House set to begin formal impeachment hearings

[Bitek]

Any guesses who else Trump has been calling trying to strongarm into helping him rig the 2020 election?

I wouldn't trust MBS/Saudis as far as I could kick them...

Having Modi show up for a rally in Houston seemed rather odd. Jr has been very busy in India trying to sell shitty condos...

Bibi is corrupt as hell, but you will think the Israelis would be smart and stay out of it, but you never know these days...

And what's his old pal Putie up to these days?

 

[Puffnstuff]

Do you guys reckon that Trumpster will shutdown the government over this?

 

[ch33zw1z]

Do you guys reckon that Trumpster will shutdown the government over this?

I reckon the limits of our system of government will be stretched more than they already are.

That may just include more battles over day to day operations of government.

If you think the last 4 years of lies and obfuscations were over the top, well...b-b-b-baby, you ain't seen nothin' yet.

 

[ivwshane]

Do you guys reckon that Trumpster will shutdown the government over this?

I expect massive amounts of spin coming from Republicans to blame anything and everything on this process.
Can't fix health care- it's because Democrats are involved in a witch hunt.
Can't balance the budget- it's because Democrats are still butt hurt about the 2016 election.
Can't get immigration reform- it's because Democrats

Well hopefully Democrats can counter with a simple, "we've already addressed those issues and passed bills in the house and we are waiting for the senate to do something".

 

[sportage]

Frankly, what can congressional republicans say?
So far they have reacted with WTF, and more of WTF.
Others say they will wait for the transcript, but they are not stupid per-se. They may not admit it in public but they know this president. They know what a crackpot this president is. Republicans in congress are simply afraid to cross this president or make him mad or god forbid draw his attention.
They know that Donald Trump has snitches, spies, and should Trump hear a discouraging word from any republican House Rep or any republican state Senator, they'd be toast. Trump would primary every one of them in a New York minute.
That is the power forcing republicans to fall in line. They don't like this president nor do they like his in-bread family. All they know is that they fear Donald Trump and find him very scary.
Just imagine the number of republicans in the house and senate that in private proclaimed a big YES when the news of impeachment was announced.
Oh happy day.

 

[outriding]

waiiiiiiit....aren't you that concerned dude that started that thread yesterday (or today, was it? lolwtf), explicitly about how this very issue is very specifically "no-fooling-seriously-concerned here fellas," "something must be done!"

and then here you are, poo-pooing the exact necessary next step in receiving full, unrestricted access to all evidence, and you're turning tail and flipping your nose at it? "Ho Ho! You went and made it a circus, gents! Ain't no I shall allow you continued possession of that 12 hours of sympathy that you had from me! Ho--Ho, I Say!"

thefuckiswrongwithyou?

The new talking points came out so he has to follow those now

 

[HomerJS]

We've seen this movie before. Ignore the Democrat and his son and go after the Republican.

But we all know in the end, the dems will just get another helping of:

View attachment 11221

Your Orange God already ADMITTED to breaking the law. Now it will be decided if impeachable.

 

[HomerJS]

Frankly, what can congressional republicans say?
So far they have reacted with WTF, and more of WTF.
Others say they will wait for the transcript, but they are not stupid per-se. They may not admit it in public but they know this president. They know what a crackpot this president is. Republicans in congress are simply afraid to cross this president or make him mad or god forbid draw his attention.
They know that Donald Trump has snitches, spies, and should Trump hear a discouraging word from any republican House Rep or any republican state Senator, they'd be toast. Trump would primary every one of them in a New York minute.
That is the power forcing republicans to fall in line. They don't like this president nor do they like his in-bread family. All they know is that they fear Donald Trump and find him very scary.
Just imagine the number of republicans in the house and senate that in private proclaimed a big YES when the news of impeachment was announced.
Oh happy day.

They have already begun by call unnamed person the "so called" whistle blower". They are trying to call it a leak.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

if trump hands over the report, repubs will say impeachment is no longer needed?

They could and will likely do just that. The problem for Trump

Did Trump indicate when he would release a transcript of the conversation that kicked this off? Since that's going to be the central piece of evidence, I'd like to read it.

I'd like to read the transcript, but then I'd like to read many unredacted things which ought to be. We really don't know precisely what went down nor exact chronological order, however, Trump confessed on-air and that was the tipping point I believe. Now it's a matter of obtaining the facts without obstruction beneath the surface and those are the things I'm most interested in. As we have reached an official inquiry, subpoenas will have more gravity and consequence for those who defy them, just ask the Plumbers.

This is the crack in Trump's shell and it will be peeled back piece by piece.

 

[interchange]

There is a lot of reported information right now that may be incorrect. Now there is reporting that the whistleblower did not have direct knowledge of the phone call but the substance of his report was based on many other actions. Previously there was report that there were multiple phone calls. I am not sure if Trump's promise to release the transcript is similar to his promise to release his taxes, be interviewed by Mueller, etc. or if the transcript will be complete and unedited, or if the transcript represents only one call among many, etc.

What I worry is that right now Trump and team can set the narrative that this event has to do with one phone call and release the transcript and keep pushing this narrative to keep other information out. It has worked before. It's entirely possible that some of the reporting putting in this direction was strategic.

One thing seems sure. Rudy Giuliani is part of this. To a rational observer, a non government individual conducting foreign policy personally for the President intentionally cutting out those in the administration with a stake in this is in itself about 90% there to ending Trump.

 

[ewdotson]

Yup. I have the strong impression as well that there's probably more to the whistleblower complaint than the phone call in question. The Dems investigating this danged well better not let the administration seize control of the narrative and drive it to places it shouldn't go.

 

[Puffnstuff]

Your Orange God already ADMITTED to breaking the law. Now it will be decided if impeachable.

Cat is just like my parents and most other R's I encounter when it comes to confirmation biases surrounding his party as they can do no wrong no matter how much evidence you place before them.

 

[dank69]

Yup. I have the strong impression as well that there's probably more to the whistleblower complaint than the phone call in question. The Dems investigating this danged well better not let the administration seize control of the narrative and drive it to places it shouldn't go.

There will be evidence that Trump did not just ask them to investigate Biden but that he also pressured them to manufacture evidence against Biden.

 

[Greenman]

They could and will likely do just that. The problem for Trump


I'd like to read the transcript, but then I'd like to read many unredacted things which ought to be. We really don't know precisely what went down nor exact chronological order, however, Trump confessed on-air and that was the tipping point I believe. Now it's a matter of obtaining the facts without obstruction beneath the surface and those are the things I'm most interested in. As we have reached an official inquiry, subpoenas will have more gravity and consequence for those who defy them, just ask the Plumbers.

This is the crack in Trump's shell and it will be peeled back piece by piece.

You do understand that what Trump did could be completely legal, depending on how the request was made and exactly what was said? Context is everything. That's why I want to know exactly what was said and how it was phrased. So far, it's entirely speculation and hearsay

 

[feralkid]

That WaPo piece is a really good, thorough explanation of the narrative that has emerged based on the so far known facts. The notion that Rudy Giuliani was essentially making and implementing our US/Ukraine policy for several months is frightening. As is the fact that the White House could cut aid for Ukraine and leave the State Department and all other agencies outside the White House totally in the dark about why they had done it. I guaranty you that if there was no explicit quid pro quo in Trump's conversation, there was one way or another through Giuliani.

What's crucial here is how much of this can be proven with admissible evidence at a Congressional hearing.

What are the terms and conditions of your guaranty?

 

[dank69]

You do understand that what Trump did could be completely legal, depending on how the request was made and exactly what was said? Context is everything.

Except the IG that Trump hired determined the exact opposite. So you might as well speculate that Trump could read above an early high-school level.

That's why I want to know exactly what was said and how it was phrased. So far, it's entirely speculation and hearsay

Since the IG determined this to be both credible and urgent, your attempt to paint everything as speculation is false.

 

[fskimospy]

You do understand that what Trump did could be completely legal, depending on how the request was made and exactly what was said? Context is everything. That's why I want to know exactly what was said and how it was phrased. So far, it's entirely speculation and hearsay

I do not. Please tell me under what context the president and his personal attorney pressuring a foreign country to re-open an investigation it already determined had no merit would be an appropriate use of power.

Again, make up any context you want. Use your imagination! I've got a one- Trump is being held hostage and that's the agreed upon phrase to communicate that to the Secret Service. Other than that I'm tapped out, do you have any ideas?

 

[fskimospy]

Guys we just need context:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1176685670141763585

Oops.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You do understand that what Trump did could be completely legal, depending on how the request was made and exactly what was said? Context is everything. That's why I want to know exactly what was said and how it was phrased. So far, it's entirely speculation and hearsay

And how are you going to know (not trust) that you will have access? Put that in the context that Trump wants to redact the whistleblower report, which is tantamount to withholding evidence? Nixon wasn't that dirty or stupid.

What Trump has always released has been massaged in his favor with needless redactions being the norm.

What we really need is for the whistleblower to testify in a SCIF lest he or she will have a big target painted on their back, and then a PROPERLY redacted report issued to provide at least some protection for the individual. Testifying against Trump is tantamount to doing so with the Godfather, and while I don't think for an instant that Trump would put a hit against this person, someone will be happy to do it gratis.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Guys we just need context:

https://twitter.com/x/status/1176685670141763585

Oops.

Not a legal expert-

While I understand the implications and agree with them, who is on the hook for this statement from a legal perspective? Can Rudy himself be prosecuted? Is Trump on the hook of he says "I did not authorize that" (worked for Ronnie R)?

I get what it means, but what are the official legal consequences? Of course, an impeachment inquiry does not need to take into account criminal activity but what is done and what was behind it, but I'm thinking potential jail time for someone.

 

[dank69]

Not a legal expert-

While I understand the implications and agree with them, who is on the hook for this statement from a legal perspective? Can Rudy himself be prosecuted? Is Trump on the hook of he says "I did not authorize that" (worked for Ronnie R)?

I get what it means, but what are the official legal consequences? Of course, an impeachment inquiry does not need to take into account criminal activity but what is done and what was behind it, but I'm thinking potential jail time for someone.

lol pardon

 

[fskimospy]

Not a legal expert-

While I understand the implications and agree with them, who is on the hook for this statement from a legal perspective? Can Rudy himself be prosecuted? Is Trump on the hook of he says "I did not authorize that" (worked for Ronnie R)?

I get what it means, but what are the official legal consequences? Of course, an impeachment inquiry does not need to take into account criminal activity but what is done and what was behind it, but I'm thinking potential jail time for someone.

Here's an article on the one or more felonies Giuliani may have committed. Also while the idea is prepostrous that Giuliani decided to visit Ukraine to talk to its leaders on his own it doesn't matter because he already confessed that he did so at Trump's behest. What would save Trump is not that he hasn't committed more felonies, it's that he's the president and apparently it's fine for the president to commit felonies now.

Opinion | Trump won't be prosecuted for extorting and bribing Ukraine — but Rudy Giuliani can

While Attorney General William Barr has made it clear that he will not prosecute Trump due to current DOJ policy, Giuliani enjoys no such privilege or immunity.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[VRAMdemon]

I understand why this must be done, BUT still impeachment is very unpopular according to polls and this could backfire.

if you don't start impeachment proceedings because of what Trump did with the Ukraine, you set a dangerous precedent that would allow future presidents to do the same (if not worse) and know there are no repercussions. Even if you know impeachment won't happen (because the other guys run the Senate) there has to be a record of you trying. Who knows, Mitch McConnell might actually find a spine inside his slimy bag of endoplasm.

Trump's fans will have no trouble dismissing the reason for the House moving to impeachment proceedings. They will "know" it's a nothingburger and a partisan hack job. They won't even question.

The vast un-involved mass of 'checked-out' Americans might be more likely to see this as not being to Trump's credit -- if they ever hear about it.

Call me cynical, and I know this opinion will not be popular here... But unless McConnell and the senate Republicans grow a spine, the only hope, now, of escaping Trump term version 2 is to hold off the vote - hold off sending this to the Senate. Because once the vote is taken and the Senate acquits, there will be no more investigation. There will be no more chance to 'explain to the American people' Trump's crimes.

The pressure to hold the vote NOW will be relentless. "Don't you have enough information to vote articles of impeachment? What's wrong with you? What more do you need?" this is the new drumbeat. It will be inescapable. It will play without ceasing, day and night, for months to come. Hopefully, they don't waste the hearings grandstanding and preening for the cameras, and instead have someone like Barry Berke, the attorney who pigeonholed Lewandowski, take the lead

Hold the line, Democrats. Keep on with the hearings; let us know about your court filings; go on calling for more investigation. In other words: Benghazi him to death.

 

[Greenman]

I do not. Please tell me under what context the president and his personal attorney pressuring a foreign country to re-open an investigation it already determined had no merit would be an appropriate use of power.

Again, make up any context you want. Use your imagination! I've got a one- Trump is being held hostage and that's the agreed upon phrase to communicate that to the Secret Service. Other than that I'm tapped out, do you have any ideas?

Remove the word "pressuring", add the phrase "requesting in light of new evidence". That gives Trump plausible deniability.
The difference between you and I is that you're convinced of Trump's guilt before knowing the story. I'd like to know the complete story before making that determination. We just went through this with the Russian collusion investigation. You fellows all had Trump in front of a firing squad for treason, where did that end up?

 

[dank69]

... We just went through this with the Russian collusion investigation. You fellows all had Trump in front of a firing squad for treason, where did that end up?

Still being blocked by Trump's DOJ?