When will Trump be impeached? -2019 Better late than never- Congratulations!

Oh, and as of September, he was the subject of 10 federal criminal investigations and 8 state and local ones.

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/05/13/us/politics/trump-investigations.html

But all this can be explained away by the simple fact that all these different law enforcement bodies, in separate jurisdictions, are "establishment". Peter Strzok controls them all, via text message.

I don't remember Trump promising to be a corrupt criminal or a complete ****** moron.

What crime was he charged with?

Cough Trump University,  Donald J. Trump Foundation, campaign finance violations (yet to be indicted). The net is closing on Rudy G pretty fast too, finally.

Crimes, not civil liability.

I don't remember Trump promising to be a corrupt criminal or a complete ****** moron.

What crime was he charged with?

Cough Trump University,  Donald J. Trump Foundation, campaign finance violations (yet to be indicted). The net is closing on Rudy G pretty fast too, finally.

Crimes, not civil liability.

Yeah good point :/ 

Some would say those two defunct organizations acted criminally, but luckily for Trump stealing money is only a crime when you use a gun.

A judge Thursday ordered President Donald Trump to pay $2 million to settle a suit by New York’s attorney general alleging he misused his Trump Foundation charity to benefit his 2016 presidential campaign, in addition to other unlawful activity over more than a decade.

https://www.cnbc.com/2019/11/07/trump-ordered-to-pay-2-million-to-settle-trump-foundation-suit.html

yeah because the FBI did no damage to the clinton campaign... /s. and obviously the FBI is establishment. but if you aren't aware it has historically been a right-leaning institution that has done much more to prevent the uprising of left-wing radicals than right-wing radicals (despite both being "against the establishment")

Yes, FBI has been historically been right-wing. But there was the Cold War consensus where Dems like Truman, JFK, and LBJ relied on the FBI and let Hoover do his thing. Post Cold War under Clinton and later Obama the new consensus arose. See the closeness of the Bushes and the Clintons. The only difference between them were "guns and gays". Economically they were very similar. Foreign policy wise they were virtually identical. The money and power flowed constantly.

Comey's announcement was a limp attempt to appear nonpartisan. No charges. Do you think anyone in Trumpworld could get away with deleting emails AFTER getting a subpoena like Clinton did? Was his finding on Clinton factually inaccurate? Nope.

As far as obstruction, the Dems could have appealed to SCOTUS to compel testimony. They didn't. It's a flimsy charge that isn't even criminal. If a Republican House demanded a buncb of Dem President testimony and a Dem President refused, would that be obstruction? No.

Fortunately, no one else has ever put someone on a board or, say, a cabinet, who knew "eff all" about their portfolio.  Betsy deVos, for instance, worked tirelessly throughout her adulthood to be involved in improving public educ--oh, she didn't?  She constantly advocated for private school at the expense of public education? Nevermind.  Well, that former Texas governor, Rick Perry, he was a specialist on nuclear power and never thought a government agency was more critical to our secur--what's that? He wanted it dismantled, could even think of the name of it, and thought when he took the job it was to be a cheerleader for oil sales? Oh, sorry. 

No argument here on some of his shambolic appointments.

Not gonna defend the FBI--which surely is what any conservative would do in any other situation in the universe--but you do know dozens of people, and a big handful of Trump cronies, have been indicted, and/or found guilty and jailed, right?  Why does Trump hang with so many criminals?  That doesn't bother you nearly as much as some shady paperwork or cut corners.

Only Manafort did anything big. Maybe Roger Stone. None of it was related to Trump and did not involve any conspiracy. Trump fired Manafort. If the same kind of investigation and standards were applied to any other candidate/administration, you'd get a handful of criminals too.

Also, it looks like Flynn might have been the victim of serious ethical lapses by the FBI regarding the alteration of notes and testimony.

Finally, it looks like either Brennan or Comey perjured themselves when testifying about the Steele dossier's origin. One says it was the CIA, the other says the FBI.

https://news.google.com/articles/CBMiUGh0dHBzOi8vd3d3LmNubi5jb20vMjAxOS8xMi8yMC9wb2xpdGljcy9pbXBlYWNobWVudC13YXRjaC1kZWNlbWJlci0xOS9pbmRleC5odG1s0gFUaHR0cHM6Ly9hbXAuY25uLmNvbS9jbm4vMjAxOS8xMi8yMC9wb2xpdGljcy9pbXBlYWNobWVudC13YXRjaC1kZWNlbWJlci0xOS9pbmRleC5odG1s?hl=en-US&gl=US&ceid=US%3Aen

Looks like dnc wants biden to win by making warren and sanders be in attendance during the final push and possibly into the actual election period.

Saw a decent comment BTL about the narrative of the 'divide' in the US.

I'm so sick of hearing about the "partisan divide" both-sides nonsense. That's like saying France was divided between the Nazi occupiers and the resistance. One MAN and one PARTY are responsible for our current political woes right now--Trump and the Republicans. The rest of us are just aghast and trying our best to keep our democracy intact.
This isn't some silly red and blue football game.

Seems to sum it up perfectly. 

Saw a decent comment BTL about the narrative of the 'divide' in the US.

I'm so sick of hearing about the "partisan divide" both-sides nonsense. That's like saying France was divided between the Nazi occupiers and the resistance. One MAN and one PARTY are responsible for our current political woes right now--Trump and the Republicans. The rest of us are just aghast and trying our best to keep our democracy intact.
This isn't some silly red and blue football game.

Seems to sum it up perfectly. 

Is this quote a joke or this poster really that crazy wearing a tin foil hat? 

Seriously, this is the most ludicrous thing I've read on this site.

The Democrat and Republican parties share way more similarities with each other than the average citizen shares with them.  The average citizen is more likely to share commonality with an average citizen from another country than it would with their own government.

There is only one difference between the Democratic and Republican parties and that's Democrats don't mind sharing a little bit of wealth with the poor to keep them in power.  They are both atrocious through and through and  RO has typical bipartisan blinders on if  he can't' comprehend that.  They are both sleazes and to say one is worse than the other is like trying to compare lung cancer and stomach cancer.  They will both kill you.

FYI, Trump has as of yet not been impeached and won’t be until 2020 at the earliest.

FYI, Trump has as of yet not been impeached and won’t be until 2020 at the earliest.

He was impeached yesterday. His Senate trial for removal from office will begin in 2020.

Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body levels charges against a government official. Impeachment does not in itself remove the official definitively from office; it is similar to an indictment in criminal law, and thus it is essentially the statement of charges against the official. Whereas in some countries the individual is provisionally removed, in others they can remain in office during the trial. Once an individual is impeached, they must then face the possibility of conviction on the charges by a legislative vote, which is separate from the impeachment, but flows from it, and a judgment which convicts the official on the articles of impeachment entails the official's definitive removal from office.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeachment

What are the chances he will get the boot though? From what I have read the chances are pretty slim.

While I think he shoots his mouth off too much, I do support what he is doing to China, they have been ripping off the US for too long.

Unfortunately, he's not getting anywhere with China and trade. He backed off tariffs because he didn't want prices to go up for Christmas shopping and then because he's afraid of spooking the market. "Phase One' only takes things back to where they were when dishonest don started all this. And after shelling out $10 billion to US farmers.

When it comes to war, trump is no US Grant.

What are the chances he will get the boot though? From what I have read the chances are pretty slim.

While I think he shoots his mouth off too much, I do support what he is doing to China, they have been ripping off the US for too long.

Unfortunately, he's not getting anywhere with China and trade. He backed off tariffs because he didn't want prices to go up for Christmas shopping and then because he's afraid of spooking the market. "Phase One' only takes things back to where they were when dishonest don started all this. And after shelling out $10 billion to US farmers.

When it comes to war, trump is no US Grant.

Ivanka's business is doing fine with China. You can bet that Jared is fishing around for some Chinese loans to go with his Saudi ones.

The impeachment joke perpetrated by the moronic democrats is the best thing that has ever happened to Trump. It virtually guarantees his win in 2020.

Man, democrats are dumb. They can't even agree on a candidate. I love sitting around and watching them attack each other while Trump watches their castle burn.

Trump 2020...making America even greater.

The impeachment joke perpetrated by the moronic democrats is the best thing that has ever happened to Trump. It virtually guarantees his win in 2020.

Man, democrats are dumb. They can't even agree on a candidate. I love sitting around and watching them attack each other while Trump watches their castle burn.

Trump 2020...making America even greater.

Yeah because the gop never has primaries.

Looks like dnc wants biden to win by making warren and sanders be in attendance during the final push and possibly into the actual election period.

Lol. Further proof of this imploding on the Dems. If they delay, they make this look more and more like a political stunt and less and less like a serious issue and Trump wins. If it goes to trial now, it'll be over and done with in a day and Trump wins.

Meanwhile, if this really does keep Sanders, Warren and...Klobuchar? away from the campaign trail, and this suspicion of it being a stunt by Pelosi to hurt Bernie festers, then the Dems will tear each other apart. Support for impeachment among DEMOCRATS will crash by like 20% and you may even see some red/black-pilling among them.  You think 2016 was bad? Wait until 2020 and you get a contested convention and Sanders supporters again thinking they were cheated.

You know the expression "Two ways to win, no way to lose"? Now Trump has THREE ways to win and no way to lose.

Also, we have a coach's challenge on the ruling on the field- Trump might not be impeached yet. (I mean, whether he has or not, I really don't care. I just think it's funny that whoever had a bet/prediction on this might have it all in dispute and it will never be resolved)
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/20/us/trump-feldman-impeach.html

Also, did you know that Trump is the only President to be impeached without being charged with a crime?

Also, did you know that Trump is the only President to be impeached without being charged with a crime?

You might want to read up on this topic in a bit more depth. Here's a good starting point: https://www.npr.org/2019/12/13/787496291/trump-dismisses-charges-against-him-as-impeachment-lite-is-he-right

On a semi-related note, I have to ask... Martino, why do you seem to have such an aversion to primary sources? It's possible that I'm mistaken, but this thread would strongly suggest that you never read any sections of the Mueller Report with any breadth or depth, since your commentary on the subject is sometimes at categorical odds with the actual content of the report. Similarly, I asked several times if you were paying attention to actual witness testimony in the impeachment investigation and you never responded, only mentioning certain witnesses to cast aspersions on their character or motives. Meanwhile, you've been arguing that Trump's conduct concerning Ukraine and the Bidens was proper, but NorthStar posted a copy of criminal justice treaty that explicitly outlines how the Justice Department should have acted if it had genuine reason to investigate specific criminal activity involving an American in Ukraine. You ignored that, insisting that withholding aid and sending Giuliani to negotiate a CNN announcement about the Bidens was, in fact, the proper means of conduct. Finally, you haven't tried to rebut any of the evidence presented in the 600-odd pages of material that the investigative committees have furnished to make their case for impeachment, focusing instead on fantasy electoral projections.

Using primary sources can help us to establish a common framework for argument. You may not trust the sources, but at the very least, they explain how certain facts become established as a consensus reality. That doesn't mean they can't ever be challenged, but normally such a challenge would require superior evidence. We should at least be able form a common understanding of the basic who, what, when, where, why and how of a situation. The impeachment investigation's primary sources present a much more convincing case than anything presented by Trump and his defenders, which consist mainly of deflections, obfuscations and unsubstantiated accusations. They have had ample opportunity to counter with better evidence and have balked or failed every time.

So, do you ever ask yourself, "Why am I so unwilling to look at the evidence? Why am I taking my talking points from Louis Gohmert and Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz instead of trying to seriously engage with the mountain of material supporting the idea that Trump violated the Constitution?"

If I had to guess, I would say that living outside the consensus reality makes you feel rebellious, someone who's outsmarted the normies and their establishment masters. To that, I would just ask, do you ever wonder if getting in line with Mitch McConnell, the Republican National Committee and the army of wealthy lawyers and hereditary millionaires who finance them is really the rebellious stance you think it is.

Also, did you know that Trump is the only President to be impeached without being charged with a crime?

You might want to read up on this topic in a bit more depth. Here's a good starting point: https://www.npr.org/2019/12/13/787496291/trump-dismisses-charges-against-him-as-impeachment-lite-is-he-right

On a semi-related note, I have to ask... Martino, why do you seem to have such an aversion to primary sources? It's possible that I'm mistaken, but this thread would strongly suggest that you never read any sections of the Mueller Report with any breadth or depth, since your commentary on the subject is sometimes at categorical odds with the actual content of the report. Similarly, I asked several times if you were paying attention to actual witness testimony in the impeachment investigation and you never responded, only mentioning certain witnesses to cast aspersions on their character or motives. Meanwhile, you've been arguing that Trump's conduct concerning Ukraine and the Bidens was proper, but NorthStar posted a copy of criminal justice treaty that explicitly outlines how the Justice Department should have acted if it had genuine reason to investigate specific criminal activity involving an American in Ukraine. You ignored that, insisting that withholding aid and sending Giuliani to negotiate a CNN announcement about the Bidens was, in fact, the proper means of conduct. Finally, you haven't tried to rebut any of the evidence presented in the 600-odd pages of material that the investigative committees have furnished to make their case for impeachment, focusing instead on fantasy electoral projections.

Using primary sources can help us to establish a common framework for argument. You may not trust the sources, but at the very least, they explain how certain facts become established as a consensus reality. That doesn't mean they can't ever be challenged, but normally such a challenge would require superior evidence. We should at least be able form a common understanding of the basic who, what, when, where, why and how of a situation. The impeachment investigation's primary sources present a much more convincing case than anything presented by Trump and his defenders, which consist mainly of deflections, obfuscations and unsubstantiated accusations. They have had ample opportunity to counter with better evidence and have balked or failed every time.

So, do you ever ask yourself, "Why am I so unwilling to look at the evidence? Why am I taking my talking points from Louis Gohmert and Jim Jordan and Matt Gaetz instead of trying to seriously engage with the mountain of material supporting the idea that Trump violated the Constitution?"

If I had to guess, I would say that living outside the consensus reality makes you feel rebellious, someone who's outsmarted the normies and their establishment masters. To that, I would just ask, do you ever wonder if getting in line with Mitch McConnell, the Republican National Committee and the army of wealthy lawyers and hereditary millionaires who finance them is really the rebellious stance you think it is.

This should be good....

Quid pro quo:

"White House officials requested that aid to Ukraine be held within 90 minutes of President Donald Trump's phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, according to newly obtained documents.

While the Trump administration has yet to release a single document subpoenaed by Congress during its impeachment inquiry of the president, the administration was forced to hand over a second round of communications between two government offices that helped withhold $400 million in military aid to Ukraine.

According to a rough transcript released by the White House, the July 25 call between Trump and Zelenskiy took place between 9:03 and 9:33 a.m.

At 11:04 a.m., an official with the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), Mike Duffey, sent an email to Deputy Secretary of Defense David Norquist, the chief of staff to Defense Secretary Mike Pompeo and the Pentagon's chief financial officer telling them to withhold the aid to Ukraine, the documents showed.

"Based on guidance I have received and in light of the Administration’s plan to review assistance to Ukraine, including the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative, please hold off on any additional DoD obligations of these funds, pending direction from that process," the email from Duffey said, according to the documents.

"Given the sensitive nature of the request, I appreciate your keeping that information closely held to those who need to know to execute direction," Duffey's email stated."

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, trump's efforts at obstruction are being overcome, little by little.

Thanks to the Freedom of Information Act, trump's efforts at obstruction are being overcome, little by little.

The worst GG is none of this matters to the people it should do.  Anyone with half a brain would know all of this already and would have looked at the facts and depositions and realised that trump is guilty as shit.  People like martin don't care about these kinds of facts because if they were to finally admit defeat and say trump is guilty and should be removed it'd make their past three years a waste of time.  How would that look?  Best just to blindly argue nonsensical points until everyone sane just gives up because you can't fix stupid. 

On a semi-related note, I have to ask... Martino, why do you seem to have such an aversion to primary sources?

What primary sources have been cited? Citing a 500 page report without excerpts is ridiculous. Cite the part that you feel makes your case, then we can look through that and the rest of the report for anything pertinent. You've read the entire report and all the documents? Seriously?

Also, when you cite something that is "damning" are you also going to cite not just it, but the counter-arguments and issues raised with it or just a tailored excerpt?

This is a lot like a reverse of Clinton's emails- taking something that might at worst be ethically dubious and then stretching it to the most extreme conclusion to support some horrific allegation.

It's come out that Mueller knew the Steele Dossier was fraudulent prior to publishing his report but chose not to put that in his report. You think that would be important, no? Why not put it in? Establishment hackery.

This "grave and solemn moment" had Dems cheering and taking selfies and they aren't even going to send this over to the Senate. They care more about "Yasss Queen Nancy slay" than anything real.

What primary sources have been cited? Citing a 500 page report without excerpts is ridiculous. Cite the part that you feel makes your case, then we can look through that and the rest of the report for anything pertinent. You've read the entire report and all the documents? Seriously?

In the last few pages of this thread? Witness testimony, a US-UK treaty and communications between key witnesses. You ignored all of them.

Also, when you cite something that is "damning" are you also going to cite not just it, but the counter-arguments and issues raised with it or just a tailored excerpt?

That's the whole point. Counter-arguments should in theory seek to supply superior evidence, not "But Obama" hypotheticals and "This is gonna backfire come election time!" prognostications. Again, where is the evidence that proves Trump and Giuliani didn't concoct a goofy scheme to smear Joe Biden. Virtually everything entered onto the record shows them doing exactly this. Don't you think it indicates a problem with their argument if all they can return with are catty nicknames for Adam Schiff and claims that everyone else is biased, crazy or "deep state"?

The fact that you keep yammering on about the Steele Dossier is a perfect illustration of my point. It has literally nothing to do with the Ukraine matter and Trump's impeachment. There are so many other things that you could talk about if you thought that the material evidence supported the idea that Trump is innocent. And yet, here you are, talking about something irrelevant....