The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

[Zombie]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...18aaec-deec-11e9-be96-6adb81821e90_story.html

This story is ****ing wild.

 

[JazzMan4Life]

Let’s assume they vote to impeach and, for argument sake, manage to get 20+ republicans, or whatever number, to actually get him removed.

How do y’all feel about President Pence?

 

[Zombie]

Unfortunately, because of the amount of crap this administration spews, much goes unnoticed. This was Rudy in May describing his work In Ukraine:

That Giuliani quote is also in the Washington Post article I just shared.

It's damning as all get out.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Chris Murphy. I'd recommend reading the article, as it is kind of represented a tipping point in how we got to today's events.

Yeah, thanks. I read it. Is this all there is? The article is saying that the Trump admin was holding financial aid to Ukraine for a week. It's also saying that Trump was asking Ukraine's President Zelensky to investigate corruption. However, there needs to be some evidence that links these two things, something that shows they're connected and related to Biden--that Trump was holding back funds in order to directly pressure Zelensky to investigate corruption, and to expose Biden specifically.

The article says, "Trump’s order to withhold aid to Ukraine a week before his July 25 call with Volodymyr Zelensky is likely to raise questions about the motivation for his decision and fuel suspicions on Capitol Hill that Trump sought to leverage congressionally approved aid to damage a political rival." Okay, but that's just speculation on the author's part. Besides, the story on Hunter Biden was old news.

The article is questioning Trump's motive, and is insinuating that Trump might have been pressuring Ukraine to investigate and expose Biden, but the Dems need evidence that this is the case and not just a WaPo writer's innuendo. Things like "raising questions" and "fueling suspicions" make a weak case.

Who is this whistle-blower?

 

[Zombie]

Yeah, thanks. I read it. Is this all there is? The article is saying that the Trump admin was holding financial aid to Ukraine for a week. It's also saying that Trump was asking Ukraine's President Zelensky to investigate corruption. However, there needs to be some evidence that links these two things, something that shows they're connected and related to Biden--that Trump was holding back funds in order to directly pressure Zelensky to investigate corruption, and to expose Biden specifically.

The article says, "Trump’s order to withhold aid to Ukraine a week before his July 25 call with Volodymyr Zelensky is likely to raise questions about the motivation for his decision and fuel suspicions on Capitol Hill that Trump sought to leverage congressionally approved aid to damage a political rival." Okay, but that's just speculation on the author's part.

The article is questioning Trump's motive, and is insinuating that Trump might have been pressuring Ukraine to investigate and expose Biden, but the Dems need evidence that this is the case and not just a WaPo writer's innuendo. Things like "raising questions" and "fueling suspicions" make a weak case.

Who is this whistle-blower?

Some people find Trump's insistence on another country investigating his political rivals under the guise of fighting corruption something worth getting upset about.

I understand you don't find yourself in that camp, but that alone is impeachable.

I mean look, Trump's campaign lawyer Rudy Giuliani was going rogue, undermining our Ambassadors and State Dept for the benefit of, in his words, "My client." It seems like you are saying that all this is fine as long as there isn't a clear and obvious example of Trump asking for a quid pro quo. Trump is dumb, but I don't think even he is that dumb.

You are right about one thing, we need more answers. Thankfully the Democrats have finally begun a formal impeachment inquiry which should provide us with some.

 

[silesian]

From the Ukrainian Foreign Minister:

“I know what the conversation was about and I think there was no pressure,” Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko told the Hromadske media outlet. "There was talk, conversations are different, leaders have the right to discuss any problems that exist. This conversation was long, friendly, and it touched on many questions, sometimes requiring serious answers."

Another in a long series of nothing burgers.

The FM said absolutely nothing of substance. “I think there was no pressure”.

If that is your defense, keep grasping.

 

[silesian]

I'd be a lot more impressed if the whistle blower had actually been in on the call. Instead he was apparently given a second-hand impression of it, and that is the basis of impeachment proceedings. Wow.

You don’t know that. This is from Fox News:

“It's unclear if the individual read a transcript of the call, heard about it in conversation, or learned of it another way”.

 

[silesian]

Can you think of a more tragic American story than Giuliani’s. The guy went from the most admired and respected mayor to total brain dead corrupt trash.

Shakespeare would have a field day with his story. Pretty sad I used to like the dude.

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Some people find Trump's insistence on another country investigating his political rivals under the guise of fighting corruption something worth getting upset about.

Yeah, but is that what happened? You need evidence. Where does the word "insistence" originate from? Is that your term? Because it sounds as though the U.S. has already sent the financial aid to Ukraine prior to the fiscal-year deadline.

I understand you don't find yourself in that camp, but that alone is impeachable.

If a real crime was committed, then that is, of course, impeachable. When Nixon was impeached, it was because a burglary took place. That's a crime. There was no dispute about it. Then it was eventually shown that Nixon was party to it. Then Nixon resigned.

But having a conversation with a foreign leader about corruption during a phone call isn't going to get Trump or anyone else impeached. That actually sounds noble. At least with the Mueller probe, there were Russian agents that allegedly hacked into servers.

The Dems need a crime, a real and undeniable cause of action, or this is going to come up empty.

 

[fishonjazz]

Yeah, but is that what happened? You need evidence. Where does the word "insistence" originate from? Is that your term? Because it sounds as though the U.S. has already sent the financial aid to Ukraine prior to the fiscal-year deadline.



If a real crime was committed, then that is, of course, impeachable. When Nixon was impeached, it was because a burglary took place. That's a crime. There was no dispute about it. Then it was eventually shown that Nixon was party to it. Then Nixon resigned.

But having a conversation with a foreign leader about corruption during a phone call isn't going to get Trump or anyone else impeached. That actually sounds noble. At least with the Mueller probe, there were Russian agents that allegedly hacked into servers.

The Dems need a crime, a real and undeniable cause of action, or this is going to come up empty.

Well as far as having to commit a crime to be impeached goes, I think the meuller report (and a **** load of lawyers) said that Trump obstructed justice which is a crime and what Clinton was impeached for. So there's that

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Ferguson_Mellochill]

Well as far as having to commit a crime to be impeached goes, I think the meuller report (and a **** load of lawyers) said that Trump obstructed justice which is a crime and what Clinton was impeached for. So there's that

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Whether Trump really obstructed justice during the Mueller investigation is subject to legal interpretation and the standard that Trump is being held to. He wanted to have Mueller fired on an investigation where there was no underlying criminality on his part. It was supposed to be a collusion/conspiracy investigation. Mueller avoided making a judgement on the question of obstruction, and so far, Nadler's Judiciary Committee hearings on obstruction have been getting nowhere. The Dems know can't hang their impeachment hopes on Mueller, especially when Attorney General Barr can expose how the FBI investigation came about in the first place.

The whistle-blower in this Ukraine so-called scandal had better have something pretty solid, or all this is going to do is embarrass Joe Biden and the Dems.

 

[Zombie]

Yeah, but is that what happened? You need evidence. Where does the word "insistence" originate from? Is that your term? Because it sounds as though the U.S. has already sent the financial aid to Ukraine prior to the fiscal-year deadline.



If a real crime was committed, then that is, of course, impeachable. When Nixon was impeached, it was because a burglary took place. That's a crime. There was no dispute about it. Then it was eventually shown that Nixon was party to it. Then Nixon resigned.

But having a conversation with a foreign leader about corruption during a phone call isn't going to get Trump or anyone else impeached. That actually sounds noble. At least with the Mueller probe, there were Russian agents that allegedly hacked into servers.

The Dems need a crime, a real and undeniable cause of action, or this is going to come up empty.

It's been reported from a variety of outlets that he wanted Ukraine to reopen investigations into Biden and his son. He did this via Giuliani, an Ambassador to Ukraine, and personally on a phone call with the President of Ukraine. This took place over the course of months. Again, this alone, disregarding the defense aid to Ukraine is illegal and worthy of impeachment. It's not "noble" to send your lawyer to try to persuade foreign governments to dig up dirt on your political adversaries. This is a pretty obvious abuse of power.

As for the money he did send it eventually. But he did withhold it for some time, until about a week before his call with Zelensky. Interestingly he never gave McConnell a reason for why he was directing his chief of staff to hold up the payment, and has since given seemingly contradictory explanations for it.

You are right that Nixon was found to have been party to a crime, but criminal behavior in the White House isn't actually the standard for impeachment. There are a whole litany of ways the President can abuse the powers of his office without actually running afoul of the law.

In any case, beginning impeachment proceedings is the first step in the investigation. If we already knew he was guilty and worthy of removal there wouldn't be a need for investigative congressional committees and hearings etc. This was true of Nixon as well. There was a suspicion of wrong doing by the President and it took months of impeachment hearings to get to the truth.