidence and there’s no repercussions for not turning it over?

You don’t think these facts are impeachable. That’s fine I’m not trying to change your mind on that, but lay out a system in which the President doesn’t have to cooperate and can order his staff not to cooperate but he’s still accountable. How does that work, in your mind?

Elections

 

[luthervol]

How many assumptions did you just make? You are literally calling for the impeachment of a duly elected POTUS on your assumptions. And yes trump is blocking testimony. But you could fight that in the courts and are choosing not to. That’s on you.

Again, I'll always take slight issue with "duly" elected.
He is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. If I see a dead body and a person standing over the body covered in blood and holding a knife, I will have confidence in my assumption that the person is guilty of murder. I'll acknowledge that there is the slightest of possibilities that he happened upon the body, tried to revive it (explaining why he is covered in blood) and just happened to pick up the murder weapon right before I saw him. But it is on him to prove his innocence at that point. Once it can be reasonably assumed that a person is guilty, it becomes necessary for that person to offer a defense. Trump has blocked every single person around him with first hand knowledge from testifying.
Maybe the Senate will actually require the witnesses to testify, but the house was able to impeach without their testimony.