The First Trump Impeachment Thread

[Nebfanatic 6,316]

19 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

If the house impeaches again, it damn well better be so iron clad that House Republicans have no chance of weaseling out of it.  If not, the Dems will get demolished in November.

How does laundering money for the russian mob sound? It will be the financials and or a sweeping impeachment including that, mueller stuff and a whole host of other offenses. There was some big news that went unnoticed a few days ago about a secret Trump meeting with Saudi Crown prince prior to the election that was found in Kushners interview with Muellers team. There is alot of angles they could take realistically. 

 

 

 

[BigRedBuster 23,938]

25 minutes ago, commando said:

with a bought jury there is no iron clad case possible.   heck....several republicans admit that trump did this...but they say it's not an impeachable offense.   they will never impeach for obstruction because they are part of the obstruction.   only way he will be removed from office is if he is voted out or if the dems win 2/3 of the senate.

It would need to be something that is unquestionably bad enough they couldn't look the other way.

 

[QMany 5,477]

9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

It would need to be something that is unquestionably bad enough they couldn't look the other way.

 

Bribing a foreign country with taxpayer money to target a political opponent and cheat in the upcoming election wasn't enough for Republicans, yet they admitted it happened and it was wrong. Honestly, what would be!?! That is a great question for our press to raise.

[BigRedBuster 23,938]

19 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

How does laundering money for the russian mob sound? It will be the financials and or a sweeping impeachment including that, mueller stuff and a whole host of other offenses. There was some big news that went unnoticed a few days ago about a secret Trump meeting with Saudi Crown prince prior to the election that was found in Kushners interview with Muellers team. There is alot of angles they could take realistically. 

 

 

 

Sure, as long as there is financials, paper trail and eye witnesses that Trump can't silence.  Look, people like Jim Jordan and Ted Cruz will defend Trump till death.  But, I believe that if iron clad evidence (not just hearsay or second hand people saying stuff) such as an actual paper trail of banking documents and TAX RETURNS...etc.

[BigRedBuster 23,938]

2 minutes ago, QMany said:

 

Bribing a foreign country with taxpayer money to target a political opponent and cheat in the upcoming election wasn't enough for Republicans, yet they admitted it happened and it was wrong. Honestly, what would be!?! That is a great question for our press to raise.

Yes, it would be a  good question.  They would just say instantly..."I'm not going to get into hypotheticals".

 

The problem with this situation was that he was too easily able to silence direct witnesses and not release documents.  A new situation would need to be totally different in that aspect.

[QMany 5,477]

5 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The problem with this situation was that he was too easily able to silence direct witnesses and not release documents.  A new situation would need to be totally different in that aspect.

 

Like admitting to sexual assault on camera!?! 

[Nebfanatic 6,316]

3 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Sure, as long as there is financials, paper trail and eye witnesses that Trump can't silence.  Look, people like Jim Jordan and Ted Cruz will defend Trump till death.  But, I believe that if iron clad evidence (not just hearsay or second hand people saying stuff) such as an actual paper trail of banking documents and TAX RETURNS...etc.

What little we do know about his financials in the public STRONGLY suggests a bevy of financial crimes. The only problem is the Supreme Court won't be ruling until June but it's looking like they will rule in favor of releasing the tax returns. The paper trail will be extremely strong but my worry is the excuse will again be it's not impeachable. This time they will say well, he did that when he wasn't the President. That's why hopefully House would have a sweeping impeachment this time with everything from that to emoluments to human rights violations. 

[BigRedBuster 23,938]

Just now, QMany said:

 

Like admitting to sexual assault on camera!?! 

[BigRedBuster 23,938]

He damn well better be able to answer "Why didn't you testify here before now?"

[ZRod 7,265]

I honestly think the Dems really messed this one up. I still don't understand why witnesses like Bolton, Rudy, and Lev were not compelled to testify. I think that was a huge mistake. They got the GOP to go on record, but at what real benefit?

 

Shiff was masterful and his arguments would hold up in any actual court of law, but this is really the court of partisan public opinion. There is just enough ambiguity and mafioso like innuendo that people can hide behind it. 

[BigRedBuster 23,938]

21 minutes ago, ZRod said:

I honestly think the Dems really messed this one up. I still don't understand why witnesses like Bolton, Rudy, and Lev were not compelled to testify. I think that was a huge mistake.

I agree that the Dems didn't to the best job of this.  However, Trump didn't allow those three to testify and it would have taken months in the courts to get them forced to testify....and even then it's not guaranteed.  Trump was fighting like hell in the courts to keep them quiet.

 

So, it's either fight it in court for months...or go ahead and vote on impeachment of these two articles.  Crap shoot either way.

[Nebfanatic 6,316]

Democrats proved their case and got Republicans on record and can still compel Parnas, Bolton ect to testify in the House. Looks like that is the plan

[Decoy73 1,090]

5 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Democrats proved their case and got Republicans on record and can still compel Parnas, Bolton ect to testify in the House. Looks like that is the plan

I agree with this plan but they should do it pretty soon before people lose interest and to give time for legal challenges from Trump.  What can be gained from this?  Getting sworn testimony is paramount.  That way Trump and trumpers in Congress will have some questions to answer and can’t hide behind the “Trump just was investigating corruption” BS narrative. 

 

[ZRod 7,265]

@BigRedBuster I don't think Trump blocked Bolton or Rudy, did he? I think they we're just never compelled with a subpoena.

 

Surely the Supreme Court should have been able to immediately hear cases on this too. It should be two weeks tops for a decision. I really think a week at most though. Give 2 days to prepare argument, 2 days to make arguments, and a day to rule. This is as big as it gets, it should be an expedited process. These lawyers get way too much time (and I say that knowing full well that you have to do a lot of research to prepare a good case, but this is the big time!).

[QMany 5,477]

30 minutes ago, ZRod said:

Surely the Supreme Court should have been able to immediately hear cases on this too. It should be two weeks tops for a decision. 

Should or would? Trump’s financial records suit from April 2019 won’t be decided by SCOTUS until June 2020. We saw Roberts’ lack of initiative the last three weeks.