the 45th is The Fourth US President to officially Face Impeachment.

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Man, these charges had better be fucking bulletproof. Indeed if I may paraphrase 'The Newsroom' for a moment.

"If you're wrong about Trump, that is the first chapter of your autobiography"

If this fails, the Democratic Party has resigned itself to political oblivion for the next fifty years.

If that were the case, then the same could have been said of the Republicans when they Impeached Clinton. It was not, and obviously the Republicans were never in any sort of Political Oblivion.

As many Republicans argued in the Impeachment of Bill Clinton, a crime doesn't even have to occur. But conduct that mars or instills distrust in the political figure's ability to govern is enough for impeachment [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Impeachable_offenses:_%22Treason,_Bribery,_or_other_high_Crimes_and_Misdemeanors%22].

The Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".[4] The precise meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not defined in the Constitution itself.

The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not comport with either the views of the founders or with historical practice.[1] Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust."[5] Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[5] According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" a broad reading, finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.[6][1]

The purposes underlying the impeachment process also indicate that non-criminal activity may constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment.[1][7] The purpose of impeachment is not to inflict personal punishment for criminal activity. Instead, impeachment is a "remedial" tool; it serves to effectively "maintain constitutional government" by removing individuals unfit for office.[8][1] Grounds for impeachment include abuse of the particular powers of government office or a violation of the "public trust"?conduct that is unlikely to be barred via statute.[8][6][1]

In that case, Trump's twitter alone is enough to give pause to those who are paying attention and not in his camp. I am being a little facetious here, but he ignores President Conventions when it pleases him. Emoluments and Trump's repeated claims of how it's phony [https://www.natlawreview.com/article/ignoring-foreign-emoluments-clause-constitution-could-cost-trump] is conduct unbecoming of a President. Literally, with this current climate, there is no right choice for the Democrats to come out without people highly scuntizing their reasons.

If they'll piled up all the things Trump has done over the past 3 years, people would say Democrats are just bitter and they are picking on everything that Trump did. When they made it highly focused, people require it to be bullet proof.

Anyway, back to the actual cases, The Abuse of Power case was laid out to bare for people to interpret how they wanted. We could use a lot more information from the people who were in the know, but they were blocked by the President. And in that, we've met "completely bulletproof" as Trump blocked said witnesses from responding to Congress [https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/11/14/impeachment-hearings-donald-trump-blocks-firsthand-witnesses-editorials-debates/4195846002/].

There's no two ways about that. Congress asked for these witnesses, Trump claimed Immunity to prevent the witnesses, Judge says Presidents aren't Kings and the aides can testify [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50554162], yet the White House didn't change its position.

That's open and shut.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Man, these charges had better be fucking bulletproof. Indeed if I may paraphrase 'The Newsroom' for a moment.

"If you're wrong about Trump, that is the first chapter of your autobiography"

If this fails, the Democratic Party has resigned itself to political oblivion for the next fifty years.

If that were the case, then the same could have been said of the Republicans when they Impeached Clinton. It was not, and obviously the Republicans were never in any sort of Political Oblivion.

As many Republicans argued in the Impeachment of Bill Clinton, a crime doesn't even have to occur. But conduct that mars or instills distrust in the political figure's ability to govern is enough for impeachment [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment_in_the_United_States#Impeachable_offenses:_%22Treason,_Bribery,_or_other_high_Crimes_and_Misdemeanors%22].

The Constitution limits grounds of impeachment to "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors".[4] The precise meaning of the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" is not defined in the Constitution itself.

The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not comport with either the views of the founders or with historical practice.[1] Alexander Hamilton, in Federalist 65, described impeachable offenses as arising from "the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust."[5] Such offenses were "political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself."[5] According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official's duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" a broad reading, finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.[6][1]

The purposes underlying the impeachment process also indicate that non-criminal activity may constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment.[1][7] The purpose of impeachment is not to inflict personal punishment for criminal activity. Instead, impeachment is a "remedial" tool; it serves to effectively "maintain constitutional government" by removing individuals unfit for office.[8][1] Grounds for impeachment include abuse of the particular powers of government office or a violation of the "public trust"?conduct that is unlikely to be barred via statute.[8][6][1]

In that case, Trump's twitter alone is enough to give pause to those who are paying attention and not in his camp. I am being a little facetious here, but he ignores President Conventions when it pleases him. Emoluments and Trump's repeated claims of how it's phony [https://www.natlawreview.com/article/ignoring-foreign-emoluments-clause-constitution-could-cost-trump] is conduct unbecoming of a President. Literally, with this current climate, there is no right choice for the Democrats to come out without people highly scuntizing their reasons.

If they'll piled up all the things Trump has done over the past 3 years, people would say Democrats are just bitter and they are picking on everything that Trump did. When they made it highly focused, people require it to be bullet proof.

Anyway, back to the actual cases, The Abuse of Power case was laid out to bare for people to interpret how they wanted. We could use a lot more information from the people who were in the know, but they were blocked by the President. And in that, we've met "completely bulletproof" as Trump blocked said witnesses from responding to Congress [https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/11/14/impeachment-hearings-donald-trump-blocks-firsthand-witnesses-editorials-debates/4195846002/].

There's no two ways about that. Congress asked for these witnesses, Trump claimed Immunity to prevent the witnesses, Judge says Presidents aren't Kings and the aides can testify [https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50554162], yet the White House didn't change its position.

That's open and shut.

Considering the changes in the landscape of America post-September 11, the comparison to Clinton getting impeached because he lied under oath about getting a blowjob in the oval office from Monika Lewinsky - rather than the substantial body of evidence that suggested Bill might have been a sexual predator - is honestly asinine and quaint.

Some damn heavy words have been thrown around regarding Trump?s impeachment. Traitor. Collusion. Foreign interference. That?s stratospherically different to proto-Glen Quaigmire lying about having his cock sucked. This is Revenge of the Sith, and the democrats are Mace Windu and Kit Fisto marching to Palpatine?s office. Best fucking pray there?s no Anakin Skywalker waiting in the wings.

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

Considering the changes in the landscape of America post-September 11, the comparison to Clinton getting impeached because he lied under oath about getting a blowjob in the oval office from Monika Lewinsky - rather than the substantial body of evidence that suggested Bill might have been a sexual predator - is honestly asinine and quaint.

Some damn heavy words have been thrown around regarding Trump?s impeachment. Traitor. Collusion. Foreign interference. That?s stratospherically different to proto-Glen Quaigmire lying about having his cock sucked. This is Revenge of the Sith, and the democrats are Mace Windu and Kit Fisto marching to Palpatine?s office. Best fucking pray there?s no Anakin Skywalker waiting in the wings.

I actually agree. But this is what we're presented with. An honestly asinine yet sadly quaint situation. With anyone else, we would take what Trump has admitted, Mick Mulvaney has admitted, What Giuliani has admitted and actually shown, what all the witnesses from all political backgrounds have stated they seen, what the transcripts said and not even second guessed what happened.

But we are. A large jump from excuse to excuse when it looks worse and worse for Trump. Blame the democrats for this and that so we can cast suspicion on them. That isn't the actions of people who are innocent and they know it.

What would you call a person who ignores the constitution to his own benefit? Even when warned and told straight out that these actions are against the laws these country supposedly upholds? What do you call a person who supposedly is in league with other nations and calls for an actual foreign power by name to hack in and uncover scandalous stuff that could be used to torpedo his rival? Not once, but three times. Russia, Ukraine, and China. Who orders his own aide not to give testimony even after a Judge tells him that he doesn't have the power to do it? Who instructed his lawyer to use campaign fiance to shut down his sexual indiscretions? Who apparently embolden his other personal lawyer to do things that his lawyer simply doesn't have the clearance to do?

Why do Democrats have to always be beyond reproach in their actions when Trump wallows in his backwards and embarrassing actions, many that would have political ramifications for others for (again) just the accusation?

The point is that we already know Anakin in on the field. The Senate full well knows these actions they would use to bury any democrat or independent President in office, but are doing mental gymnastics that would make Simone Biles quit the sport for the ability to not keep up. The Senate leaders and most outspoken figures have already stated that there would be no kind of evidence that could convince them of anything, and admitted not to be impartial and they just want to make this go away so they can go on with business as usual.

But the point is not just political landscape, but the public is stacked against the democrats as it is. Inaction will make Democrats seem weak, as it did with Mueller. Action needs to kill, or else the Democrats seem incompetent, because it seems like such a no brainer to some and a witch hunt to the cult. If it does kill, it was a biased Witch Hunt to begin with, and we already have some Cultist threatening civil war.

The senate will never budge on Trump because they feel like they have carte Blanche with him in office.

So with everything stacked against them, The Democrats have to think about is it even worth it. As I've stated many times before, even though I think that Trump has committed numerous crimes, and this is just the latest, I don't ever think Trump will be voted out by the senate. I hate Trump, but I don't want him out just because I don't like him. I want him out because once again I understand what Impeachment actually means and how it's used. Trump should be impeached not just because of the numerous and flagrant flouting of our established and law backed methods of governing, but he has shown time and time again that he is unfit to represent this country and all it's facets. Not just the facets he know will vote for him or praise him.

There are many things I forgave in the beginning or were simply embarrassed over in the beginning. He wasn't a politician, he doesn't know better. The fact that he continues to behave the way he does means he doesn't care or he's unfit. If that was a democrat, that would mean something. It would be everything.

I feel that it should be that way even if the president is a Republican, as well.

 

[Silvanus]

Man, these charges had better be fucking bulletproof. Indeed if I may paraphrase ?The Newsroom? for a moment.

?If you?re wrong about Trump, that is the first chapter of your autobiography?

If this fails, the Democratic Party has resigned itself to political oblivion for the next fifty years.

How? That didn't happen with any of the other impeachments.

I really don't expect the American public to change its mind about Trump or how they'll vote based on this miniature political theatre. It doesn't directly affect their lives. The purpose of it was to drag evidence & testimony into the public eye, not to formally remove him.

 

[Gordon_4_v1legacy]

Man, these charges had better be fucking bulletproof. Indeed if I may paraphrase ?The Newsroom? for a moment.

?If you?re wrong about Trump, that is the first chapter of your autobiography?

If this fails, the Democratic Party has resigned itself to political oblivion for the next fifty years.

How? That didn't happen with any of the other impeachments.

I really don't expect the American public to change its mind about Trump or how they'll vote based on this miniature political theatre. It doesn't directly affect their lives. The purpose of it was to drag evidence & testimony into the public eye, not to formally remove him.

Because again, there is a massive difference in the political landscape that impeached Clinton and this one. To say nothing of the divide between the American people based on those same lines.

 

[Silvanus]

Because again, there is a massive difference in the political landscape that impeached Clinton and this one. To say nothing of the divide between the American people based on those same lines.

Ok, but what about the current situation makes you think that failure to formally remove Trump from office will somehow convince people en masse to switch their vote, regardless of the policies that actually impact their lives?

 

[Trunkage]

It's not about nothing that Trump did. It's just not about Ukraine. Trump's crime was running as a Republican with the rhetoric of a Democrat. That's why they want to remove him. The effort to impeach Trump started before he was even in office, like I was telling people here a year or so ago when they were saying Pelosi would never impeach, the plan was always to impeach but they were waiting for it to have election implications. It has nothing in the slightest to do with Ukraine.

 

[Nedoras]

Man, these charges had better be fucking bulletproof. Indeed if I may paraphrase ?The Newsroom? for a moment.

?If you?re wrong about Trump, that is the first chapter of your autobiography?

If this fails, the Democratic Party has resigned itself to political oblivion for the next fifty years.

How? That didn't happen with any of the other impeachments.

I really don't expect the American public to change its mind about Trump or how they'll vote based on this miniature political theatre. It doesn't directly affect their lives. The purpose of it was to drag evidence & testimony into the public eye, not to formally remove him.

Because again, there is a massive difference in the political landscape that impeached Clinton and this one. To say nothing of the divide between the American people based on those same lines.

There kind of isn't though. The Clinton years saw the rise of Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House and the insanity that he brought with him. The "partisanship" was just as bad back then. Hell, so many of the same people in politics today were being just as insane back then too. Just go back and have a look at the things being said and done then. This country has always been massively divided and I don't understand this sudden claim at how toxic everything has become. Anyway the most that this impeachment will do, is drive some turnout for Democrats in later elections at best. As for the possibility of it "riling up" Trump's base, they're ALWAYS riled up. Over fucking anything and everything.

What do you think is going to happen? That the Republicans will claim "TOTAL EXONERATION" and they'll just win everything? They've been doing that since he got into fucking office and they lost the House. The average Democrat who's even only mildly aware of all of this isn't going to go "Darn, turns out the crimes president didn't do any crimes because impeachment failed, I guess the do-nothing Democrats were wrong. I'm not going to vote for them now as a result".

I just don't understand your mindset about this. You're assuming that this will make turnout for the Democrats piss poor for decades which is ludicrous. Especially considering turnout has been on the rise over the past few years. A lot more people are at least mildly paying attention right now, simply just because of Trump. And there are plenty of people who are going to go out and vote against him and the Republicans, even if it's just in some vain effort to magically make things "normal" again. Him not being removed from office because the Republicans don't give a shit isn't going to stop them.

 

[Agema]

You're assuming that this will make turnout for the Democrats piss poor for decades which is ludicrous.

You might assume turnout for the Democrats will be piss poor for decades, but that'll be due to purging voter rolls and other techniques of vote suppression.

 

[Agema]

In other news:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-ukraine-call-zelensky-biden-omb-documents-latest-a9256666.html

Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

 

[tstorm823]

In other news:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politics/trump-impeachment-ukraine-call-zelensky-biden-omb-documents-latest-a9256666.html

Just a coincidence, I'm sure.

I know you're not dumb enough to think this isn't a coincidence. We have pretty undeniable evidence that the freeze was in motion at least a week before, and at least one testimony that Trump had asked for it two weeks prior, and some indication the freeze was being considered within days after the DoD announced what it would be in June. The fact that one piece of the correspondence to enact that order landed on the same day as the phone call is absolutely coincidence.

And like, what is the story here if it wasn't coincidence? "Trump planned for weeks to freeze the military aid to Ukraine, got on the phone with the President of Ukraine to ask for investigations, the Ukrainian president seemed to agree with everything Trump said, so Trump went nuclear and pulled the funding in response!" Like, wut? What? What is that implied non-coincidence supposed to signify? Did Trump have his finger over the button waiting to exact revenge for... being cordial and agreeing to Trump's suggestions at every step of the conversation?

You're not ever looking for reasons to be suspicious about this, you're closing your eyes and assuming the reasons are there.

 

[Avnger]

You're not ever looking for reasons to be suspicious about this, you're closing your eyes and assuming the reasons aren't there.

FTFY

 

[tstorm823]

FTFY

Feel free to try and explain how the timing of the email is incriminating without looking like an idiot. Do your best.

 

[Avnger]

FTFY

Feel free to try and explain how the timing of the email is incriminating without looking like an idiot. Do your best.

My point was bit general than that; it's one your god-emperor agrees with.

Spoiler

 

[Agema]

I know you're not dumb enough to think this isn't a coincidence. We have pretty undeniable evidence that the freeze was in motion at least a week before, and at least one testimony that Trump had asked for it two weeks prior, and some indication the freeze was being considered within days after the DoD announced what it would be in June. The fact that one piece of the correspondence to enact that order landed on the same day as the phone call is absolutely coincidence.

And like, what is the story here if it wasn't coincidence? "Trump planned for weeks to freeze the military aid to Ukraine, got on the phone with the President of Ukraine to ask for investigations, the Ukrainian president seemed to agree with everything Trump said, so Trump went nuclear and pulled the funding in response!" Like, wut? What? What is that implied non-coincidence supposed to signify? Did Trump have his finger over the button waiting to exact revenge for... being cordial and agreeing to Trump's suggestions at every step of the conversation?

You're not ever looking for reasons to be suspicious about this, you're closing your eyes and assuming the reasons are there.

"During our call on September 8, Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman," Taylor testified. "When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check."

 

[ObsidianJones_v1legacy]

~edit. wrong thread. My apologies.

 

[tstorm823]

My point was bit general than that; it's one your god-emperor agrees with.

Because being specific would make you look dumb. Understood.

"During our call on September 8, Ambassador Sondland tried to explain to me that President Trump is a businessman," Taylor testified. "When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, he said, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check."

Kind of like this. You could have just backed off the point, Agema. We had testimony from OBM like a month ago [https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/politics/transcripts-released-philip-reeker-mark-sandy/index.html], it isn't news that the hold was signed by them on the same day as the phone call, they were asked to do it a week prior and that's just when it happened. We knew all this before these emails were released. So what does the office have to say for itself when asked for comment now?

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-admin-forced-turn-ukraine-aid-documents/story?id=67869710

A senior administration official said that the fact that Duffey's email came 91 minutes after the Trump-Zelenskiy phone call concluded was coincidental and that the message was part of a weekslong discussion between OMB and DoD over holding up the aid.

OMB had been waiting on information from DoD about how it planned to distribute the aid, and on July 25, the budget office finally had enough information to finish the process to withhold the aid by placing a footnote on it in OMB's system, according to the official. Duffey was notifying DoD officials that the process had reached that point, the official said.

Just like you have from the beginning, you're building an entire case on innuendo. Did Trump get off the phone with Zelenskyy and order someone to get the hold in place immediately? We have literally no reason to think so, but I guess I can't prove it didn't happen. Did Trump tell Lev Parnas to circulate dirt on Joe Biden? We have literally no reason to think so, but I guess I can't prove it didn't happen. Did Trump use Giuliani to pass an ultimatum demanding investigations in exchange for missiles and meetings on to Zelenskyy? We have literally no reason to think so, but I guess I can't prove it didn't happen. Guilty until proven innocent is one hell of a standard.

 

[Silvanus]

Kind of like this. You could have just backed off the point, Agema. We had testimony from OBM like a month ago [https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/26/politics/transcripts-released-philip-reeker-mark-sandy/index.html], it isn't news that the hold was signed by them on the same day as the phone call, they were asked to do it a week prior and that's just when it happened. We knew all this before these emails were released.

Y'know, it's pretty routine to lay the groundwork/ make the requests/ do the admin in advance of final confirmation, and then wait until you get the final go-ahead before you sign on the dotted line. 91 minutes between the call that supposedly provided that confirmation, and the signing... that's a lot of coincidence to believe in...


...particularly when combined with multiple testimonies stating a connection between those two events.

 

[Avnger]

My point was bit general than that; it's one your god-emperor agrees with.

Because being specific would make you look dumb. Understood.

Because being specific would likely earn me a visit from the nice new mods, and it's not really worth that.

Though I do find the slow descent you've made into straight insults as your provided talking points don't quite fill in the gaps made by those pesky reality-based facts rather amusing.

 

[tstorm823]

Y'know, it's pretty routine to lay the groundwork/ make the requests/ do the admin in advance of final confirmation, and then wait until you get the final go-ahead before you sign on the dotted line. 91 minutes between the call that supposedly provided that confirmation, and the signing... that's a lot of coincidence to believe in...


...particularly when combined with multiple testimonies stating a connection between those two events.

So you think that Trump laid the groundwork out, took the phone call with Zelenkyy, was told presumedly what he wanted to hear from Zelenskyy, and then contacted OMB immediately through means we have no record or testimony of to officially put the freeze in place? Is that the theory?

Vindman among others was in on the phone call and testified nothing about this, nobody did in fact, the people at OMB are denying such a thing happened, this collection of records that got released includes no such order, Zelenskyy gave Trump no reason I can see to withhold aid in that conversation, nobody involved in the hold has indicated anything about it being tentatively awaiting Trump's personal order to make it happen. Can people lay out groundwork in advance of final confirmation of something? Sure, it isn't impossible. Do you have any evidence of that? No. Do you have any reason to believe the phone conversation set off Trump to worsen his treatment of Ukraine? No again. I cannot see any single reason to believe there is a connection in this timing other than conspiracy-theory level seeing of patterns that don't exist.

Because being specific would likely earn me a visit from the nice new mods, and it's not really worth that.

Though I do find the slow descent you've made into straight insults as your provided talking points don't quite fill in the gaps made by those pesky reality-based facts rather amusing.

Let me be more precise in my question: do you think the timing of OMB enacting the hold on the same day as the phone call is anything more than coincidence? If so, why?

Because I've been arguing against unapologetic assumptions since the start of this charade, and it's time for someone other than me to display a concrete understanding of the events.