REEE: Donald Trump Hasn't Yet Been Impeached. What's Next? [serious discussion]

[BADecker]

Check the site for links and messaging.


Democrats Getting 'Cold Feet' As Impeachment Support Evaporates

After weeks of secret impeachment testimony followed by public testimony from House Democrats' cherry-picked witnesses, support for impeaching President Trump is sinking.

While witnesses have testified that Trump requested Ukraine investigate former VP Joe Biden for corruption, support for impeachment has decreased significantly, while opposition has increased

According to the FiveThirtyEight average of national polls, support for impeachment has shrunk from 50.3 percent in mid-October to 46.3 percent presently, while opposition has risen from 43.8 percent to 45.6 percent.

Among independents in the FiveThirtyEight average, support for impeachment topped out at 47.7 percent in late October but has sunk to 41 percent over the past three weeks. -The Hill

"After three years, the country was sick of hearing about Russia, and now the average American either doesn't understand or doesn't care about the case we're making on Ukraine," one Democratic fundraiser told The Hill.

Another poll registering declining support for impeachment is YouGov, which has independent support dropping from 39% weeks ago to 35%, while opposition has grown from 35% to 40%.

[Gyfts]

You know what else is dangerous? Preventing The President of The United States from exercising his Constitutional authority using the guise of "investigations" and "checks and balances". This has become a pretty clear pattern now. It seems though any time investigations, checks, and balances swing the other way suddenly it is an outrage and an "obstruction" of some yet undefined and undocumented crime investigation. It is investigation after investigation revealing nothing and constantly churning out new baseless accusations of some crime looming just around the corner for 3 solid years. Checks and balances go both ways, and the legislative branch is demonstrably exceeding its authority.

You're absolutely right.

This is the only logical defense from Republicans and I think it holds true. The witnesses that democrats put forward did not have first hand knowledge of the phone call except for Sondland and he has not laid out a case for impeachment or a case for quid pro quo. We know two things - One, the President did mention Joe Biden during a call to Ukrainian President Zelensky but it's not clear whether Trump was tying military aid to a specific investigation into Hunter Biden and Burisma. Two - High ranking US officials met with Zelensky upwards of five times after the call was made and before the whistler blower complaint went public and not once during those meetings was Joe Biden mentioned. Not one democrat has been willing to explain why it is Trump attempted to extort the Ukrainians but not at all follow through with his request to investigate the Biden's. The logical conclusion that house democrats will not accept is that Trump was "mouthing off" as he always does in these phone calls and was using Hunter Biden and Burisma as an example of ongoing corruption within Ukraine and was not specifically referencing an investigation into Joe Biden in order to get military aid.

And you think about it, it's not too surprising. Trump withholding aid for Ukraine to get anti-corruption efforts going with a new administration is not particularly unusual. The narrative is that the U.S. State Department expected Ukraine to receive military aid and that it surprised State Department lawyers that Trump withheld the foreign aid. But Trump has been critical of giving away millions of dollars of cash to foreign nations in the past and has particularly been critical of offer up huge sums of money to corrupt nations (Hint hint, Iran Nuclear Deal). So is anyone looking at this Ukraine situation logically actually expected to believe that Trump withheld this aid for investigations of his political rivals OR is it more logical that Trump withheld aid for Ukraine to pursue anti-corruption efforts in a country that is riddled by mishandling of funds?

Democrats know well enough that public support for impeachment is dwindling and that the progressive wing of the democratic party has a good shot at winning the nomination which will cause a split in democratic voting forcing independents to support Trump in the 2020 election. They're fairly desperate to tarnish the President's record here but it's important to note - don't get me wrong - I'll be the first to say that I think Trump did not handle the situation professionally, but it's not something I, nor any American expects at this point because "Trump is Trump". Trump is far from being a professional President and his supporters and opponents understand this to the point where we do not expect anything else.

[Spendulus]

You know what else is dangerous? Preventing The President of The United States from exercising his Constitutional authority using the guise of "investigations" and "checks and balances". This has become a pretty clear pattern now. It seems though any time investigations, checks, and balances swing the other way suddenly it is an outrage and an "obstruction" of some yet undefined and undocumented crime investigation. It is investigation after investigation revealing nothing and constantly churning out new baseless accusations of some crime looming just around the corner for 3 solid years. Checks and balances go both ways, and the legislative branch is demonstrably exceeding its authority.

You're absolutely right.

This is the only logical defense from Republicans and I think it holds true. The witnesses that democrats put forward did not have first hand knowledge of the phone call except for Sondland and he has not laid out a case for impeachment or a case for quid pro quo. We know two things - One, the President did mention Joe Biden during a call to Ukrainian President Zelensky but it's not clear whether Trump was tying military aid to a specific investigation into Hunter Biden and Burisma. Two - High ranking US officials met with Zelensky upwards of five times after the call was made and before the whistler blower complaint went public and not once during those meetings was Joe Biden mentioned. Not one democrat has been willing to explain why it is Trump attempted to extort the Ukrainians but not at all follow through with his request to investigate the Biden's. The logical conclusion that house democrats will not accept is that Trump was "mouthing off" as he always does in these phone calls and was using Hunter Biden and Burisma as an example of ongoing corruption within Ukraine and was not specifically referencing an investigation into Joe Biden in order to get military aid.

And you think about it, it's not too surprising. Trump withholding aid for Ukraine to get anti-corruption efforts going with a new administration is not particularly unusual. The narrative is that the U.S. State Department expected Ukraine to receive military aid and that it surprised State Department lawyers that Trump withheld the foreign aid. But Trump has been critical of giving away millions of dollars of cash to foreign nations in the past and has particularly been critical of offer up huge sums of money to corrupt nations (Hint hint, Iran Nuclear Deal). So is anyone looking at this Ukraine situation logically actually expected to believe that Trump withheld this aid for investigations of his political rivals OR is it more logical that Trump withheld aid for Ukraine to pursue anti-corruption efforts in a country that is riddled by mishandling of funds?

Democrats know well enough that public support for impeachment is dwindling and that the progressive wing of the democratic party has a good shot at winning the nomination which will cause a split in democratic voting forcing independents to support Trump in the 2020 election. They're fairly desperate to tarnish the President's record here but it's important to note - don't get me wrong - I'll be the first to say that I think Trump did not handle the situation professionally, but it's not something I, nor any American expects at this point because "Trump is Trump". Trump is far from being a professional President and his supporters and opponents understand this to the point where we do not expect anything else.

I agree with your concepts, but am still waiting for some explanation of what the "Impeachable Offense" was pre-destined to be, aside from the impeachable offense of "Trump being Trump."

[TECSHARE]

....

The whole "Biden didn't want Burisma to be investigated" is a false narrative.

Are you sure about that?

Yes. The Burisma investigation, which stems from incidents that occurred before Hunter Biden ever had anything to do with it, had been shelved by the time Shokin was removed as prosecutor. Just because Hunter Biden was on the board of a potentially corrupt company it doesn't mean he knew it was corrupt or played any role in furthering its corruption, despite whatever Quickseller or PrimeNumber7 has to say about it.

That timeline is absolutely false.

"The e-mail shows that the meeting was for the purpose of getting Ukraine to back off of its corruption probe of Burisma. The e-mail, shown below, argued that Burisma had been unfairly targeted by Shokin without evidence and outside of due process. It also noted very pointedly that two “high profile US citizens” worked with Burisma, and named Hunter Biden explicitly:

https://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/burisma-1-768x360.png"

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/11/05/uh-oh-hunter-bidens-name-pops-2016-state-dept-e-mails-discussing-end-burisma-corruption-probe/

Are you really arguing that Hunter Biden was just some unwitting bystander as a board member of some "formerly corrupt" company which suddenly ceased being corrupt once Hunter joined the board? Are you saying a board member of the company not only was unaware of these operations in the past, but continued to be unaware of the attempts to cover up these facts as he was on the board? Seems like a long list of "coincidences"

You aren't interested in rule of law, you are interested only in serving your bias. You need only insinuation and speculation to condemn Trump and anyone associated with him, but you are eager to ignore documented factual evidence of very high level corruption when it is the party that serves your bias. You are either a liar or a moron, or both.

[Spendulus]

....

The whole "Biden didn't want Burisma to be investigated" is a false narrative.

Are you sure about that?

Yes. The Burisma investigation, which stems from incidents that occurred before Hunter Biden ever had anything to do with it, had been shelved by the time Shokin was removed as prosecutor. Just because Hunter Biden was on the board of a potentially corrupt company it doesn't mean he knew it was corrupt or played any role in furthering its corruption, despite whatever Quickseller or PrimeNumber7 has to say about it.

That timeline is absolutely false.

"The e-mail shows that the meeting was for the purpose of getting Ukraine to back off of its corruption probe of Burisma. The e-mail, shown below, argued that Burisma had been unfairly targeted by Shokin without evidence and outside of due process. It also noted very pointedly that two “high profile US citizens” worked with Burisma, and named Hunter Biden explicitly:

https://hotair.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/burisma-1-768x360.png"

https://hotair.com/archives/ed-morrissey/2019/11/05/uh-oh-hunter-bidens-name-pops-2016-state-dept-e-mails-discussing-end-burisma-corruption-probe/

Are you really arguing that Hunter Biden was just some unwitting bystander as a board member of some "formerly corrupt" company which suddenly ceased being corrupt once Hunter joined the board? Are you saying a board member of the company not only was unaware of these operations in the past, but continued to be unaware of the attempts to cover up these facts as he was on the board? Seems like a long list of "coincidences"

You aren't interested in rule of law, you are interested only in serving your bias. You need only insinuation and speculation to condemn Trump and anyone associated with him, but you are eager to ignore documented factual evidence of very high level corruption when it is the party that serves your bias. You are either a liar or a moron, or both.

Regarding "either a liar or a moron" that's a ridiculous conclusion. Go look at typical liberal reading material such as Huff Post, etc. Read it and see if you are not led directly to conclusions such as "Burisma invest. was concluded before Hunter..."

[BADecker]

And the Dems know it. This is why impeachment is dissipating. If this info comes out, all of Congress will be shown to have their fingers in illegal activities one way or another. The bad part is, if Trump doesn't release this sooner or later, Some more-or-less innocent Congressperson might go after him for hiding evidence. The whole American government is corrupt.


John Solomon: Everything Changes In The Ukraine Scandal If Trump Releases These Documents

As House Democrats mull whether to pursue impeachment articles and the GOP-led Senate braces for a possible trial, here are 12 tranches of government documents that could benefit the public if President Trump ordered them released, and the questions these memos might answer.

Daily intelligence reports from March through August 2019 on Ukraine's new president Volodymyr Zelensky and his relationship with oligarchs and other key figures. What was the CIA, FBI and U.S. Treasury Department telling Trump and other agencies about Zelensky's ties to oligarchs like Igor Kolomoisky, the former head of Privatbank, and any concerns the International Monetary Fund might have? Did any of these concerns reach the president's daily brief (PDB) or come up in the debate around resolving Ukraine corruption and U.S. foreign aid? CNBC, Reuters and The Wall Street Journal all have done recent reporting suggesting there might have been intelligence and IMF concerns that have not been fully considered during the impeachment proceedings.

[TECSHARE]

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

- How long does Nancy sit on the articles if Mitch doesn't budge?

Trump is totally impeached! Nancy Pelosi hasn't completed the prerequisites for impeachment by transmitting the articles to the senate, but he has totally impeached. No time to talk, I am having cake and eating it too!

I have absolutely no intention of censoring any opinion or anything, I prefer lots of different opinions.  But a thread like this seems like it would have pretty high chance of devolving into flame/troll wars and then the discussion is basically impossible.

Solution? End all dissenting discussion before it happens! Enjoy being jerked off by people who agree with you in your special place.

[Spendulus]

hahaha, yeah what a joke .... "serious discussion" is ....


Deleted Post
« Sent to: Spendulus on: Today at 01:50:01 PM »
Reply with quoteReply with quote  Remove this messageDelete 
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Quote
Quote from: TwitchySeal on January 06, 2020, 10:06:58 PM
...
- How long does Nancy sit on the articles if Mitch doesn't budge?

Ever heard of the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution?

(don't bother babbling that it does not apply to Trump)

[Spendulus]

Twitch may not like it but reality is, the central issue on Pelosi and her little game is the 6th amendment.

[TECSHARE]

Twitch may not like it but reality is, the central issue on Pelosi and her little game is the 6th amendment.

People don't think The Constitution be like it is, but it do.

[BADecker]

Twitch may not like it but reality is, the central issue on Pelosi and her little game is the 6th amendment.

And if the people stand in court as men and women, and are not represented in any way, they have the right to face their accuser. Jury selection doesn't depend on silly rules of court. Rather, it depends on the men and women who choose their own jury... rather than letting the attorneys do it.

[TECSHARE]

Pelosi is sending the articles of impeachment next week.  Senate trial will probably begin within 1-2 weeks from now.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/10/pelosi-to-send-impeachment-articles-to-senate-after-weeks-long-delay-097185

Then Trump will actually be impeached.

[KingScorpio]

Pelosi is sending the articles of impeachment next week.  Senate trial will probably begin within 1-2 weeks from now.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/10/pelosi-to-send-impeachment-articles-to-senate-after-weeks-long-delay-097185

Then Trump will actually be impeached.

by who?

cnn and new york times?

cnn has still not paid 275 million for accusing a catholic student of racism its still alive

[TECSHARE]

Pelosi is sending the articles of impeachment next week.  Senate trial will probably begin within 1-2 weeks from now.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/10/pelosi-to-send-impeachment-articles-to-senate-after-weeks-long-delay-097185

Then Trump will actually be impeached.

by who?

cnn and new york times?

cnn has still not paid 275 million for accusing a catholic student of racism its still alive

This is ignoring the totally unconstitutional lack of due process of course, just that he will finally technically impeached once the articles are submitted to the senate.

I always wondered what it meant to be impeached. Clinton was impeached yet he was still President and fulfilled his full termed. It's pretty much a waste of time what they are doing.

Its symbolic, at least, but more importantly a message that a president simply cannot do whatever he wants, when he wants.

Yeah! Serves him right for conducting US foreign policy exactly as he is supposed to be doing!

[KingScorpio]

Its symbolic, at least, but more importantly a message that a president simply cannot do whatever he wants, when he wants.
Yeah! Serves him right for conducting US foreign policy exactly as he is supposed to be doing!

us is a democracy after all

well trump was elected to do that. democrats should better follow orders.

they won't likely survive 2020 election though.

[Spendulus]

Its symbolic, at least, but more importantly a message that a president simply cannot do whatever he wants, when he wants.
Yeah! Serves him right for conducting US foreign policy exactly as he is supposed to be doing!

us is a democracy after all

well trump was elected to do that. democrats should better follow orders.

they won't likely survive 2020 election though.

I hearby award Trump one hundred thousand Permits to Ridicule Biden in compensation for the unjust impeachment he has been put through.

[Spendulus]

A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Quote
Quote from: iluvbitcoins on January 11, 2020, 10:42:28 AM
Quote from: Spendulus on January 11, 2020, 09:28:06 AM

2/3 = 66.67%

But they won't get the 2/3.

Also, it would be correct to say "every ELECTED president" since Ford wasn't elected.

I need to stop posting when I'm hangover.

I strongly suspect that in your worst hangover, you have more smarts than that bunch of Democratic jerks that thought they'd impeach Trump.

[TECSHARE]

""Impeachment REQUIRES a Crime" - Lawyer Explains Dershowitz's Argument - Viva Frei Vlawg"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ky8DGKsfhY

[KingScorpio]

""Impeachment REQUIRES a Crime" - Lawyer Explains Dershowitz's Argument - Viva Frei Vlawg"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4Ky8DGKsfhY

absolutely impeachment requires a crime,

maybe trump used his power to reveal biden corruption but he is allowed to do that if he believes its in the interest of the nation

i am looking forward for the revenge against the democrats for the chaos they have caused.

[Spendulus]

Twitch persists in his attempt to shape the universe.


Deleted Post
« Sent to: Spendulus on: January 29, 2020, 10:36:03 PM »
Reply with quoteReply with quote  Remove this messageDelete  
A reply of yours, quoted below, was deleted by the starter of a self-moderated topic. There are no rules of self-moderation, so this deletion cannot be appealed. Do not continue posting in this topic if the topic-starter has requested that you leave.

You can create a new topic if you are unsatisfied with this one. If the topic-starter is scamming, post about it in Scam Accusations.

Quote
Quote from: JollyGood on January 27, 2020, 03:28:52 PM
....to me it seems to look like the beginning of the end for the Trump presidency.

The beginning of the end?

It is indeed the beginning of the end, but you may misunderstand what the beginning is of, and what the end is to be.

What if, and just consider this as a wild conjecture... What if those who have repeatedly attacked Trump with weak or totally false premises are incubating the beginning of the end of the normal Trump, and his transformation into the Super Trump?

You ain't seen nothing yet.