Public Trump Impeachment Hearing Mega Thread

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So basically, you can either believe the people who were willing to be sworn in and testify, or you can believe the narrative spouted by the right, with no sworn testimony or evidence to counteract what has been presented.

This. How do other people not see this?

[Anonymous]

If a president cannot be removed for shaking down an ally in the midst of a hot war for personal gain and then obstructing the investigation of the same action, then what is the use of our Constitution?

We would have an autocrat who is not beholden to the law, to the Constitution, and frankly, to anyone.

Is that what we want?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically, you can either believe the people who were willing to be sworn in and testify, or you can believe the narrative spouted by the right, with no sworn testimony or evidence to counteract what has been presented.

This. How do other people not see this?

Because they don’t want to. Or are too ignorant to see it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For the people saying Democrats having been "looking" for a reason to impeach -- they haven't had to look too hard (but note they didn't have the House until last year):

- Before November 2016 Trump campaign met with Russia under the auspices of finding "dirt" on Trump's opponent, before we knew this we saw him "jokingly" solicit their interference Not what he's being impeached for
- He used and continues to use his hotel(s) as places for foreign leaders to stay and hold events Not what he's being impeached for
- He used and continues to use taxpayer money to create revenue for his businesses from which he has not divested/followed the terms of his alleged divestment, through his golf trips, government events at his properties, making the Secret Service rent golf carts, and so on Not what he's being impeached for
- His "being mean" to judges as PP mentioned was actually public calling out of judicial decisions and an utter disregard for separation of powers Not what he's being impeached for
- He had inappropriate relationship(s) with agencies that are supposedly independent, such as DOJ and FBI Not what he's being impeached for
- He fired the former FBI director for not ignoring the actions of Michael Flynn, an act to which he admitted publicly on a tv interview Not what he's being impeached for
- He publicly made attempts to intimidate witnesses going before Congress and as key witnesses Grand Jury investigations Not what he's being impeached for

and rounded all that out with an attempt to extort the Ukrainian president into investigating his newly announced political opponent, conditioned on -- and only on -- the announcement of said investigation to the media.

Am I missing anything? What else do you need?

See above in bold

DP, but these are all things Trump *could* be impeached for. The democrats are being strategic in keeping these articles very tight as it relates solely to Ukraine. It keep Mueller, Emoluments and everything else out of the water. It is hard to throw dirt at it because the testimony and texts/documents are solid evidence against the Administration. If Trump had anything that could clear him, he would have used it. If there was anyone who could testify in his defense, they would have come forward. They didn't, so the record is what it is, no material facts are challenged, and it is open an shut. The GOP can choose to ignore it, but it will send the signal that any future presidents, assuming there are any after this one, won't have to answer subpeonas, won't have a co-equal branch of government and is pretty much above the law.

I am hard pressed to understand on the face of it why anyone would support that, but my only presumption is, the GOP is making a sprint to full authoritarianism in an effort to subjugate non-Trump cultists to second class status for generations to come.

Trump might get a second term. But he won’t get to go beyond that. Regardless of what he might say. Republicans won’t want to lose all their power in Congress. They are aiming to remake the judiciary and are willing to put up with Trump in order to do that, but they won’t compromise their power in the long run by enabling him to “serve” a third term. Getting him a third term would probably undermine them permanently. By contrast, they seem to mistakenly believe that when the next Democratic president is elected they will be able to assert their authority to avoid Executive overreach despite having undermined themselves now with President Cheetoh.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically, you can either believe the people who were willing to be sworn in and testify, or you can believe the narrative spouted by the right, with no sworn testimony or evidence to counteract what has been presented.

This. How do other people not see this?

I see that one has to prove guilt, and the Democrats have fallen far short of that.

[Anonymous]

On one hand, Democrats called President Trump “a continuing threat to our democracy and national security.” On the other, they said he is a trustworthy partner in consummating the grandest trade deal the United States has ever negotiated.

Only political

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically, you can either believe the people who were willing to be sworn in and testify, or you can believe the narrative spouted by the right, with no sworn testimony or evidence to counteract what has been presented.

This. How do other people not see this?

I see that one has to prove guilt, and the Democrats have fallen far short of that.

You can't get around obstruction.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On one hand, Democrats called President Trump “a continuing threat to our democracy and national security.” On the other, they said he is a trustworthy partner in consummating the grandest trade deal the United States has ever negotiated.

Only political

Huh?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:On one hand, Democrats called President Trump “a continuing threat to our democracy and national security.” On the other, they said he is a trustworthy partner in consummating the grandest trade deal the United States has ever negotiated.

Only political

The vote was hysterical to me:

"We know we are impeaching as a political tool, but we also know that swing states don't approve, so let's vote on this trade issue so we can try to fool the American people into thinking we aren't the hateful souls we are - oh, and to be sure that our Dems in Trump territory feel comfortable to vote"

It's the most transparent vote in history.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On one hand, Democrats called President Trump “a continuing threat to our democracy and national security.” On the other, they said he is a trustworthy partner in consummating the grandest trade deal the United States has ever negotiated.

Only political

Huh?

USCMA. Largest trade deal in the history of the US that the House just signed off on. #Winning.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On one hand, Democrats called President Trump “a continuing threat to our democracy and national security.” On the other, they said he is a trustworthy partner in consummating the grandest trade deal the United States has ever negotiated.

Only political

Huh?

USCMA. Largest trade deal in the history of the US that the House just signed off on. #Winning.

Good I’m glad NAFTA 2.0 finally got resolved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically, you can either believe the people who were willing to be sworn in and testify, or you can believe the narrative spouted by the right, with no sworn testimony or evidence to counteract what has been presented.

This. How do other people not see this?

I see that one has to prove guilt, and the Democrats have fallen far short of that.

Wrong, there is sworn testimony with emails, texts and markers of actual events to confirm the testimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically, you can either believe the people who were willing to be sworn in and testify, or you can believe the narrative spouted by the right, with no sworn testimony or evidence to counteract what has been presented.

This. How do other people not see this?

I see that one has to prove guilt, and the Democrats have fallen far short of that.

All the coconspirators have admitted it and some of them are still doing it now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:On one hand, Democrats called President Trump “a continuing threat to our democracy and national security.” On the other, they said he is a trustworthy partner in consummating the grandest trade deal the United States has ever negotiated.

Only political

Huh?

USCMA. Largest trade deal in the history of the US that the House just signed off on. #Winning.

Good I’m glad NAFTA 2.0 finally got resolved.

Yes. They didn’t negotiate a new trade agreement. They negotiated a few tweaks and a new name for NAFTA.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So basically, you can either believe the people who were willing to be sworn in and testify, or you can believe the narrative spouted by the right, with no sworn testimony or evidence to counteract what has been presented.

This. How do other people not see this?

I see that one has to prove guilt, and the Democrats have fallen far short of that.

Wrong, there is sworn testimony with emails, texts and markers of actual events to confirm the testimony.

This.