Impeach Trump Y/N

are you basing that on the public statements of a politician?

just trying to get some of my american facts right. impeachment (not removal from office) only requires the majority of the house, which the democrats have, and then the impeachment trial is done in the senate, which the republicans control. is this right? so it makes political sense for the democrats to drag the house portion out for a while.

I thought the idea was to do things in as much public view as possible to help the public see the actuality of what had happened not the spin they were used to. So as much of the investigation being able to get out to people as possible through the better instead of speedily rushing it so it was concluded the wrong way.

huh?

The process of impeachment was supposed to be exposing how much wrong had been done so the public were fully aware of things instead of just dismissing them as just another nothing burger was supposed to be as important as getting things done as fast as possible.
So the weight would be the public actually wanting to make sure wrongdoing was punished instead of it being spun so they would see justice as being done if the Republican partisan senate dismissed it as an attack on their beloved President. That all the democratic party were ganging up on because they lost the 2016 election, not because there was an idiotic despot threatening the continued existence of the planet in a daily basis since he was allowed to get into power.

Re: speedy impeachment process

NEW w/ @rachaelmbade -- Dems eye impeachment sprint over coming weeks...
-Intel Cmte takes lead on Ukraine as other cmtes wrap probes
-Few, if any hearings
-No set timeline, but some Dems eyeing floor vote around T'givinghttps://t.co/u95zqb9K1k

— Mike DeBonis (@mikedebonis) September 26, 2019

from David Remnick's new profile of Pelosi:

Earlier this week, Pelosi said, she took a call from Trump, who started out talking about guns. “The President, as you know, is big on what he claims is the charm offensive,” she said. “And some of his charm offensive is very offensive. He was calling me ostensibly to talk about guns, and I have to take him seriously if that is the purpose of the call. I welcome any overture to talk about gun safety. He was telling me progress was being made with his work with Democrats and Republicans. My point was, ‘I don’t know what Democrats you were talking to. We sent you a bipartisan bill over two hundred days ago, and that’s the way to save the most lives.’ ”

That was the first part of the conversation. “Then he somehow segued into what was happening now—that this phone call [with Zelensky] was ‘perfect.’ ‘When you hear this phone call, it was perfect.’ And I said, ‘No, it was wrong. . . . You understand your words weigh a ton. The words of the President of the United States weigh a ton.’ ” Pelosi told me that she doesn’t normally talk about calls with a President—“It’s a historic thing, a call between the President and the Speaker of the House”—but this was different.

When I asked Pelosi if she thought Trump knows, in this instance or any other, the difference between right and wrong, she replied, “He knows the difference between right and wrong, but I don’t know that he really cares. I do think his categorical imperative is what’s good is what is right for him. In the campaign, he told us who he was. He said that he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and nobody would care, that his supporters wouldn’t care. Well, he could violate our Constitution, the integrity of our elections, and dishonor his oath of office, as he did in this call, and think that nobody cares.”

I don't know, sounds to me like Rudy has it pretty much figured out. Soros, Hillary, 2016 Ukrainian election interference, Bidens, servers ... Dems should hold off and see where he goes with this, maybe save us all some trouble.

Pelosi on Morning Joe: "It's no use to say 'We'll finish by such-and-such a date,' but the administration is hastening this process by providing these documents."

Here, let me stave off these outrageous claims that I 'robbed a bank' by showing you the multitude of luxury goods I bought with the money. Now can we just drop this nonsense already? Sheesh.

I dont even really understand what they think happened with ukraine and the server to be honest

Here, let me stave off these outrageous claims that I 'robbed a bank' by showing you the multitude of luxury goods I bought with the money. Now can we just drop this nonsense already? Sheesh.

― Steampunk wasn't in my vocapulary 6 days ago. (Old Lunch),

This is, word for word, what the White House has in mind, and I use "mind" losely.

It's pretty clear to me that Hillary Clinton, with the help of George Soros, enlisted Ukraine to help interfere in the 2016 election that she lost.

But, as with Russian collusion, the objective of their crimes was never realized - so it’s more like they got caught in the bank vault and released the security cam footage and are saying “see we never walked out with any money, case dismissed.”

Why did trump say biden was given “millions and millions of dollars” from china after a “one hour meeting”?

They’re working from a whole different narrative

may have to sacrifice Biden here, you guys

Mueller wrote a pretty damning report over the last couple of years which would quite probably have sunk most incumbencies but it was heavily quashed by the Republican party. So a lotof the population aren't aware of the contents still or think its a libtard spin on 'the facts.
I thought the idea of any further moves towards impeachment was to bring as much of the current incumbency's wrongdoing to light as possible in a way that wouldn't be able to be distracted from. & that did bring as many people as possible from the current regime to public scrutiny so that a Republican senate couldn't be allowed to be presented with damning evidence and just dismiss it.
I know there is some time limit to whatever processes are followed, during which t will remain a constant threat to common decency and security for the US and the rest of the globe, but time needed to be taken to ensure all points were established as fully as possible.
Against which there will be a constant attempt at distraction/occlusion whatever by the Republicans who don't want their beloved leader to be taken from his throne.
JUst hoping that what is attempted will stick and this turd will be removed before he can do more permanent damage.

Increasingly clear that the House GOP are sticking with the "so what?" defense, which, tbf, is pretty hard to counter.

Heard a talking head or reporter yesterday who said he had spoken to a bunch of young people, 18 and 19-year-olds, and the element that jumped out at them the most was Trump trying to get dirt on someone, because that was something they definitely understood.

I dont even really understand what they think happened with ukraine and the server to be honest

I don't think Trump does either. afaik it has never even come up as a conspiracy theory before so it's either a joke or he's thinks the internet is like a series of tubes and Clinton may have diverted the trucks that carry the e-mails through the tubes to Dnepropetrovsk.

And since the first option would require for Trump to have a sense of humour, it's definitely the second option.

He absolutely has a sense of humor! Like how he always insists he was joking when he gets called out for saying something which, on the face of it, seems deeply unhinged. It's not his fault that we don't get the joke.

“Rep. Adam Schiff fraudulently read to Congress, with millions of people watching, a version of my conversation with the President of Ukraine that doesn’t exist,” the president said in a tweet.

“He was supposedly reading the exact transcribed version of the call, but he completely changed the words to make it sound horrible, an (sic) me sound guilty,” he wrote.

lol

sorry typo, I meant GODDAMMIT YOU FUCKING INSECT BEGONE FROM MY PRESENCE

In the absence of means to refute or corroborate his claim, I guess we just have to take the president at his word, huh.

DJP we’ve had our differences but harsh

The Democrats are now to be known as the DO NOTHING PARTY!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 27, 2019

...says the leader of our country, who has written eleven tweets already this morning.

Impeachment hearings are doin something

TBH I'm starting to get cold feet about this impeachment thing the more I read about the plans. So we're gonna do a quick-hit no-chance-of-conviction impeachment process based solely on a single abuse of power by a president who is actually endemically corrupt and unfit for the office for dozens of reasons? Is this basically just the equivalent of a public censure?

Increasingly clear that the House GOP are sticking with the "so what?" defense, which, tbf, is pretty hard to counter.

― Josh in Chicago

it's certainly a good conversation stopper.

I thought they were going to hold drawn out hearings on emoluments too

Its all connected. He uses the office for personal gain. He is not transparent.

I've got to assume at least some of the 12 or so witnesses, let alone the likes of Rudy Giuliani or the attorney general, will resist invitations to speak, if not outright flout subpoenas. what then?

So we're gonna do a quick-hit no-chance-of-conviction impeachment process based solely on a single abuse of power by a president who is actually endemically corrupt and unfit for the office for dozens of reasons?

I'd say keep watching the polls. The speed doesn't matter much to me (for now) because, elongated or accelerated, McConnell's Senate won't budge -- unless, of course, the polls change.

I hate to be the guy urging caution again.

he completely changed the words to make it sound horrible, an (sic) me sound guilty

This is so "Trial of Tim Heidecker"

That guy tends to be right.

What are we basing the “quick hit” strategy on again? Who said that? The reason I ask is that pelosi spoke of bringing all of the existing committee investigations under one impeachment umbrella. Why would she do that, only to fast track a single, narrow impeachment charge 24 hours later?

I have been wondering what happens if they go too fast and are rebuffed by a stagnant partisan senate. That would presumably be it wouldn't it? & be exactly what people have feared from past attempted impeachments.
Attempting to come back with other charges which t would no doubt have given rise to almost immediately after presumably wouldn't go too well.

xp the speed more matters to me in relation to how close to the election it ends. Maybe the best case scenario is just get it over way in advance so we can stop talking about it by the time the general election campaign is at its peak.

The polls won't change, not sure what you mean or why you would think that.

What are we basing the “quick hit” strategy on again? Who said that? The reason I ask is that pelosi spoke of bringing all of the existing committee investigations under one impeachment umbrella. Why would she do that, only to fast track a single, narrow impeachment charge 24 hours later?

― Sally Jessy (Karl Malone), Friday, September 27, 2019 9:10 AM (fifty-seven seconds ago) bookmarkflaglink

It's paywalled but there was a Washington Post article yesterday saying that's what Pelosi and other top Democrats favor now.

My understanding is they want the House impeachment vote to happen around late November.

I thought the idea was that if impeachment processes were done overtly enough it might have a direct effect on the polling and the public would be brought along as things were gradually exposed. THought that was one of the things shown by the Watergate hearings development. 19% pro impeachment rising to 57% or whatever through the process of what people were seeing in their newsp[aers and tvs.
But those were different times and the polarisation and prevalence of the right wing element of the media wasn't as high.

The polls won't change, not sure what you mean or why you would think that.

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive)

But they have aelready in the last 48 hours. If you start seeing a majority of Americans regardless of party supporting impeachment based on Ukraine, i.e. over 50 percent, you'll see more panic on the right.

I would be surprised if either scenario happened. Then again, I was in despair on Monday afternoon. Yet here we are.

I'm also not sure what the wisdom is in fast-tracking impeachment, I keep hearing from Dems it "has to be done before Iowa!" and it's like...why?

I also wonder how they plan on doing this by Thanksgiving w/o the full cooperation of the courts who are going to have to rule on WH withholding documents, witnesses etc.

The polls won't change, not sure what you mean or why you would think that.

― longtime caller, first time listener (man alive),

Polls do change, the mistake is expecting immediate change. People don't change view instantaneously but gradually over months and even years. Need to factor in lag time

DJP we’ve had our differences but harsh

actual lol

I also wonder how they plan on doing this by Thanksgiving w/o the full cooperation of the courts who are going to have to rule on WH withholding documents, witnesses etc.

― The Ravishing of ROFL Stein (Hadrian VIII)

This morning Pelosi said that she expects the courts to issue decisions next year, so I suspect she thinks "the process" will go into the election cycle.

TBH I'm starting to get cold feet about this impeachment thing the more I read about the plans. So we're gonna do a quick-hit no-chance-of-conviction impeachment process based solely on a single abuse of power by a president who is actually endemically corrupt and unfit for the office for dozens of reasons? Is this basically just the equivalent of a public censure?

I had dinner with a friend last night who is an attorney (which I think you are as well? iow I am not trying to tell you how your job works, just relaying info I got from someone who is more clued in than me) who noted that the other in-flight investigations can and likely will be tacked onto this as separate articles of impeachment, meaning that this is the initial spearhead and there are potentially up to six additional articles of impeachment that can be included in this.

"fast-tracking" is stupid but as Sotosyn says likely impossible