The Impeachment Thread

[Virtual ghost]

Also we need more senators overall demanding the witnesses (that the White House are blocking) testify.

Isn't kinda illogical that prosecuted side/person can block witnesses !? (random observation)




This kills me about USA, everything is status quo. Every move can be blocked from 5 sides so that accidentally something doesn't get done.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Isn't kinda illogical that prosecuted side/person can block witnesses !? (random observation)

Yes, typically a defendant can neither block essential witnesses from testifying at the hearing (as 45 did with the House) nor get the judge (McConnell) to refuse essential witnesses at the trial (Senate). And in any other capacity, having a defendant attempt to get a trial dismissed by simply whining "I'm INNOCENT, so unfair to accuse me of anything!" wouldn't even be a remarkable enough story to make the local news - no sane person would entertain the notion of actually doing it, at most the defendant (if the behavior became unmanageable) would be committed to a psych facility.

McConnell openly declaring to take the oath to be impartial (which he must do to participate) whilst having no intention of being impartial - and stating he will collaborate with White House defense - is beyond unethical. But so long as his constituency is drinking the "all accusations against Trump are unmerited and partisan" Kool-Aid, he feels secure in doing it.

There aren't any safeguards in place currently to prevent this level of shitheadedness because no one dreamed they'd be necessary. But hopefully everything currently happening highlights the need and there will be enough motivation in the aftermath to put some in place.

 

[SearchingforPeace]

Isn't kinda illogical that prosecuted side/person can block witnesses !? (random observation)




This kills me about USA, everything is status quo. Every move can be blocked from 5 sides so that accidentally something doesn't get done.

The Democrats could have just used the traditional tool of going to court to force things. They could have even kept traditional rules about the president being allowed to be represented by counsel and call defense witnesses.

If they had been serious they would have done so. Instead they rushed ahead and altered the established rules, just to say "We impeached him!!!" without really caring about whether he would be removed from office.

As such, it has been just a naked attempt at manipulating a gullible public, without worrying about whether it would be successful.

The typical prosecutor will never bring charges that won't result in a criminal conviction. The likelihood of outcome is a huge factor, as in the admissibility of evidence.

Not all "evidence" is admissible. As such, something may be true but can't be proven. None of that is then allowed in, even for a jaywalking case.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

This is a tiny bit promising. I won't hold my breath, but it's possible. White House expects GOP defections on calling witnesses in Senate impeachment trial:

Senior White House officials tell CBS News they increasingly believe that at least four Republicans, and likely more, will vote to call witnesses. In addition to Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah and possibly Cory Gardner of Colorado, the White House also views Rand Paul of Kentucky as a "wild card" and Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee as an "institutionalist" who might vote to call witnesses, as one official put it.
​

At least there aren't enough votes to dismiss the trial.

 

[Julius_Van_Der_Beak]

This is a tiny bit promising. I won't hold my breath, but it's possible. White House expects GOP defections on calling witnesses in Senate impeachment trial:

Senior White House officials tell CBS News they increasingly believe that at least four Republicans, and likely more, will vote to call witnesses. In addition to Senators Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, Susan Collins of Maine, Mitt Romney of Utah and possibly Cory Gardner of Colorado, the White House also views Rand Paul of Kentucky as a "wild card" and Senator Lamar Alexander of Tennessee as an "institutionalist" who might vote to call witnesses, as one official put it.
​

At least there aren't enough votes to dismiss the trial.

Uh, I wouldn't put too much faith in the idea of an "institutionalist". They said the same thing about William Barr.

 

[Jaguar]

the White House also views Rand Paul of Kentucky as a "wild card"

He's gone apeshit insane:

Sen. Rand Paul is waging a fierce campaign to prevent the Senate from hearing witnesses in Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, vowing to force tough votes on his fellow Republicans if they break with the president or back Democrats' demands for new evidence. The Kentucky Republican is occasionally at odds with Trump, from his killing of Iranian Maj. Gen. Qassem Soleimani to his national emergency to build his southern border wall. But when it comes to impeachment, Paul is taking the hardest line possible in Trump’s favor.

Rand Paul threatens fellow Republicans with explosive witness votes - POLITICO

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Uh, I wouldn't put too much faith in the idea of an "institutionalist". They said the same thing about William Barr.

Also, it was CBS and they were the only ones who posted it, so those were my first reasons to be wary.

I was feeling momentarily hopeful.

This I have seen from more than a couple sources though: Trump Broke The Law In Freezing Ukraine Funds, Watchdog Report Concludes.

 

[Nicodemus]

I'm curious as to what our resident Trumpists say about the Parnas interview (you can start at 0:50):

Any better defense than "he's lying"? Because that doesn't cut it anymore, especially coming from the world's most famous pathological liar.

 

[ceecee]

Also, it was CBS and they were the only ones who posted it, so those were my first reasons to be wary.

I was feeling momentarily hopeful.

This I have seen from more than a couple sources though: Trump Broke The Law In Freezing Ukraine Funds, Watchdog Report Concludes.

Yeah I don't think it will matter. And no one needs to be an "institutionalist" either. Congresses allotted these funds to Ukraine, the end. Anyone that interfered with any part of that process broke the law. The entire GOP/conservative/Fox News/right wing talking point going forward, regardless of the subject is - So? Crimes are fine as long as Trump or his family or his surrogates are doing them. Rudy doesn't work for the govt. or have a security clearance. So why was he speaking for ME and every other citizen of the US? That's also a crime but. so? Crimes are fine.

And I would not at all be surprised if someone tried and failed to make the ambassador "disappear" so it could be blamed on Ukraine. For the convenience of Trump as well as Russia, since the whole reason she was there was to assist the new Ukraine govt. with corruption issues and much of that corruption originates in Russia.

 

[Doctor Cringelord]

I'm curious as to what our resident Trumpists say about the Parnas interview (you can start at 0:50):

Any better defense than "he's lying"? Because that doesn't cut it anymore, especially coming from the world's most famous pathological liar.

Trying to talk to trump people about this stuff is like Riker trying to talk to fake Data in the one where he's in a holographic simulation and tells Picard to shut up.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Yeah I don't think it will matter. And no one needs to be an "institutionalist" either. Congresses allotted these funds to Ukraine, the end. Anyone that interfered with any part of that process broke the law. The entire GOP/conservative/Fox News/right wing talking point going forward, regardless of the subject is - So? Crimes are fine as long as Trump or his family or his surrogates are doing them. Rudy doesn't work for the govt. or have a security clearance. So why was he speaking for ME and every other citizen of the US? That's also a crime but. so? Crimes are fine.

I agree about it not mattering as far as having an immediate impact, all things considered. I just kind of see it as one of the many small pieces falling into place that will eventually determine how 'history' sees current events. Because - supposing for a moment we entertain the delusion that there was no "quid pro quo" - this small piece means that he still broke the law. And his toddler-caliber emotional compulsiveness (e.g. can't emotionally cope with the shame of owning even miniscule mistakes) interferes with the ability to strategically backpeddle around it. The more little things like this he attempts to raze with his "I'm INNOCENT" steamroller, the easier it will be for 'history' to sort out what a pathological shithead head is. (Eta: Because eventually it'll snowball and that steamroller will be revealed for what it is: sheer willpower and gaslighting).

And I would not at all be surprised if someone tried and failed to make the ambassador "disappear" so it could be blamed on Ukraine. For the convenience of Trump as well as Russia, since the whole reason she was there was to assist the new Ukraine govt. with corruption issues and much of that corruption originates in Russia.

I don't think ANYTHING this administration does can surprise me anymore.

 

[Nicodemus]

I don't think ANYTHING this administration does can surprise me anymore.

I was surprised by the fact that, of all the people in Trump's original cabinet, the only one with a modicum of integrity was, apparently, the former CEO of ExxonMobile: https://www.washingtonpost.com/poli...dbb8a6-387e-11ea-bb7b-265f4554af6d_story.html

The best part of that article is this one, though:

The more perplexing silence was from Pence, a leader who should have been able to stand up to Trump. Instead, one attendee thought, “He’s sitting there frozen like a statue. Why doesn’t he stop the president?” Another recalled the vice president was “a wax museum guy.” From the start of the meeting, Pence looked as if he wanted to escape and put an end to the president’s torrent. Surely, he disagreed with Trump’s characterization of military leaders as “dopes and babies,” considering his son, Michael, was a Marine first lieutenant then training for his naval aviator wings. But some surmised Pence feared getting crosswise with Trump. “A total deer in the headlights,” recalled a third attendee.

The writers of the article must not have been paying attention: Pence has been an empty shell from the very beginning. It is beyond me how anyone could expect him to take a stand.

 

[Jaguar]

And the circus begins . . .

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Question for people who live outside the U.S.: does anyone outside the U.S. believe the impeachment might be a hoax?

I'm asking if you or anyone you know believes Trump, though hearing how your media reports it would be interesting too.

 

[Virtual ghost]

Question for people who live outside the U.S.: does anyone outside the U.S. believe the impeachment might be a hoax?

I'm asking if you or anyone you know believes Trump, though hearing how your media reports it would be interesting too.

I am low on time so I will be short (for now).


Here the media are reporting on him as he is a natural disaster: Seriously, reserved, people are suffering, disruption in functioning, no one for now knows how big the damage is .....





However you asked the question in evidently American centric fashion, mostly for two reasons:


1: In my country there is good amount of people who don't pay attention to local politics. Therefore what is happening so far away isn't that much in their focus to have too strong opinions about it. After all average Joe in Kansas doesn't really think about what the European commission is doing, even if this actually has direct impact on them. Therefore urban people tend to not really like him, while rural people don't really think about this.



2. However what is more important it doesn't matter to us if he is lying or not, since that is how our system works. Here the head of state needs to have approval of over half of the parliament, which can start the impeachment/removal at anytime. Some stronger scandal usually triggers this but by law the voting in the parliament is always on the basis "Do you think this person is good at doing his job?". Therefore if over half of the parliament is against the person it will have to leave the office together with all people that came in with this person (aka. ministers and deputies). However the last time I checked in my parliament we have 17 parties and therefore the logic of us vs. them isn't so developed here. The political system is much more fluid.


After that there are talks if all those parties can find another majority and if they can they vote for the person that manages to gather the new majority (usually it is a party leader of some bigger party). While in the case there is no clarity we simply call snap elections very soon after this becomes obvious. So the long story short: To us it doesn't matter if he is guilty or not in this particular case, if you are generally good for the country you should stay and if you are not you should be booted. However we are pretty quick about this and we don't make any kind of trials out of this. While in the case that someone is really guilty for serious criminal stuff the person is booted out of the office and has to face "classical court". Therefore we have actually locked up ex head of state, some deputies, various ministers ... etc. Especially since here you can ask for impeachment and removal of someone specific from the cabinet (like finance minister or education secretary for example). Therefore here impeachment is simply much more common practice and therefore we don't see it as so big deal.



In general I would say that our left hates him and perhaps even more than American one, while ordinary people on our right generally don't really care. However the closest we have to classic pro business party has something like 2% support and therefore here he would not be able to govern for long with his positions. What would actually be what would boot him out.

 

[ceecee]

Question for people who live outside the U.S.: does anyone outside the U.S. believe the impeachment might be a hoax?

I'm asking if you or anyone you know believes Trump, though hearing how your media reports it would be interesting too.

My family members in Canada don't believe it's a hoax. It seems like the media there sees it as historic and most say the evidence is overwhelming. BBC says the same.

 

[StrawberryBoots]

This thread is to discuss all matters related to the potential impeachment of the president of the United States.

More crying from the left. Who cares.
Trump 2020! 😘

 

[Z Buck McFate]

@Virtual ghost, I should have phrased it: *if* people are talking about it, what's their take? I assumed that was a given, didn't mean to presume everyone is following our drama.

My family members in Canada don't believe it's a hoax. It seems like the media there sees it as historic and most say the evidence is overwhelming. BBC says the same.

The reason I posted the question is because I realized I was assuming that's the case. I caught this tweet earlier and it made me wonder.

 

[Z Buck McFate]

Also, I'm kinda feeling the need to put out that the Republicans are trying to hold a "trial" without allowing evidence or witnesses. It is a cover up. No amount of finger pointing about what the Dems should or should not have done up to this moment (and regardless of any demented fantasy about Democrat motivation) can effectively deflect from the fact that they are voting against allowing evidence and/or witnesses in the trial. Republican Senators are choosing to vote that way, and I find it stunning that morons across the nation are somehow buying the notion that Democrats are to blame for Republican Senators making this choice.

eta: I do realize it's too early to say this definitively, the vote might change, I'm just venting.

 

[highlander]

More crying from the left. Who cares. Trump 2020! 😘

I'm a republican (or was until the fiasco of trump) Not left at all. History will show what Trump was.