Impeachment Thread: Trump retaliating at anyone who wasn't willing to commit criminal obstruction

[Crazyhole]

There have been 15 impeachments in our history, most of which have been judges. I believe I heard this will be the first one where no witnesses were called in front of the senate I guess the other impeachments did it wrong.

Clinton's impeachment trial didnt have any new or live witnesses. They accepted recorded testimony of prior witnesses as sufficient for the process.

"I think it would be absolutely unfair, contrary to any notion of due process if now, after all the time the House spent, all this voluminous record, they said, ‘By the way, there is Jane Doe or Charlie Doe out there. We never spoke to them. No one has -- they weren’t before the House. They weren’t in the House record. We want to call them now,'" he said during a Jan. 8 episode of "Special Report. That's a quote from Joe Biden.

 

[Cubs79]

Clinton's impeachment trial didnt have any new or live witnesses. They accepted recorded testimony of prior witnesses as sufficient for the process.

"I think it would be absolutely unfair, contrary to any notion of due process if now, after all the time the House spent, all this voluminous record, they said, ‘By the way, there is Jane Doe or Charlie Doe out there. We never spoke to them. No one has -- they weren’t before the House. They weren’t in the House record. We want to call them now,'" he said during a Jan. 8 episode of "Special Report. That's a quote from Joe Biden.

You are right about Clinton, but this would still only be the 2nd. So you trying to act like it is the norm for the Senate to not have witnesses and that the house didnt no their jobs is simply not true. This and the Clinton impeachments are the exception, but a huge difference, is Clinton didn't withhold documents the way Trump has.

 

[Cubs79]

This is all political. The republicans have already decided that they can't allow the facts to get out by calling witnesses. They are just working out how to justify it.

They are spending too much time on it though, I don't know if they realize that their base literally doesn't give a shit at all.

McConnell could just say, "we don't feel like it, that's our decision." And the chuds would find a way to be ok with it.

They will find a way to justify each and every action the GOP members make as they have done since they realized they couldn't stop trumps nomination and embraced his values and ethics into the party.

MAGA chuds know they would never let Obama or any dem get away with any of this. Anyone who cared about maintaining their own personal values more than a political win has long since left the republican party. What you have left are people who have purposefully looked the other way at every action they would have been furious about past leaders doing. The people left here will never turn their back on Trump because they are too committed. They have defended the indefensible for so long that the only option they have left is to forge on, one scandal after another, desperately waiting for Fox News to give them a way to wiggle out of any accountability for supporting an obvious scumbag. Most of them already acknowledge Trump is a scumbag. They are fine with having a scumbag president because he's fighting for their team. These are people who, once Trump leaves office will try to reclaim the moral high ground but the morality of the office will be dead.

The decision that this Senate makes will set the tone for accountability forever. Right now you shouldn't be asking yourself if you want Trump to remain in office. You should be asking yourself if you would be OK with a Democrat withholding funds from countries in exchange for attacks on Republican opponents. Do the political parties involved really matter? This sets precedent forever.

Is the short term gain of keeping a corrupt president worth the degradation of the office of President and the sovereignty of our elections? Pence will give you tax cuts just like Trump did. Pence will fight for pro life causes just like Trump. Republicans lose very little and send a message to all future presidents that there is a level of accountability that still exists.

Y'all know he ****ed up but you just can't bring yourself to admit it. Reclaim your personal values. You can still be a conservative and a knowledge that Trump is setting awful precedent that can't be tolerated.

The bolded is the worrisome part, but it goes beyond that. We now have a president who has shown that defying subpoenas is perfectly ok and that he cannot be held accountable for anything. If this goes as I expect, it is more than clear that Trump is above the law.

 

[Boosted87]

Clinton's impeachment trial didnt have any new or live witnesses. They accepted recorded testimony of prior witnesses as sufficient for the process.

"I think it would be absolutely unfair, contrary to any notion of due process if now, after all the time the House spent, all this voluminous record, they said, ‘By the way, there is Jane Doe or Charlie Doe out there. We never spoke to them. No one has -- they weren’t before the House. They weren’t in the House record. We want to call them now,'" he said during a Jan. 8 episode of "Special Report. That's a quote from Joe Biden.

Because all the witnesses we're already on the record, under oath. If Schiff wanted someone like Sondland to testify in the senate, you'd have a really good argument that wasn't necessary - already deposed + testified publicly. The only debate with Clinton was whether to recall witnesses.

 

[Crazyhole]

You are right about Clinton, but this would still only be the 2nd. So you trying to act like it is the norm for the Senate to not have witnesses and that the house didnt no their jobs is simply not true. This and the Clinton impeachments are the exception, but a huge difference, is Clinton didn't withhold documents the way Trump has.

I'm not concerned with whether it's the norm. I've laid out my desire for witnesses several times and did again an hour ago. All I'm saying is that I can understand the republican position, not that I agree with it. In the Johnson trial, the defense provided 25 witnesses and the prosecution provided 16. Would you be ok with that in this impeachment trial? Trump gets to call 50% more witnesses than the the House managers?

 

[Boosted87]

Again, I want a ton of witnesses. We need to find out motive. Since biden was supposedly the basis for trumps request, he needs to testify. Rudy needs to testify. This is about corruption and if the senate has the ability to expose it, go for it. All of the documents that Rudy has need to be admitted into evidence. Schiff needs to testify on whether he had contact with the whistle blower. I say we go down the rabbit hole and find anything and everything we can to determine who the bad actors are. Hell, call shokin and lutsenko as both have made public comments about the whole deal. If ukraine is the ally they claim to be, they should want to help us root out corruption so get a statement from Zelensky at the very least. I say that literally anything and everything involving Ukraine should be on the table. Subpoena Chalupa, Mulvaney, and Bolton.

If trump is smart he will insist on it. His biggest enemy is going to be the suggestion that he is part of the swamp.

You're logic is taking it too far IMO. What's relevent here is Trump's state of mind. We're his intentions of a personal and political nature? Or was he legitimately trying to root out corruption. Close aids could testify to his state of mind (in either direction). Biden / Chalupa etc have no insight into Trump's state of mind or the decisions he made.

If Trump is guilty and this is purely political, putting Biden on the stand only rewards Trump for his actions. This is why Roberts should make these calls.

 

[Cubs79]

I'm not concerned with whether it's the norm. I've laid out my desire for witnesses several times and did again an hour ago. All I'm saying is that I can understand the republican position, not that I agree with it. In the Johnson trial, the defense provided 25 witnesses and the prosecution provided 16. Would you be ok with that in this impeachment trial? Trump gets to call 50% more witnesses than the the House managers?

If Roberts determined they were all legitimate witnesses and it didn't turn into a political farce, or something along those lines that made it a legitimate process, then yes, why would I not? I want to know what happened.

For not agreeing with a position you sure do go out of your way to defend it a lot, just saying.

 

[Crazyhole]

Because all the witnesses we're already on the record, under oath. If Schiff wanted someone like Sondland to testify in the senate, you'd have a really good argument that wasn't necessary - already deposed + testified publicly. The only debate with Clinton was whether to recall witnesses.

I have a good argument regardless. It's being presented as though precedent is important and because witnesses were called then, they should be called now. The fact of the matter is that the precedent is that the witnesses had already testified in the Clinton trial so the narrative that "this is the first time that witnesses arent called" is spin.

 

[Cubs79]

I have a good argument regardless. It's being presented as though precedent is important and because witnesses were called then, they should be called now. The fact of the matter is that the precedent is that the witnesses had already testified in the Clinton trial so the narrative that "this is the first time that witnesses arent called" is spin.

I corrected myself, it is the 2nd time witnesses haven't been called. Although again, Clinton cooperated with the subpoena process where Trump has not. What is spin is you trying to make it out that calling witnesses somehow makes it out as if the House didn't do their jobs properly.

 

[Boosted87]

I'm not concerned with whether it's the norm. I've laid out my desire for witnesses several times and did again an hour ago. All I'm saying is that I can understand the republican position, not that I agree with it. In the Johnson trial, the defense provided 25 witnesses and the prosecution provided 16. Would you be ok with that in this impeachment trial? Trump gets to call 50% more witnesses than the the House managers?

If Trump has 25 people with first hand knowledge that exonerates him - like testifying about the consensus administration decision to withhold aid due to reasons that nothing to do with these investigations, then yea absolutely. Let's say Trump wants Mulvaney to testify - it would ABSURD not to call that witness in his defense.

Chalupa/Biden is a whole different story. Maybe there's a good legal argument there, but you have to draw a line somewhere. If you let him do that, then you're putting the underlying conspiracy theories on trial.

 

[Crazyhole]

If Roberts determined they were all legitimate witnesses and it didn't turn into a political farce, or something along those lines that made it a legitimate process, then yes, why would I not? I want to know what happened.

For not agreeing with a position you sure do go out of your way to defend it a lot, just saying.

I make arguments that are opposite of my beliefs because it's pointless to live in an echo chamber. If I just say "I agree", then what is the point of discussing it? If you are uncomfortable with someone taking a contrarian position then why even bring it up? Isn't the point of talking about things to challenge your position?

 

[Boosted87]

I have a good argument regardless. It's being presented as though precedent is important and because witnesses were called then, they should be called now. The fact of the matter is that the precedent is that the witnesses had already testified in the Clinton trial so the narrative that "this is the first time that witnesses arent called" is spin.

No way. The spin is in the opposite direction. We have a single impeachment (out of 15) that had no "new" witnesses at the trial (and it still recalled 3). That one exception had already interviewed - under oath and penalty of perjury - every pertinent witness, and the House Managers in that case were not requesting new witnesses (that I'm aware of). Even POTUS had interviewed under oath.

In this case, we have multiple first hand witnessess that we haven't heard from. Can you find a single other case where first hand witnesses existed, House Managers wanted them to testify, and they didn't get a single one? I'm legit asking because otherwise this absolutely would be a first.

 

[Cubs79]

I make arguments that are opposite of my beliefs because it's pointless to live in an echo chamber. If I just say "I agree", then what is the point of discussing it? If you are uncomfortable with someone taking a contrarian position then why even bring it up? Isn't the point of talking about things to challenge your position?

Huh? I don't care if you disagree with me and challenge my positions. Yes, I would actually much prefer have discussion with people who dont necessarily agree with me. But I would much prefer you argue your actual beliefs. No offense but what you are basically saying is we don't know your actual beliefs because you will argue things from both sides for the hell of it. To me that is just being phony.

 

[UCFWayne]

This is all political. The republicans have already decided that they can't allow the facts to get out by calling witnesses. They are just working out how to justify it.

They are spending too much time on it though, I don't know if they realize that their base literally doesn't give a shit at all.

McConnell could just say, "we don't feel like it, that's our decision." And the chuds would find a way to be ok with it.

They will find a way to justify each and every action the GOP members make as they have done since they realized they couldn't stop trumps nomination and embraced his values and ethics into the party.

MAGA chuds know they would never let Obama or any dem get away with any of this. Anyone who cared about maintaining their own personal values more than a political win has long since left the republican party. What you have left are people who have purposefully looked the other way at every action they would have been furious about past leaders doing. The people left here will never turn their back on Trump because they are too committed. They have defended the indefensible for so long that the only option they have left is to forge on, one scandal after another, desperately waiting for Fox News to give them a way to wiggle out of any accountability for supporting an obvious scumbag. Most of them already acknowledge Trump is a scumbag. They are fine with having a scumbag president because he's fighting for their team. These are people who, once Trump leaves office will try to reclaim the moral high ground but the morality of the office will be dead.

The decision that this Senate makes will set the tone for accountability forever. Right now you shouldn't be asking yourself if you want Trump to remain in office. You should be asking yourself if you would be OK with a Democrat withholding funds from countries in exchange for attacks on Republican opponents. Do the political parties involved really matter? This sets precedent forever.

Is the short term gain of keeping a corrupt president worth the degradation of the office of President and the sovereignty of our elections? Pence will give you tax cuts just like Trump did. Pence will fight for pro life causes just like Trump. Republicans lose very little and send a message to all future presidents that there is a level of accountability that still exists.

Y'all know he ****ed up but you just can't bring yourself to admit it. Reclaim your personal values. You can still be a conservative and a knowledge that Trump is setting awful precedent that can't be tolerated.

tldr. when did you become bs?

 

[Boosted87]

I make arguments that are opposite of my beliefs because it's pointless to live in an echo chamber. If I just say "I agree", then what is the point of discussing it? If you are uncomfortable with someone taking a contrarian position then why even bring it up? Isn't the point of talking about things to challenge your position?

I like arguing the other side too. I've tried REALLY hard to figure out how I'd defend Trump on the merits on this one. It's incredibly hard. And no offense, but you're devil's advocate arguments are no better than the terrible ones I've mulled in my head.

 

[Crazyhole]

If Trump has 25 people with first hand knowledge that exonerates him - like testifying about the consensus administration decision to withhold aid due to reasons that nothing to do with these investigations, then yea absolutely. Let's say Trump wants Mulvaney to testify - it would ABSURD not to call that witness in his defense.

Chalupa/Biden is a whole different story. Maybe there's a good legal argument there, but you have to draw a line somewhere. If you let him do that, then you're putting the underlying conspiracy theories on trial.

Your bias is showing. Everything about this whole deal started with the russian collusion investigation. Trump asked rudy to find exculpatory evidence and that started us down the rabbit hole. The underlying conspiracy theory was that trump was working with the russians but that led to things happening in Ukraine. What came next is worth investigation, but the left relies on a Bloomberg article as evidence and then claims that john solomon is unworthy of consideration and says that what Rudy comes up.with should be dismissed because because he wasn't a US official. It's anything and everything to avoid focus on actual evidence, it's all about focusing on the stated goal from before Trump was even sworn in.

 

[Crazyhole]

I like arguing the other side too. I've tried REALLY hard to figure out how I'd defend Trump on the merits on this one. It's incredibly hard. And no offense, but you're devil's advocate arguments are no better than the terrible ones I've mulled in my head.

So give me evidence that Biden wasn't involved in corruption in ukraine other than Bloomberg saying that the investigation was dormant in spite of records that show that Burisma and Hunter Biden were under investigation as recently as 3 weeks prior to shokin being forced out under threat of not receiving a billion dollars of aid.

 

[Crazyhole]

How much media coverage would it have gotten if Ukraine announced an investigation into Biden? Would CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, NYT, or wapo have covered it? Is there any chance whatsoever that they would have covered it in a way that could have possibly changed public perception? It would have been covered on foxnews but that's a far cry from affecting an election.

 

[fried-chicken]

tldr. when did you become bs?

Someone has to establish an appropriate level of shame for the straw chewin, new balance wearin, shirt tuckin into jeans, buffalo wild wings eatin, Trump puds.

 

[nosurf2day]

Because I don’t understand where this phase of the senate trial is, all I see are the Democrats saying the exact same thing as the prior person did yesterday.

Why are they repeating themselves?

Is the defense to follow the prosecution’s opening arguments or did I miss it already?

 

[Cubs79]

Because I don’t understand where this phase of the senate trial is, all I see are the Democrats saying the exact same thing as the prior person did yesterday.

Why are they repeating themselves?

Is the defense to follow the prosecution’s opening arguments or did I miss it already?

Yes, the defense will follow probably starting this weekend.

 

[Crazyhole]

Because I don’t understand where this phase of the senate trial is, all I see are the Democrats saying the exact same thing as the prior person did yesterday.

Why are they repeating themselves?

Is the defense to follow the prosecution’s opening arguments or did I miss it already?

Because 24 hours is a lot of time to fill, so they have to repeat what has already been stated. The defense follows and already has but it's basically the same parade, just say what the last guy said. Not sure if dershowitz has spoke yet but he's probably the only one that will make an argument that is worth listening to because it won't exactly be a defense, just a constitutional observation.

 

[nosurf2day]

Because 24 hours is a lot of time to fill, so they have to repeat what has already been stated. The defense follows and already has but it's basically the same parade, just say what the last guy said. Not sure if dershowitz has spoke yet but he's probably the only one that will make an argument that is worth listening to because it won't exactly be a defense, just a constitutional observation.

I am curious how lengthy the Defense’s arguments will be since they know they already have the votes.

 

[UCFWayne]

Someone has to establish an appropriate level of shame for the straw chewin, new balance wearin, shirt tuckin into jeans, buffalo wild wings eatin, Trump puds.

why you have to hate on new balance? people who tuck shirts into jeans are monsters though. bw3 used to be good like 10+ years ago.

 

[Boosted87]

Your bias is showing. Everything about this whole deal started with the russian collusion investigation. Trump asked rudy to find exculpatory evidence and that started us down the rabbit hole. The underlying conspiracy theory was that trump was working with the russians but that led to things happening in Ukraine. What came next is worth investigation, but the left relies on a Bloomberg article as evidence and then claims that john solomon is unworthy of consideration and says that what Rudy comes up.with should be dismissed because because he wasn't a US official. It's anything and everything to avoid focus on actual evidence, it's all about focusing on the stated goal from before Trump was even sworn in.

LOL well we're all biased. I'm not saying what Rudy comes up with should be dismissed out of hand. But if Trump's own State Department rejects it and his own DOJ won't act on it, what does that tell you?

Look - there was Trump/Russia reporting that didn't pan out. The one that comes to mind on the top of my head was reporting from Mcclatchy that Micheal Cohen was in Prague. I remember reading about other journalists desperately trying to corroborate that story and to my knowledge, no one else in the mainstream press ever claimed to have a source confirming that. The Mueller report said flat out that Cohen was never there, though Mcclatchy still stands by their story.

Would it be irresponsible to keep pushing that narrative due to a single reporter in light of the contrary evidence? Yes. I see Solomon and Rudy's narrative similarly. The only question is how much deference I'd give Trump as a defendant. I do agree with you though - I'd prefer everyone testify rather than no one. But I'd most prefer the Chief Justice to rule on materiality and give it some credibility.

 

[Crazyhole]

LOL well we're all biased. I'm not saying what Rudy comes up with should be dismissed out of hand. But if Trump's own State Department rejects it and his own DOJ won't act on it, what does that tell you?

Look - there was Trump/Russia reporting that didn't pan out. The one that comes to mind on the top of my head was reporting from Mcclatchy that Micheal Cohen was in Prague. I remember reading about other journalists desperately trying to corroborate that story and to my knowledge, no one else in the mainstream press ever claimed to have a source confirming that. The Mueller report said flat out that Cohen was never there, though Mcclatchy still stands by their story.

Would it be irresponsible to keep pushing that narrative due to a single reporter in light of the contrary evidence? Yes. I see Solomon and Rudy's narrative similarly. The only question is how much deference I'd give Trump as a defendant. I do agree with you though - I'd prefer everyone testify rather than no one. But I'd most prefer the Chief Justice to rule on materiality and give it some credibility.

The problem I have with having Roberts determine what can or can't be admitted is that in a typical trial the statements are already made before the judge strikes it from the record. Will what Hunter Biden has to say be prescient to the case? No idea. But how can we dismiss out of hand that it isn't? No, he's not a material witness to trump asking Zelensky to look into anything but outside of the two of them and the transcript what so we have to go on: motive. Zelensky said there was no pressure, trump said there was no pressure, so there's no victim. All we have to go on is motivation. Prove his motivation and you've got a clear case of "abuse of power" or a clear case of serving american taxpayer interest.

 

[fried-chicken]

why you have to hate on new balance? people who tuck shirts into jeans are monsters though. bw3 used to be good like 10+ years ago.

New Balance signals that you're a frumpy dad. Dudes who wear new balance probably don't even bother to trim their pubes because they have sideways sex with their wives because neither has the energy to be on top. I wore new balance once, I immediately felt the need to buy my jeans at Sam's Club. The only reason people buy new balance is to save $20 on nikes and if you're focused on saving $20 instead of looking nice you're dad fugly.

 

[Boosted87]

The problem I have with having Roberts determine what can or can't be admitted is that in a typical trial the statements are already made before the judge strikes it from the record. Will what Hunter Biden has to say be prescient to the case? No idea. But how can we dismiss out of hand that it isn't? No, he's not a material witness to trump asking Zelensky to look into anything but outside of the two of them and the transcript what so we have to go on: motive. Zelensky said there was no pressure, trump said there was no pressure, so there's no victim. All we have to go on is motivation. Prove his motivation and you've got a clear case of "abuse of power" or a clear case of serving american taxpayer interest.

FYI I just changed my mind on this. I'm on a bit of a tape delay but listening to some of the presentation today. Just realized that Democrats walked through the entire Burisma/Biden situation as a sort of a pre-emptive strike against that narrative. I think that makes the Biden's fair game, as long as that logic goes both ways. Meaning if Trump's defense brings up Parnas/Rudy assertively to defend Trump (or some other characters democrats are not currently trying to call), that would make them fair game as well.

Bolton/Mulvaney etc are fair game regardless as material first hand witnesses we haven't heard from.

 

[fried-chicken]

 

[Crazyhole]

FYI I just changed my mind on this. I'm on a bit of a tape delay but listening to some of the presentation today. Just realized that Democrats walked through the entire Burisma/Biden situation as a sort of a pre-emptive strike against that narrative. I think that makes the Biden's fair game, as long as that logic goes both ways. Meaning if Trump's defense brings up Parnas/Rudy assertively to defend Trump (or some other characters democrats are not currently trying to call), that would make them fair game as well.

Bolton/Mulvaney etc are fair game regardless as material first hand witnesses we haven't heard from.

Clearly they don't want Biden to testify and this is the prosecution preemptively objecting to the notion. I can understand why they want to narrow the focus but they did kind of show their hand.

 

[fried-chicken]

 

[fried-chicken]

"Vote against the president and your head will be on a pike."

 

[fried-chicken]

Imagine a mafia defendant telling the jury that if you vote against the mob boss your head will be on a pike.

Is that how we do trials?

 

[Crazyhole]

View embedded media

They're only debunked because you want to believe that they are debunked. Provide proof that Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma and Biden.

 

[Cubs79]

They're only debunked because you want to believe that they are debunked. Provide proof that Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma and Biden.

Doesn't the Ukrainian government say that?

 

[Cubs79]

Clearly they don't want Biden to testify and this is the prosecution preemptively objecting to the notion. I can understand why they want to narrow the focus but they did kind of show their hand.

Dude, there is no chance of Biden testifying, but it is because Republicans, and you know that. So why even bring up whether the Dems want Biden to testify or not and try to shift the blame onto them?

 

[fried-chicken]

They're only debunked because you want to believe that they are debunked. Provide proof that Shokin wasn't investigating Burisma and Biden.

The Intel community has debunked them.

Trump belived Rudi Guillani over the NSA, over the FBI, over the CIA.

As Schiff said, he believed it because it benefits him, not because it benefits America.

 

[Cubs79]

The Intel community has debunked them.

Trump belived Rudi Guillani over the NSA, over the FBI, over the CIA.

As Schiff said, he believed it because it benefits him, not because it benefits America.

We are basically living in a post-truth age, and its going to get worse before it gets better.

 

[fried-chicken]

Remember Parnas and that dude who were watching the ambassador and seemingly plotting her kidnapping or possibly something more nefarious?

Here's Trump at a private dinner saying

"Get her out tomorrow. I don't care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. Okay? Do it."

https://abcnews.go.com/amp/Politics...8506437&id=68506437&__twitter_impression=true

"She's going to go through some things"

These are the words of a criminal. Trump could easily have recalled the ambassador but it sure doesn't look like he intended to go that route before this all broke.

 

[Crazyhole]

The Intel community has debunked them.

Trump belived Rudi Guillani over the NSA, over the FBI, over the CIA.

As Schiff said, he believed it because it benefits him, not because it benefits America.

The Intel community hasn't debunked them, Bloomberg did and the rest of the media followed suit. There is more evidence to the contrary than to the narrative.