The Trump Impeachment Thread

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Dec 09, 2019 5:38 pm

Wokka wokka wokka!

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:08 pm

WaPo Opinion - Paul Waldman and Greg Sargent

The inspector general report just wrecked numerous claims that Trump and his propagandists have made to justify that narrative.

Perhaps this is why Attorney General William P. Barr, who has been himself working to invalidate that investigation, rushed to Trump’s rescue. He released a statement that said this:

The Inspector General’s report now makes clear that the FBI launched an intrusive investigation of a U.S. presidential campaign on the thinnest of suspicions that, in my view, were insufficient to justify the steps taken.
...
But what the inspector general emphatically did not conclude is that anything deliberately untoward occurred, anything even remotely like what Trump suggested and Barr subtly validated. And — surprise, surprise — Barr has suddenly popped up again to suggest that the investigation might not have been legitimately launched.
...
Barr is in the process of completing his own “review” of the investigation, and it’s plainly obvious that he is going to try to use it to cast doubt on these inspector general conclusions. Let’s remember that Barr put out a profoundly dishonestly summary of the special counsel’s report, one clearly designed to game media coverage of it in advance.

There is no need to grant Barr even the slightest presumption of good faith this time around. It isn’t just that history on the special counsel’s report; it’s that he already told us what his intention is, by implying at the outset with his “spying” comment that there just might be something to that “deep state” plot, and, now, by telling us exactly how he’s going to try to dispute the inspector general’s findings, as well.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:45 pm

Barr needs to go into the history books as an example of a corrupt attorney general owned by one man.

El Guapo · Post by **El Guapo** » Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:54 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:45 pm Barr needs to go into the history books as an example of a corrupt attorney general owned by one man.

The thing is that he's not really 'owned' by Trump. He's a willing ally, because he's a true believer in the Breitbart dregs of conservative ideology.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Mon Dec 09, 2019 7:00 pm

Well, the wait is over, and those who smeared the FBI are due for an accounting. In particular, Attorney General William P. Barr owes the institution he leads, and the American people, an acknowledgment of the truth.

Yeah, good luck with that.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Mon Dec 09, 2019 7:25 pm

El Guapo wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:54 pm
hepcat wrote: ↑Mon Dec 09, 2019 6:45 pm Barr needs to go into the history books as an example of a corrupt attorney general owned by one man.
The thing is that he's not really 'owned' by Trump. He's a willing ally, because he's a true believer in the Breitbart dregs of conservative ideology.

Yeah. But it started long before Breitbart. Barr was already there when the right was reeling from the Nixon collapse and waiting for Reagan. As Bush 41's AG, he was instrumental in helping to cover up and dampen the fallout from Reagan/Bush's Iran-Contra scandal.

He's a warrior for the movement that sees the right-wing future as lost if demographic and generational trends continue as they are. These are the ones who've embraced voter suppression, oligarchy, and (serendipitously and temporarily) Donald Trump as the key to maintaining their power.

He's loyal only to a conservatism that sees the American people and their republic as the enemy of conservatism.

pr0ner · Post by **pr0ner** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:42 am

Two impeachment articles:

1) Abuse of power.

2) Obstruction of Congress

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 12:27 pm

Everybody is shouting about lack of evidence, about lack of solid proof. Gee, I wonder why?

pr0ner wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:42 am 2) Obstruction of Congress

Oh, yeah. Prevent most of the witnesses from testifying, openly intimidate those that do, and prevent the release of evidence. It's the classic mob defense strategy.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:13 pm

I wish I felt like any of this mattered.

Regardless of how thorough and legitimate these charges are, they're simply going to get hand-waved away by the Senate. We'll basically be right back to where we started with little to no consequences whatsoever.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:49 pm

Just remember, we went into this knowing the Senate would likely hand wave.

I think the positive that could come from that is in 2020, where perhaps the voters are faced to understand it is up to them.

And perhaps some Senators (R) pay a little price as well.

Daehawk · Post by **Daehawk** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:52 pm

Exactly.

hepcat · Post by **hepcat** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:53 pm

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:13 pm I wish I felt like any of this mattered.

Regardless of how thorough and legitimate these charges are, they're simply going to get hand-waved away by the Senate. We'll basically be right back to where we started with little to no consequences whatsoever.

This...unfortunately.

If anything, Trump and his band of cohorts are going to turn this into a win for them. At least for their base AND those on the fence who are being swayed by his constant whining.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:17 pm

hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:53 pm
Skinypupy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:13 pm I wish I felt like any of this mattered.

Regardless of how thorough and legitimate these charges are, they're simply going to get hand-waved away by the Senate. We'll basically be right back to where we started with little to no consequences whatsoever.
This...unfortunately.

If anything, Trump and his band of cohorts are going to turn this into a win for them. At least for their base AND those on the fence who are being swayed by his constant whining.

It means that Trump can't be pardoned for these crimes, so he will face prosecution if he lives long enough. I'd have liked to see them level more charges for that reason. Emoluments should've been a slam-dunk, but apparently that's not a part of the Constitution we're going to defend.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:31 pm

You seem to be implying that Trump can’t (later) be charged for Obstruction of Justice, if they didn’t lay it out here.

That’s not the way I understand things

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:32 pm

Kraken wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:17 pm
hepcat wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:53 pm
Skinypupy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:13 pm I wish I felt like any of this mattered.

Regardless of how thorough and legitimate these charges are, they're simply going to get hand-waved away by the Senate. We'll basically be right back to where we started with little to no consequences whatsoever.
This...unfortunately.

If anything, Trump and his band of cohorts are going to turn this into a win for them. At least for their base AND those on the fence who are being swayed by his constant whining.
It means that Trump can't be pardoned for these crimes, so he will face prosecution if he lives long enough. I'd have liked to see them level more charges for that reason. Emoluments should've been a slam-dunk, but apparently that's not a part of the Constitution we're going to defend.

I'm curious as to the strategy behind the two articles, and only focusing on Ukraine (nothing from the Mueller report). Was it was done that way for simplicity, due to time constraints, because there wasn't enough additional evidence (which I would find had to believe), or something else.

Disclaimer: It's been a crazy busy day, so I've only skimmed articles about this. I'm sure there's details I'm missing

EDIT: Read up on it a bit more during lunch. Seems that the strategy is twofold:

1. Focus only on Trump's specific misdeeds while in office, as many of the pre-POTUS crimes can be tried separately once he's out of office.

2. Keep it simple for the American public, which has the attention span of a meth-addled goldfish. Also keeps the GOP from claiming they're "throwing everything at the wall to see what sticks".

Seems high risk to leave out huge chunks of his fuckery, but I have a better sense of what they're doing now.

Scoop20906 · Post by **Scoop20906** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:40 pm

If Trump is impeached he can not later receive a presidential pardon ... for anything.

Constitutional provision
The pardon powers of the President are based on Article Two of the United States Constitution (Section 2, Clause 1), which provides: The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment.

Sorry if I’m repeating someone else’s post.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:55 pm

I think that just means he can't pardon away his own impeachment.

Remus West · Post by **Remus West** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:00 pm

Scoop20906 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 2:40 pm If Trump is impeached he can not later receive a presidential pardon ... for anything.

Constitutional provision
The pardon powers of the President are based on Article Two of the United States Constitution (Section 2, Clause 1), which provides: The President ... shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of impeachment.
Sorry if I’m repeating someone else’s post.

For anything? I could easily see that as saying he can not be pardoned of the impeachment offences leaving everything else open for pardon.

Scoop20906 · Post by **Scoop20906** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:00 pm

Unagi wrote:I think that just means he can't pardon away his own impeachment.

Hmm. You are probably right. I was thinking it could prevent Pence from pardoning him.

Unagi · Post by **Unagi** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:03 pm

Ford pardoned Nixon for the crimes behind the 'near' impeachment...

so, keep that in mind here.

Alefroth · Post by **Alefroth** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:21 pm

Unagi wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 1:49 pm Just remember, we went into this knowing the Senate would likely hand wave.

I think the positive that could come from that is in 2020, where perhaps the voters are faced to understand it is up to them.

And perhaps some Senators (R) pay a little price as well.

And perhaps encourage him to be even more reckless which might erode even more support from independents.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:30 pm

Scoop20906 wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:00 pm
Unagi wrote:I think that just means he can't pardon away his own impeachment.
Hmm. You are probably right. I was thinking it could prevent Pence from pardoning him.

As I understand it, he cannot be pardoned for those offenses, period. When he's impeached, he loses his Get Out of Jail Free card.

Unagi wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 3:03 pm Ford pardoned Nixon for the crimes behind the 'near' impeachment...

so, keep that in mind here.

Many speculate that Nixon resigned on the verge of impeachment specifically so that Ford could pardon him.

Blackhawk · Post by **Blackhawk** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:06 pm

It also guarantees that his legacy will be to go down in the history books as an impeached President, a shamed President, a criminal once he's out, and his family business will be toxic, global pariahs.

Zaxxon · Post by **Zaxxon** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:11 pm

But it's already clear to those paying attention that he's all of those things but impeached. I'd like to think that impeachment is a magic change that drastically alters Trump's appeal, but... it ain't. Not to anyone who's still on Team MAGA, at least. Nor to those still doing business with the Trump Org.

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:32 pm

I personally don't think this would hurt him in the least bit. Now or later. They will spin it as bullshit in the Senate, people will eat it up and will continue being run by Fox News. I mean hell they released a report yesterday that Trump was hyping and when it didn't say what they wanted they just spun it into whatever they wanted. It just doesn't matter anymore.

Holman · Post by **Holman** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 4:52 pm

Individual representatives and senators don't have constant Fox protection, though, especially in places where they're already hanging on by just a few percentage points. Even if Trump isn't removed, each and every member of congress will go on record in this process.

Conditions (and the senate) being what they are, we're not impeaching and trying Trump. We're doing it to the GOP.

Smoove_B · Post by **Smoove_B** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:37 pm

Nice to see my NJ representative having second thoughts on impeachment:

A small group of vulnerable House Democrats is floating the longshot idea of censuring President Donald Trump instead of impeaching him, according to multiple lawmakers familiar with the conversations.

Those Democrats, all representing districts that Trump won in 2016, huddled on Monday afternoon in an 11th-hour bid to weigh additional — though unlikely — options to punish the president for his role in the Ukraine scandal as the House speeds toward an impeachment vote next week.

The group of about 10 Trump-district lawmakers included Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.), and Ben McAdams (D-Utah.).

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:26 pm

While the results might be the same, I don't see any material difference between a censure and a failed impeachment. Historically, though, a failed impeachment still will represent a notable black mark while a censure probably would be quickly forgotten.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:26 pm

Smoove_B wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 10:37 pm Nice to see my NJ representative having second thoughts on impeachment:

A small group of vulnerable House Democrats is floating the longshot idea of censuring President Donald Trump instead of impeaching him, according to multiple lawmakers familiar with the conversations.

Those Democrats, all representing districts that Trump won in 2016, huddled on Monday afternoon in an 11th-hour bid to weigh additional — though unlikely — options to punish the president for his role in the Ukraine scandal as the House speeds toward an impeachment vote next week.

The group of about 10 Trump-district lawmakers included Reps. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), Kurt Schrader (D-Ore.), Anthony Brindisi (D-N.Y.), and Ben McAdams (D-Utah.).

Figured mine would be on that list as well. There's a near-constant stream of laughable "Tell Ben McAdams to stop supporting the Democrat's impeachment hoax" ads that have been running for the last few weeks.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:28 pm

Skinypupy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:26 pm Figured mine would be on that list as well. There's a near-constant stream of laughable "Tell Ben McAdams to stop supporting the Democrat's impeachment hoax" ads that have been running for the last few weeks.

You get Russian FB spam too? I've been getting almost the same message imploring me to do the same with Lauren Underwood. I typically mock them in response.

Skinypupy · Post by **Skinypupy** » Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:11 am

Jeff V wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:28 pm
Skinypupy wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:26 pm Figured mine would be on that list as well. There's a near-constant stream of laughable "Tell Ben McAdams to stop supporting the Democrat's impeachment hoax" ads that have been running for the last few weeks.
You get Russian FB spam too? I've been getting almost the same message imploring me to do the same with Lauren Underwood. I typically mock them in response.

Ours have been on TV, always during college football games.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:51 am

If the Democrats cant get two obvious charges over the line while they ignore other serious crimes...well they'll just cement their reputation as tragically ridiculously bad at politics. That this story broke at all is horrible all it's own.

Kraken · Post by **Kraken** » Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:57 am

Santa Nancy will deliver. It's all I want for xmas, after all.

Ralph-Wiggum · Post by **Ralph-Wiggum** » Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:35 am

Jeff V wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:26 pm While the results might be the same, I don't see any material difference between a censure and a failed impeachment. Historically, though, a failed impeachment still will represent a notable black mark while a censure probably would be quickly forgotten.

The material difference will the trial in the Senate, which has the possibility of uncovering additional details of the scheme. Especially if Roberts doesn't allow WH witnesses to ignore subpoenas.

LawBeefaroni · Post by **LawBeefaroni** » Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:02 pm

malchior wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 1:51 am If the Democrats cant get two obvious charges over the line while they ignore other serious crimes...well they'll just cement their reputation as tragically ridiculously bad at politics. That this story broke at all is horrible all it's own.

They're not bad at politics. They're bad at modern American politics. Which is just another name for mud wrasslin' in pig shit.

Jeff V · Post by **Jeff V** » Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:19 pm

Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:35 am
Jeff V wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:26 pm While the results might be the same, I don't see any material difference between a censure and a failed impeachment. Historically, though, a failed impeachment still will represent a notable black mark while a censure probably would be quickly forgotten.
The material difference will the trial in the Senate, which has the possibility of uncovering additional details of the scheme. Especially if Roberts doesn't allow WH witnesses to ignore subpoenas.

It seems the senate trial is going to be a sham with the results already concluded.

Isgrimnur · Post by **Isgrimnur** » Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:21 pm

Jeff V wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:19 pm
Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:35 am
Jeff V wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:26 pm While the results might be the same, I don't see any material difference between a censure and a failed impeachment. Historically, though, a failed impeachment still will represent a notable black mark while a censure probably would be quickly forgotten.
The material difference will the trial in the Senate, which has the possibility of uncovering additional details of the scheme. Especially if Roberts doesn't allow WH witnesses to ignore subpoenas.
It seems the senate trial is going to be a sham with the results already concluded.

Octavious · Post by **Octavious** » Wed Dec 11, 2019 5:04 pm

Jeff V wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 4:19 pm
Ralph-Wiggum wrote: ↑Wed Dec 11, 2019 11:35 am
Jeff V wrote: ↑Tue Dec 10, 2019 11:26 pm While the results might be the same, I don't see any material difference between a censure and a failed impeachment. Historically, though, a failed impeachment still will represent a notable black mark while a censure probably would be quickly forgotten.
The material difference will the trial in the Senate, which has the possibility of uncovering additional details of the scheme. Especially if Roberts doesn't allow WH witnesses to ignore subpoenas.
It seems the senate trial is going to be a sham with the results already concluded.

The senate trial will just be them giving time for bullshit conspiracy theories. Trump has shown that you can get away with way more than they ever imagined and we'll never be the same again.

malchior · Post by **malchior** » Fri Dec 13, 2019 12:39 am

Meanwhile on this side of the Atlantic the Republicans threw a massive temper tantrum and forced the impeachment hearing to go hours over schedule offering endless amendments and repeating bullshit talking points. Nadler was overmatched (shocking!) and eventually pulled the plug moving the vote on the articles to tomorrow morning. What a shit show.

It did make sense to pull the plug because it is pretty clear the GOP strategy was designed to force the vote to late in the night and become the next Republican talking point but still he lost control of the proceedings.

In other news, McConnell went on Foxnews to basically appeal to Trump to not have the trial by saying they will follow the WH lead on whether to have a "full" trial versus immediate acquittal. #moscowmitch has to know calling witnesses opens GOP Senators to sitting there ignoring evidence that clearly will show Trump's guilt. So Mitch is beginning a campaign to convince Trump not to press for it. However as usual Trump always wants the fight no matter how much it hurts everyone else.

Naturally this of course puts Trump.in charge of the proceedings of his own impeachment trial. We are way into banana republic territory. This is essentially an argument about how much political damage to inflict while they ignore their duties. In the wide open nonetheless. That is how much contempt they have for out nation. It is hard to measure the damage being done.

Paingod · Post by **Paingod** » Fri Dec 13, 2019 10:01 am

malchior wrote: ↑Fri Dec 13, 2019 12:39 amIn other news, McConnell went on Foxnews to basically appeal to Trump to not have the trial by saying they will follow the WH lead on whether to have a "full" trial versus immediate acquittal. #moscowmitch has to know calling witnesses opens GOP Senators to sitting there ignoring evidence that clearly will show Trump's guilt. So Mitch is beginning a campaign to convince Trump not to press for it. However as usual Trump always wants the fight no matter how much it hurts everyone else.

In similar news, CNN reports a polite discourse has begun between the Senate and White House on how to clean this up once it hits their floor.