Must Read In historic moment, U.S. House impeaches Donald Trump for abuse of power

[Slickrick]

The case is falling apart and she don't know what to do.  That's why she's not sending the articles to the Senate.  

[Jingthing]

12 minutes ago, Slickrick said:

The case is falling apart and she don't know what to do.  That's why she's not sending the articles to the Senate.  

Incorrect.

Incorrect.

That said, there is almost no chance that 45 will be removed regardless of how strong the case is.

That's because the republican senators have totally caved to the cult of personality leader in the white house.

A tragedy for American democracy.

 

Great and obvious concept here. If this was Obama impeached for the exact same things, with the exact same senate, Obama would definitely be removed and ALSO a majority of democrats would remove him too. What has happened to republicans? Their morality and credibility is ZERO.

 

Quote

Jeff Flake: The president is on trial. So are my Senate Republican colleagues.

 

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeff-flake-the-president-is-on-trial-so-are-my-senate-republican-colleagues/2019/12/20/5446c930-236b-11ea-86f3-3b5019d451db_story.html

Edited December 21, 2019 by Jingthing

[Inn Between]

Unfortunately, this has only put more venom in the whole US political system, making Trump's MANY supporters even more determined to put him back in the White House for 4 more years. Puppet Pelosi and the rest of the Dems knew exactly how this would play out, but they didn't seem to fear looking like time-wasting idiots in a feeble attempt to discredit Trump. 

 

Now, the results all this useless hype sit on top of a pile of other worthless Trump-bashing documents and actions, likely doing more harm to the Dems than to Trump and the GOP. A lot of Dem supporters have to be peed off at the whole mangled fiasco with no legal follow up. Many must be questioning the management of the party they've been supporting and completely frustrated. 

 

What a cluster <deleted> !!!  

[CharlieH]

Reported post and subsequent responses to it removed.

[jany123]

 

13 hours ago, Inn Between said:

Unfortunately, this has only put more venom in the whole US political system, making Trump's MANY supporters even more determined to put him back in the White House for 4 more years. Puppet Pelosi and the rest of the Dems knew exactly how this would play out, but they didn't seem to fear looking like time-wasting idiots in a feeble attempt to discredit Trump. 

 

Now, the results all this useless hype sit on top of a pile of other worthless Trump-bashing documents and actions, likely doing more harm to the Dems than to Trump and the GOP. A lot of Dem supporters have to be peed off at the whole mangled fiasco with no legal follow up. Many must be questioning the management of the party they've been supporting and completely frustrated. 

 

What a cluster <deleted> !!!  

Not a time wasting effort at all.... it’s actually the only action in American politics , as viewed from an international point of view, that lends credence to American democracy and the values true Americans are proud to espouse.

 

every politician needs to go on record for posterity sakes, such that future generations can be guided by the past (before questioning that statement, recognize that the constitution is a thing of the past that guides the future), in reforming the political system of the future

 

the US political system is seriously flawed, as evidenced by this fiasco. Regardless of the outcome.... this should be a watershed in constitutional law and reform thereof, as despite its impact on yer average redneck, America’s reputation is at stake... and international consensus does not bode well for the extant form of the flawed democracy which has no guarantees beyond one mans inclinations

 

If this fiasco helps the trump get re-elected, good for him... but this is essential to (attempt to) demonstrate transparency in democracy... without transparency, y’all are a banana republic of dubious repute... surely that’s obvious even to the reddest of rednecks.

[RideJocky]

I think it’s interesting that the left’s position was that their was no time to get their impeachment witnesses through the court because Trump was such a threat to national security, but as soon as they get their photo-op it’s no longer a priority and the take the three week vacation. 
 

Anyone that thinks Obama would have been impeached for this is delusional. 

[Berkshire]

2 hours ago, RideJocky said:

I think it’s interesting that the left’s position was that their was no time to get their impeachment witnesses through the court because Trump was such a threat to national security, but as soon as they get their photo-op it’s no longer a priority and the take the three week vacation. 
 

Anyone that thinks Obama would have been impeached for this is delusional. 

Pelosi is doing exactly what she should be doing.  The corrupt Senate went on record to say that the system will be rigged and regardless of the mountain of evidence against Trump, they will acquit him.  What kind of sht is that?  From the mouth of Mitch, Graham, et al, they've said clearly that they will be derelict in their duties of conducting a fair and impartial trial.  The GOP has become the party of evil.  Pelosi and the Dems need to hold these scumbags to account.

Edited December 22, 2019 by Berkshire

[Peterw42]

What sort of idiot gets himself impeached without getting a BJ. That seriously has to be the worst trade deal in history.

 

[mogandave]

45 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

What sort of idiot gets himself impeached without getting a BJ. That seriously has to be the worst trade deal in history.

 

Without getting  BJ and without committing a crime, much less 11 felonies. 
 

 

[RideJocky]

53 minutes ago, Berkshire said:

Pelosi is doing exactly what she should be doing.  The corrupt Senate went on record to say that the system will be rigged and regardless of the mountain of evidence against Trump, they will acquit him.  What kind of sht is that?  From the mouth of Mitch, Graham, et al, they've said clearly that they will be derelict in their duties of conducting a fair and impartial trial.  The GOP has become the party of evil.  Pelosi and the Dems need to hold these scumbags to account.

You guys crack me up. 
 

3rd President in history to be impeached (or not) and the first President in history to nominate a Supreme Court Justice and be re-elected after being impeached. 
 

I’d ask you what mountain of evidence but will all know you have nothing and know nothing and you’ll just post a link or tell me to read something. 
 

[heybruce]

37 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

You guys crack me up. 
 

3rd President in history to be impeached (or not) and the first President in history to nominate a Supreme Court Justice and be re-elected after being impeached. 
 

I’d ask you what mountain of evidence but will all know you have nothing and know nothing and you’ll just post a link or tell me to read something. 
 

The evidence is the qualified transcript of the phone call that Trump released, along with the sworn testimony of several people who witnessed the set up to the crime.  That fact that Trump refuses to release the actual recording of the call or to allow people who witnessed events first hand to testify confirms things are at least as bad as they appear.  Trump was clearly holding up military aid until President Zelinsky not only agreed to two nonsense investigations that would benefit Trump and Russia, but publicly announce the BS investigations.

 

Trump supporters either pretend they can't see what is in front of them, or insist that it is entirely appropriate that the only time Trump showed an interest in "corruption" was when it was actually conspiracy theories that would hurt a political rival and confuse the issue of Russia's crimes.  You can lead a Trump supporter to the obvious, but you can't make him acknowledge it.

[Sujo]

Its quite funny seeing trump supporters complain that there is no credible dem candidate.

 

Credibility bar for trump is so low even cousin It has more.

[Inn Between]

5 hours ago, jany123 said:

 

Not a time wasting effort at all.... it’s actually the only action in American politics , as viewed from an international point of view, that lends credence to American democracy and the values true Americans are proud to espouse.

 

every politician needs to go on record for posterity sakes, such that future generations can be guided by the past (before questioning that statement, recognize that the constitution is a thing of the past that guides the future), in reforming the political system of the future

 

the US political system is seriously flawed, as evidenced by this fiasco. Regardless of the outcome.... this should be a watershed in constitutional law and reform thereof, as despite its impact on yer average redneck, America’s reputation is at stake... and international consensus does not bode well for the extant form of the flawed democracy which has no guarantees beyond one mans inclinations

 

If this fiasco helps the trump get re-elected, good for him... but this is essential to (attempt to) demonstrate transparency in democracy... without transparency, y’all are a banana republic of dubious repute... surely that’s obvious even to the reddest of rednecks.

I understand the basic point you're making about the necessity of a process to expose and legally address any wrongdoing by the POTUS's office. My main gripe is that the Dems came across as too desperate to find something to prevent Trump from a realistic chance of getting reelected. The country's economy seems to actually be doing okay, his approval numbers are good, and the Dem don't really seem to have anyone high-profile enough to give him a real go next November. 

 

I think Pelosi and her posse, which is an image some people have been left with, did no service to their party and would have been better off working on a strong party image with solid leadership instead of going full bore with this confusing bunch of political business. Many people still really don't understand what he really did wrong. They should have focused on making his indictable offenses very clear and letting public opinion take care of it. 

 

[RideJocky]

1 hour ago, heybruce said:

The evidence is the qualified transcript of the phone call that Trump released, along with the sworn testimony of several people who witnessed the set up to the crime.  That fact that Trump refuses to release the actual recording of the call or to allow people who witnessed events first hand to testify confirms things are at least as bad as they appear.  Trump was clearly holding up military aid until President Zelinsky not only agreed to two nonsense investigations that would benefit Trump and Russia, but publicly announce the BS investigations.

 

Trump supporters either pretend they can't see what is in front of them, or insist that it is entirely appropriate that the only time Trump showed an interest in "corruption" was when it was actually conspiracy theories that would hurt a political rival and confuse the issue of Russia's crimes.  You can lead a Trump supporter to the obvious, but you can't make him acknowledge it.

I just re-read the transcript, and don’t see what is so incriminating.  He asked for the investigation, yes. 
 

The way I read it it sounded like a perfectly reasonable request to me. It did not sound to me like Trump was trying to get Zelenskyy to do anything inappropriate. 
 

What part of the transcript do you think was so damning? 
 

Neither did I hear any testimony I thought was very compelling, but I did not hear it all. 
 

What witness and testimony did you think was the strongest? 
 

Incidentally, why are all the leftists insisting the transcript was not released? 
 

 

[RideJocky]

1 hour ago, Sujo said:

Its quite funny seeing trump supporters complain that there is no credible dem candidate.

 

Credibility bar for trump is so low even cousin It has more.

Not as funny as watching all the lefties wringing their hands about not having anyone that can win. 
 

Who do you think can win? 

Your only hope is to get Trump removed and that looks like it’s falling apart. I’m hoping McConnell picks it up Monday and notifies the House the trial starts Tuesday.....

[GroveHillWanderer]

37 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Incidentally, why are all the leftists insisting the transcript was not released? 

I'm not sure about it being "leftists" - anyone who's interested in accuracy knows that the actual document, entitled "Memorandum of Telephone Conversation," that was released by the White House, says in black and white that it is, "not a verbatim transcript." That's why.

 

[Sujo]

42 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

I just re-read the transcript, and don’t see what is so incriminating.  He asked for the investigation, yes. 
 

The way I read it it sounded like a perfectly reasonable request to me. It did not sound to me like Trump was trying to get Zelenskyy to do anything inappropriate. 
 

What part of the transcript do you think was so damning? 
 

Neither did I hear any testimony I thought was very compelling, but I did not hear it all. 
 

What witness and testimony did you think was the strongest? 
 

Incidentally, why are all the leftists insisting the transcript was not released? 
 

 

You just admitted he asked for the investigation. Which he cannot do. He could have asked the state dept, fbi to investigate, no problem.

 

But he cannot ask a foreign power to investigate a political rival.

 

You admit he did it, its wrong, yet you cannot see it.

[RideJocky]

15 minutes ago, GroveHillWanderer said:

I'm not sure about it being "leftists" - anyone who's interested in accuracy knows that the actual document, entitled "Memorandum of Telephone Conversation," that was released by the White House, says in black and white that it is, "not a verbatim transcript." That's why.

 

Well tell “heybruce” because he called it a transcript

[RideJocky]

12 minutes ago, Sujo said:

You just admitted he asked for the investigation. Which he cannot do. He could have asked the state dept, fbi to investigate, no problem.

 

But he cannot ask a foreign power to investigate a political rival.

 

You admit he did it, its wrong, yet you cannot see it.

Don’t get your panties all in a bunch. I haven’t just admitted anything, I’ve know all along he asked for the investigation, and never claimed he didn’t. 
 

Just don’t see it as a big deal. I think should be looked into, you don’t. 
 

What-everrrrr

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Don’t get your panties all in a bunch. I haven’t just admitted anything, I’ve know all along he asked for the investigation, and never claimed he didn’t. 
 

Just don’t see it as a big deal. I think should be looked into, you don’t. 
 

What-everrrrr

Yes and you admitted it again. That you think its ok is not relevant. The constitution does not allow it.

[Cat ji]

On 12/19/2019 at 4:34 AM, tomacht8 said:

More then 15000 false or misleading claims over 1,055 days are enough.

The US does not need a permanent liar and facts bender as his president.

 

Refer to Obama. Best actor ever appointed. 

And of course Hillary is as honest as the day is long.

[heybruce]

1 hour ago, RideJocky said:

I just re-read the transcript, and don’t see what is so incriminating.  He asked for the investigation, yes. 
 

The way I read it it sounded like a perfectly reasonable request to me. It did not sound to me like Trump was trying to get Zelenskyy to do anything inappropriate. 
 

What part of the transcript do you think was so damning? 
 

Neither did I hear any testimony I thought was very compelling, but I did not hear it all. 
 

What witness and testimony did you think was the strongest? 
 

Incidentally, why are all the leftists insisting the transcript was not released? 
 

 

Thanks to all for explaining why the document referred to as a transcript is not really a transcript.  Also thanks for pointing out that a US President should not ask a foreign leader to investigate a US citizen.

 

I will add that in the "transcript" as soon as Zelinsky brings up military aid Trump asks for the favor of an investigation of a US citizen (who happened to be the leading candidate to face Trump in the 2020 election) and an investigation of a totally nonsense conspiracy theory about Crowdstrike and the DNC server.  People who are determined to see no wrong in their idol see nothing wrong with this.  Rational people see obvious extortion.

39 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Well tell “heybruce” because he called it a transcript

Yes, because that is what it is commonly referred to.  If I had referred to it as a memorandum that is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion between Trump and Zelinsky some people would have been confused, others would have wondered why I didn't use the accepted term of "transcript". 

 

I also maintain that reasonable people who "read the transcript", as Trump supporters keep saying, will see an obvious quid pro quo.  I also strongly suspect that if Trump would release the recording of this perfect phone call the quid pro quo would be even more obvious.  I would be happy to be proven wrong on this; all Trump has to do is release the complete recording of teh call.  If it helps, he could also allow administration people who participated in the phone call testify under oath.  I wonder why he won't do this?  After all, the phone call was "perfect".

[Monomial]

2 hours ago, Sujo said:

Yes and you admitted it again. That you think its ok is not relevant. The constitution does not allow it.

 

Unfortunately that is where you are wrong.

 

The Constitution is a document that requires interpretation to discover the intent behind the words. . How people think about its intent is very relevant to the discussion, and courts have said as much over the centuries. 

 

This is just how common law jurisdictions work.  Precedent counts too. Most of America will agree with you that Trump asked the Ukraine to investigate the controversy with Biden. (I'm sure there might be a couple tin foil hat people who think it a massive conspiracy, but they will be very few in number.) But the fact that he asked doesn't necessarly mean it was an impeachable offense. You can only impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

Nothing other than your opinion and your personal value system are currently equating the two. And the Senate is extremely unlikely to agree with you.

 

[MaxYakov]

11 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

Unfortunately that is where you are wrong.

 

The Constitution is a document that requires interpretation to discover the intent behind the words. . How people think about its intent is very relevant to the discussion, and courts have said as much over the centuries. 

 

This is just how common law jurisdictions work.  Precedent counts too. Most of America will agree with you that Trump asked the Ukraine to investigate the controversy with Biden. (I'm sure there might be a couple tin foil hat people who think it a massive conspiracy, but they will be very few in number.) But the fact that he asked doesn't necessarly mean it was an impeachable offense. You can only impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

Nothing other than your opinion and your personal value system are currently equating the two. And the Senate is extremely unlikely to agree with you.

 

The Federalist Papers (Wiki) - Alexander Hamilton

[RideJocky]

2 hours ago, heybruce said:

Thanks to all for explaining why the document referred to as a transcript is not really a transcript.  Also thanks for pointing out that a US President should not ask a foreign leader to investigate a US citizen.

 

I will add that in the "transcript" as soon as Zelinsky brings up military aid Trump asks for the favor of an investigation of a US citizen (who happened to be the leading candidate to face Trump in the 2020 election) and an investigation of a totally nonsense conspiracy theory about Crowdstrike and the DNC server.  People who are determined to see no wrong in their idol see nothing wrong with this.  Rational people see obvious extortion.

Yes, because that is what it is commonly referred to.  If I had referred to it as a memorandum that is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion between Trump and Zelinsky some people would have been confused, others would have wondered why I didn't use the accepted term of "transcript". 
 

 

I think you should read-read it. Trump talked about “Crowdsrike” (apparently owned by a Ukraine national)  and the Bidens in separate paragraphs. 
 

What “aid” are you referring to? Buying the Javelins? That was in the paragraph before the “Crowdstrike” request.

 

Quote

 

I also maintain that reasonable people who "read the transcript", as Trump supporters keep saying, will see an obvious quid pro quo. 
 

 

Well, I just read it again, and it seems pretty clear to me that he is just asking Zelenskyy to cooperate with the Attorney General and his lower.

 

 

Are you sure you aren’t confusing the (not a) transcript  with Adam Schiff’s monologue? That would explain it. To be clear, Adam Schiff was not actually  reading the (not a) transcript. 

 

Quote

 

I also strongly suspect that if Trump would release the recording of this perfect phone call the quid pro quo would be even more obvious.  I would be happy to be proven wrong on this; all Trump has to do is release the complete recording of teh call.  If it helps, he could also allow administration people who participated in the phone call testify under oath.  I wonder why he won't do this?  After all, the phone call was "perfect".

I can’t speak to the recording, but there may be any number of reasons it should not be made public.

Trump would have been a fool to allow his staff to provide testimony under the rules Schiff imposed. 
 

The House could have gone through the process of having them testify but refused. Why is that? 
 

[candide]

43 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

Unfortunately that is where you are wrong.

 

The Constitution is a document that requires interpretation to discover the intent behind the words. . How people think about its intent is very relevant to the discussion, and courts have said as much over the centuries. 

 

This is just how common law jurisdictions work.  Precedent counts too. Most of America will agree with you that Trump asked the Ukraine to investigate the controversy with Biden. (I'm sure there might be a couple tin foil hat people who think it a massive conspiracy, but they will be very few in number.) But the fact that he asked doesn't necessarly mean it was an impeachable offense. You can only impeach for high crimes and misdemeanors.

 

Nothing other than your opinion and your personal value system are currently equating the two. And the Senate is extremely unlikely to agree with you.

 

And testimonies have confirmed Trump's intent to discredit Biden by a public announcement. 

 

It's an interesting pattern: Trump and Republicans bragg against the Bidens and want a public show, whether it be by Z on TV, during the impeachment procedure, or like Giuliani on OAN..

 

Yet no one wants to start an investigation! What could be the reasons? (Ok, It's easy to guess)

[candide]

17 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Trump would have been a fool to allow his staff to provide testimony under the rules Schiff imposed. 

I agree that Trump would gave been a fool to allow his staff to provide testimony that would have confirmed the QPQ. On the other hand, in case his staff would have been able to deny the QPQ, it would have been stupid not to allow them to testify, right?

 

And then the usual fake argument about Schiff's rules (which are mainly Republican rules, by the way). We have seen the Republicans asking questions and they have not been prevented from asking the 'right' questions (from their POV). Actually, they often seemed not so interested in asking question.

To preempt your objections, when they were prevented to ask questions or get answers, it was because they were trying to get the name of the whistleblower. 

[RideJocky]

52 minutes ago, candide said:

And testimonies have confirmed Trump's intent to discredit Biden by a public announcement. 

 

It's an interesting pattern: Trump and Republicans bragg against the Bidens and want a public show, whether it be by Z on TV, during the impeachment procedure, or like Giuliani on OAN..

 

Yet no one wants to start an investigation! What could be the reasons? (Ok, It's easy to guess)

What testimonies have confirmed Trumps intent?

 

I thought the whole thing was about Trump wanting to start an investigation, no?

[RideJocky]

27 minutes ago, candide said:

I agree that Trump would gave been a fool to allow his staff to provide testimony that would have confirmed the QPQ. On the other hand, in case his staff would have been able to deny the QPQ, it would have been stupid not to allow them to testify, right?

 

Wrong. Trump’s staff would not have been allowed to provide testimony that would help Trump.

 

27 minutes ago, candide said:

 

And then the usual fake argument about Schiff's rules (which are mainly Republican rules, by the way). We have seen the Republicans asking questions and they have not been prevented from asking the 'right' questions (from their POV). Actually, they often seemed not so interested in asking question.

To preempt your objections, when they were prevented to ask questions or get answers, it was because they were trying to get the name of the whistleblower. 

 

The right was not allowed to call the witnesses they wanted or ask the questions they wanted, while the left could call anyone they wanted, and ask them anything they wanted. I understand that to the left, this seems fair, but to the rest of us, not so much. 
 

Don’t bother calling yourself a centrist or regurgitating the whole thing about why they couldn’t call the witnesses they wanted or ask the questions they wanted, I heard all that any number of times and it sounds sillier every time I hear it. 
 

You could explain why the House could not wait to hear the witnesses they wanted. 

[Sujo]

33 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

 

Wrong. Trump’s staff would not have been allowed to provide testimony that would help Trump.

 

 

The right was not allowed to call the witnesses they wanted or ask the questions they wanted, while the left could call anyone they wanted, and ask them anything they wanted. I understand that to the left, this seems fair, but to the rest of us, not so much. 
 

Don’t bother calling yourself a centrist or regurgitating the whole thing about why they couldn’t call the witnesses they wanted or ask the questions they wanted, I heard all that any number of times and it sounds sillier every time I hear it. 
 

You could explain why the House could not wait to hear the witnesses they wanted. 

Repubs could call any witness relevant they wanted.