The First Trump Impeachment Thread

[TGHusker]

Peggy Noonan has a good editorial on this.  

 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/trumps-defenders-have-no-defense-11574382421

 

Quote

 

Look, the case has been made. Almost everything in the impeachment hearings this week fleshed out and backed up the charge that President Trump muscled Ukraine for political gain. The pending question is what precisely the House and its Democratic majority will decide to include in the articles of impeachment, what statutes or standards they will assert the president violated.

What was said consistently undermined Mr. Trump’s case, but more deadly was what has never been said. In the two months since Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced a formal impeachment inquiry was under way and the two weeks since the Intelligence Committee’s public hearings began, no one, even in the White House, has said anything like, “He wouldn’t do that!” or “That would be so unlike him.” His best friends know he would do it and it’s exactly like him.

The week’s hearings were not a seamless success for Democrats. On Tuesday they seemed to be losing the thread. But by Wednesday and Thursday it was restored.

 

Quote

 

On Wednesday Gordan Sondland, the ambassador to the European Union, was both weirdly jolly and enormously effective in doing Mr. Trump damage. He followed the president’s orders; there was a quid pro quo; “everyone was in the loop, it was no secret“; Rudy Giuliani was the point man, with whom Mr. Sondland worked “at the express direction of the president.”

It was his third try at truthful sworn testimony and it was completely believable. It was kind of the ballgame. He seemed like a guy with nothing to lose, or maybe a guy who’d already lost much.

On Thursday Fiona Hill, the former White House Russia expert, was all business, a serious woman you don’t want to mess with. She reoriented things, warning that those who excuse or don’t wish to see Russian propaganda efforts against America, and targeting its elections, are missing the obvious. The suspicion of the president and his allies that Ukraine is the great culprit in the 2016 election is a “fictional narrative.” They are, in fact, bowing to disinformation Russia spreads to cover its tracks and confuse the American people and its political class. She dismissed the president’s operatives’ efforts to get Ukraine’s new president to investigate his country’s alleged meddling as a “domestic political errand.” She and other diplomats were “involved in national security, foreign policy,” and the interests of the operatives and the diplomats had “diverged.” She warned Mr. Sondland: “This is all going to blow up.”

Truer words.

What became obvious in the hearings was the sober testimony from respectable diplomats—not disgruntled staffers with nutty memoirs but people of stature who don’t ordinarily talk—about how the administration operates. It became clear in a new and public way that pretty much everyone around the president has been forced for three years to work around his poor judgment and unpredictability in order to do their jobs. He no doubt knows this and no doubt doesn’t care. Because he’s the boss, they’ll do it his way.

But we saw how damaging this is, how ultimately destructive, not only to coherence and respectability but to the president himself.

 

Quote

 

As to impeachment itself, the case has been so clearly made you wonder what exactly the Senate will be left doing. How will they hold a lengthy trial with a case this clear? Who exactly will be the president’s witnesses, those who’d testify he didn’t do what he appears to have done, and would never do it?

Procedures, rules and definitions aren’t fully worked out in the Senate. But we are approaching December and the clock is ticking. A full-blown trial on charges most everyone will believe are true, and with an election in less than a year, will seem absurd to all but diehards and do the country no good.

 

Quote

So the reasonable guess is Republican senators will call to let the people decide. In a divided country this is the right call. But they should take seriously the idea of censuring him for abuse of power. Mr. Trump would be the first president to be censured since Andrew Jackson, to whom his theorists have always compared him. In the end he will probably be proud of a tightening of the connection.

 

 

 

 

[QMany]

25 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

I know it will take awhile, but what are the rules over in the Senate, what is going to happen? I've been reading people calling for Republican senators to bring in a list of witnesses that is entirely in bad faith. Names include the Bidens, the Clintons, Obama, George Soros and Schiff. Can they actually do any of that, given they are in control? 

 

I don't know the exact mechanics of it yet. I was young during Clinton's proceedings and need to read up.

 

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.

 

But I suspect the Chief Justice presiding makes the calls on witnesses, including relevancy. 

[Danny Bateman]

This is from October 3rd.

 

Doesn't this render the "I want nothing - I want no Quid Pro Quo" bit entirely moot. He had already admitted what he wanted by saying the quiet part loud. That second statement was just the laziest possible attempt to cover it up.

 

 

[QMany]

Here's my take...

 

Bribery, in this case using taxpayer for personal favors, is bad. Ummmmkay.

 

But we're not talking about some shady deal to get another Trump Tower, Ivanka some Chinese trademarks, or Kushner a sweetheart loan (all done).

 

The favor here was a a "ginned-up" investigation into Biden. Everyone testified the Biden allegations were not credible. The Trump Administration was informed previously it was debunked. Ukraine "had to announce the investigations. He didn’t actually have to do them." They were trying to slander the leading candidate. They were trying to influence the 2020 election. That's what this boils down to, and it is more impeachable than anything else I can imagine.

[BigRedBuster]

4 minutes ago, QMany said:

Here's my take...

 

Bribery, in this case using taxpayer for personal favors, is bad. Ummmmkay.

 

But we're not talking about some shady deal to get another Trump Tower, Ivanka some Chinese trademarks, or Kushner a sweetheart loan (all done).

 

The favor here was a a "ginned-up" investigation into Biden. Everyone testified the Biden allegations were not credible. The Trump Administration was informed previously it was debunked. Ukraine "had to announce the investigations. He didn’t actually have to do them." They were trying to slander the leading candidate. They were trying to influence the 2020 election. That's what this boils down to, and it is more impeachable than anything else I can imagine.

I'm not arguing against anything any of you have said.  I'm just simply stating what Trump supporters are now saying.  They are claiming they need to hear it from Mulvaney, Bolden or Pompeo.  When you point out Trump isn't letting them testify, they get a...."well, that's the Dem's problem isn't it" attitude.

 

It pisses me off.  But, that's where we are at.

[Nebfanatic]

5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm not arguing against anything any of you have said.  I'm just simply stating what Trump supporters are now saying.  They are claiming they need to hear it from Mulvaney, Bolden or Pompeo.  When you point out Trump isn't letting them testify, they get a...."well, that's the Dem's problem isn't it" attitude.

 

It pisses me off.  But, that's where we are at.

And the thing is, even if you show them Mulvaney saying it plain as day, the response is 'well if they interfered in our elections the President should want to look into that before we gave them millions of dollars'  they will admit themselves the President did in fact do this, but the lense they see it through is completely warped

[Frostberg]

I consider myself an independent who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I did not vote for Trump and I generally stay far away from politics. Its hard for me to trust the media (left or right) to give an accurate account without their own spin, so I've watched as much of the hearings as I could (its been slow at work) to see and hear first hand without red or blue glasses on.

 

Don't attack me for this as it is just my opinion... I really didn't see a good case for impeachment presented. I kept thinking, "all this hype and this is all you have?". Very little hard evidence or first hand accounts.

 

Also, the Bidens should be investigated.

[Frostberg]

5 minutes ago, Frostberg said:

I consider myself an independent who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I did not vote for Trump and I generally stay far away from politics. Its hard for me to trust the media (left or right) to give an accurate account without their own spin, so I've watched as much of the hearings as I could (its been slow at work) to see and hear first hand without red or blue glasses on.

 

Don't attack me for this as it is just my opinion... I really didn't see a good case for impeachment presented. I kept thinking, "all this hype and this is all you have?". Very little hard evidence or first hand accounts.

 

Also, the Bidens should be investigated.

 

Just to be clear, I am not a Trump "supporter". No matter the president (Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Trump) I've wanted to see them succeed and for America to prosper. I'm also not looking to debate anyone, just wanted to throw my 2 cents in for what its worth.

[Nebfanatic]

6 minutes ago, Frostberg said:

I consider myself an independent who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I did not vote for Trump and I generally stay far away from politics. Its hard for me to trust the media (left or right) to give an accurate account without their own spin, so I've watched as much of the hearings as I could (its been slow at work) to see and hear first hand without red or blue glasses on.

 

Don't attack me for this as it is just my opinion... I really didn't see a good case for impeachment presented. I kept thinking, "all this hype and this is all you have?". Very little hard evidence or first hand accounts.

 

Also, the Bidens should be investigated.

What do you consider a first hand account?

 

Also, how did the hearings lead you to the bolded conclusion?

[Huskerzoo]

1 minute ago, Frostberg said:

I consider myself an independent who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I did not vote for Trump and I generally stay far away from politics. Its hard for me to trust the media (left or right) to give an accurate account without their own spin, so I've watched as much of the hearings as I could (its been slow at work) to see and hear first hand without red or blue glasses on.

 

Don't attack me for this as it is just my opinion... I really didn't see a good case for impeachment presented. I kept thinking, "all this hype and this is all you have?". Very little hard evidence or first hand accounts.

 

Also, the Bidens should be investigated.

 

Are you talking about impeachment or removal? Two very different questions. Remember that Clinton was impeached, he was not removed. 

 

Additionally, I'm curious as to what additional information you would need to conclude that Trump asked for an investigation? Or are you of the belief that it's not a big deal one way or another? 

 

Finally, what potential crime did the Bidens commit? If it wasn't a federal crime in the USA, should we be asking other countries to pursue criminals? That is to say, if Trudeau called up Trump and was like hey, I want you to investigate someone for me, we're trying to clean up corruption. We should listen? Why? 

[Danny Bateman]

12 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I'm not arguing against anything any of you have said.  I'm just simply stating what Trump supporters are now saying.  They are claiming they need to hear it from Mulvaney, Bolden or Pompeo.  When you point out Trump isn't letting them testify, they get a...."well, that's the Dem's problem isn't it" attitude.

 

It pisses me off.  But, that's where we are at.

 

Talking to actual Republicans is frustrating at this point.

 

I have a coworker who is a very smart man when it comes to what we do. I've conferred with him on a lot of things to become a better practitioner.

 

He's also a hardcore Republican. I am not. Sometimes listening to the rants he goes on is kind of funny, sometimes it's just sad.

 

Yesterday he starts talking about Hunter Biden fathering that kid, "Sleepy Creepy Uncle Joe," etc etc. I turned to him and said, "Yeah, I know, but when you throw the old 'Grab 'em by the P' out there, none of it really matters anymore, does it?"

 

His response was to get slightly flustered and ultimately say "Well, you know one conversation you have with someone when you think you're alone... you know how it is with Trump and these other super wealthy men, women wanting their 15 minutes in the spotlight, they absolutely do throw themselves at you. Besides, I think, you know, anything with children is way, way worse." And some associated ranting about pedophilia.

 

So, in sum, he used Biden being ultra, inappropriately weird when it comes to personal boundaries to defend Trump literally describing sexual assault and somehow make it the woman's fault.

 

So I'm pissed too. I don't know how to bridge the gap to someone like that and find common cause. He's a decent, smart man in other areas of life. But political beliefs that are toxic as hell. Republicanism seems a lot like a cult right now.

[QMany]

21 minutes ago, Frostberg said:

Don't attack me for this as it is just my opinion... I really didn't see a good case for impeachment presented. I kept thinking, "all this hype and this is all you have?". Very little hard evidence or first hand accounts.

 

On 11/15/2019 at 2:16 PM, QMany said:

Is this a rhetorical question?
 

Trump released a memo wherein he says “ I would like you to do us a favor though,” his chief of staff went on television and admitted quid pro quo for holding up the aid, and then his personal attorney admitted he asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens on TV. That’s just for starters. 

 

What do you need, a video of Trump holding two forms of identification saying, “please do this impeachable bribe?”

 

I wrote that before Trump's star witness testified:

Quote

I know that members of this Committee have frequently framed these complicated issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a "quid pro quo?" As I testified previously, with regard to the requested White House call and White House meeting, the answer is yes.

...

Everyone was in the loop.

 

21 minutes ago, Frostberg said:

Also, the Bidens should be investigated.

 

You watched the hearings, and this is your takeaway!?!

 

[Moiraine]

8 minutes ago, Danny Bateman said:

 

Talking to actual Republicans is frustrating at this point.

 

I have a coworker who is a very smart man when it comes to what we do. I've conferred with him on a lot of things to become a better practitioner.

 

He's also a hardcore Republican. I am not. Sometimes listening to the rants he goes on is kind of funny, sometimes it's just sad.

 

Yesterday he starts talking about Hunter Biden fathering that kid, "Sleepy Creepy Uncle Joe," etc etc. I turned to him and said, "Yeah, I know, but when you throw the old 'Grab 'em by the P' out there, none of it really matters anymore, does it?"

 

His response was to get slightly flustered and ultimately say "Well, you know one conversation you have with someone when you think you're alone... you know how it is with Trump and these other super wealthy men, women wanting their 15 minutes in the spotlight, they absolutely do throw themselves at you. Besides, I think, you know, anything with children is way, way worse." And some associated ranting about pedophilia.

 

So, in sum, he used Biden being ultra, inappropriately weird when it comes to personal boundaries to defend Trump literally describing sexual assault and somehow make it the woman's fault.

 

So I'm pissed too. I don't know how to bridge the gap to someone like that and find common cause. He's a decent, smart man in other areas of life. But political beliefs that are toxic as hell. Republicanism seems a lot like a cult right now.

 

 

Ya. I know a few people like that. One was a math teacher I loved. Another is related to my sister in law. They’re both really smart. I think it shows how powerful a tool psychology can be. We can all be susceptible and they are being manipulated by Fox News even though they’re smart. 

[Decoy73]

24 minutes ago, Frostberg said:

I consider myself an independent who is fiscally conservative and socially liberal. I did not vote for Trump and I generally stay far away from politics. Its hard for me to trust the media (left or right) to give an accurate account without their own spin, so I've watched as much of the hearings as I could (its been slow at work) to see and hear first hand without red or blue glasses on.

 

Don't attack me for this as it is just my opinion... I really didn't see a good case for impeachment presented. I kept thinking, "all this hype and this is all you have?". Very little hard evidence or first hand accounts.

 

Also, the Bidens should be investigated.

Appreciate you giving your take on this. What do you think of the WH preventing Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton, etc. from testifying. I’m just curious to hear an unbiased opinion about that. 

[Frostberg]

9 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

What do you consider a first hand account? Of the very few people who were actually on the call, no one said that Trump directly said that the investigations were contingent on aid or whatever.

 

Also, how did the hearings lead you to the bolded conclusion? Hunter getting paid a ton of money from a shady company and Joe stating publicly that he pressured them to fire the prosecutor.

Just because I think the Bidens should be investigated doesn't mean I think Trump shouldn't be investigated. I want all potential corruption to be investigated no matter the party lines.

 

7 minutes ago, Huskerzoo said:

 

Are you talking about impeachment or removal? Two very different questions. Remember that Clinton was impeached, he was not removed.

I haven't really thought about that. I guess impeachment with this being a impeachment hearing.

 

Additionally, I'm curious as to what additional information you would need to conclude that Trump asked for an investigation? Or are you of the belief that it's not a big deal one way or another? Trump asking for an investigation doesn't bother me and if the Bidens are corrupt we shouldn't be allowing Joe to run for president. Same goes for Trump.

 

Finally, what potential crime did the Bidens commit? If it wasn't a federal crime in the USA, should we be asking other countries to pursue criminals? That is to say, if Trudeau called up Trump and was like hey, I want you to investigate someone for me, we're trying to clean up corruption. We should listen? Why? I'm not sure if there was an actual crime or not. An investigation would determine that. I think all corruption should be investigated and if the corruption extends to other countries then we may need their help looking into it. So if Trudeau wanted our help to investigate a Canadian and it may have happened in the USA then I would support us helping them.

 

Just now, Decoy73 said:

Appreciate you giving your take on this. What do you think of the WH preventing Mulvaney, Pompeo, Bolton, etc. from testifying. I’m just curious to hear an unbiased opinion about that. I think they should testify and I do not support them being blocked.