*** The Official MAGAposting thread ***

[boost]

This is a long and sordid tale.

A timeline of Trump, Guiliani, Biden, Ukraine

I started at the top and got bored fast, so I skipped to the bottom and was all, WTF?!, so I had to go back to the middle.

This isn't your average scandal. This is withholding taxpayer approved military support to an ally nation at war for personal gain.

This is way beyond chirping nonsense and lies about "chain migration" while having personally chain migrated his in-laws.

But again... he's gotten away with so, so much so far that I can't even predict how this goes down.
The idea that he will ultimately get away with it is still near certain. He'll never be convicted of anything, and if he is, he'll be pardoned by Pence. Not that the notion that he'll get impeached can be taken seriously at this time.

I think the other scandals are objectively just as bad, it's just that they were far more complicated, built on thinner evidence and therefore far easier to obfuscate. They all paint a picture of a president who thinks the rules don't apply to him, and who will flagrantly act in accordance.

But, yes, this one is pretty cut and dry, or at least it appears to be. The detailed timeline is great, but your single sentence summary doesn't really leave anything out:

This is withholding taxpayer approved military support to an ally nation at war for personal gain.

Again, you're right that it's unlikely he gets punished for this. Of course it is possible that this, and whatever is unearthed in the process of impeachment is damaging enough that it locks up 2020 for the democrats. In this case, 46 wouldn't be on his side and wouldn't be likely to offer up a pardon.

Nonetheless, I'm honestly more worried than anything. As you've pointed out, there are many ways that this can bounce off him. And if that ends up happening, we're fucked. The presidency has gone through a lot in these passed few years, but if a president can get away with using congressionally approved tax payer dollars, the weight of the office, and the various arms of the government to further his personal interests, it's game over for this wonderful (although at many times awful) experiment we've been running for the past few centuries.

[OngBonga]

The idea that they sell my information is kind of laughable to me. I mean, I use ad block, and even where I'm exposed to ads, I literally never buy products by clicking on ads. My information is worth a grand total of fuck all, so if someone is willing to pay Twitter for it, more fool them. And if people are so fucking weak that when they see a flashing image of something they like, they buy it, well more fool them too.

[Poopadoop]

The idea that they sell my information is kind of laughable to me. I mean, I use ad block, and even where I'm exposed to ads, I literally never buy products by clicking on ads. My information is worth a grand total of fuck all, so if someone is willing to pay Twitter for it, more fool them. And if people are so fucking weak that when they see a flashing image of something they like, they buy it, well more fool them too.

99.9% of people think they're immune to advertising. But 99.99% of those people are wrong. That's kinda the sick beauty of it.

[OngBonga]

This is all pretty funny. 95% of people posting on twitter in response to a disaster are "virtue signallers". Let me ask, is it possible for someone to do a good deed without it having an ulterior motive?

Do you think sending thoughts and prayers is a good deed?

[Poopadoop]

Do you think sending thoughts and prayers is a good deed?

You mean does it save lives? No. But it might be nice for people to think some twat on the other side of the world is sympathizing with their troubles, yes. So it could be a morale boost for them I guess. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, the way you seem to.

[OngBonga]

You mean does it save lives? No. But it might be nice for people to think some twat on the other side of the world is sympathizing with their troubles, yes. So it could be a morale boost for them I guess. I don't think there's anything wrong with it, the way you seem to.

I think it is a problem. It spams the Twitter feed, making it harder to find actual information. What purpose does it serve? Do you really think someone in a disaster zone reads a comment from the other side of the world and thinks "oh how nice, someone I've never met and who doesn't even speak my language has empathy for my shitty situation, I feel so much better about having lost my family."?

It serves no purpose other than to signal an individual's apparent virtue.

[Poopadoop]

I think it is a problem. It spams the Twitter feed, making it harder to find actual information. What purpose does it serve? Do you really think someone in a disaster zone reads a comment from the other side of the world and thinks "oh how nice, someone I've never met and who doesn't even speak my language has empathy for my shitty situation, I feel so much better about having lost my family."?

It serves no purpose other than to signal an individual's apparent virtue.

I mean I don't do it myself because I think it's pointless. But I can see something thinking 'oh those poor people, i can't afford to send them money I'll try to do the next best thing and send them some Jebus.' So while I agree it's retarded, I don't think it's necessarily virtue signalling. Some people actually believe praying will help.

Also I'm not sure you should be looking for missing family members on twitter lol. If they can use twitter they can use skype or I dunno, dial a number on the phone their posting on twitter with?

[MadMojoMonkey]

Again, you're right that it's unlikely he gets punished for this. Of course it is possible that this, and whatever is unearthed in the process of impeachment is damaging enough that it locks up 2020 for the democrats. In this case, 46 wouldn't be on his side and wouldn't be likely to offer up a pardon.

In order for Trump to be impeached, it has to happen before 2020 (he must be the sitting POTUS), and Pence will be sworn in.
46 can't take office before that.

Nonetheless, I'm honestly more worried than anything. As you've pointed out, there are many ways that this can bounce off him. And if that ends up happening, we're fucked. The presidency has gone through a lot in these passed few years, but if a president can get away with using congressionally approved tax payer dollars, the weight of the office, and the various arms of the government to further his personal interests, it's game over for this wonderful (although at many times awful) experiment we've been running for the past few centuries.

Ugh. I wish I didn't agree.

[Poopadoop]

In order for Trump to be impeached, it has to happen before 2020 (he must be the sitting POTUS), and Pence will be sworn in.
46 can't take office before that.

I think he meant if there's no impeachment, 2020 election runs its course, a D wins, then Trump gets the book thrown at him, that D #46 won't be pulllng out the pardon paddle.

Ugh. I wish I didn't agree.

You'll still have thoughts and prayers!

Seriously, I think all America needs to do to turn away from the abyss is for Trump to lose in 2020. I think most people are probably appalled at his behaviour and don't want America to be run by a criminal enterprise. That said, you guys need to address the underlying problems that led to him becoming popular or there's still going to be issues.

[MadMojoMonkey]

I think he meant if there's no impeachment, 2020 election runs its course, a D wins, then Trump gets the book thrown at him, that D #46 won't be pulllng out the pardon paddle.

I'd guess the odds of Trump finishing his term, then being prosecuted for his actions while POTUS after the fact are very slim.

If he's going to be nailed for stuff he's doing as President, then it's gonna happen while he's President, or it wont happen
is my prediction.

You'll still have thoughts and prayers!

Seriously, I think all America needs to do to turn away from the abyss is for Trump to lose in 2020. I think most people are probably appalled at his behaviour and don't want America to be run by a criminal enterprise. That said, you guys need to address the underlying problems that led to him becoming popular or there's still going to be issues.

Trump is not the problem, he's a symptom, and even if he's prosecuted and sent to a min security prison for a couple minutes, it's not going to change the hearts and minds of the people that voted to put him in office.

[Poopadoop]

Trump is not the problem, he's a symptom, and even if he's prosecuted and sent to a min security prison for a couple minutes, it's not going to change the hearts and minds of the people that voted to put him in office.

I agree.

So the question is why do/did people support him? Part of that is gullibility and they are buying his bigly snake oil about how he's their saviour, and I think that's the good news because those people can be brought back.

Another part is some people are jerks and want a surrogate jerk in power. Those people exist in every country.

The solution is to make a country where fewer people are jerks, so you have to ask what makes someone a jerk? There's probably a number of things, but income equality springs to mind.

[MadMojoMonkey]

So the question is why do/did people support him? Part of that is gullibility and they are buying his bigly snake oil about how he's their saviour, and I think that's the good news because those people can be brought back.

Most of what I was hearing at the time was "stick it to the man," and "politics as usual has screwed us over."

I'd love it if they see what happens when you put someone who never had a truly patriotic thought in their life in office, but that's not what they're gonna see, and I know it.

Another part is some people are jerks and want a surrogate jerk in power. Those people exist in every country.

Unless they're in the electoral college, they do not represent any appreciable %-age of voters (I hope).

The solution is to make a country where fewer people are jerks, so you have to ask what makes someone a jerk? There's probably a number of things, but income equality springs to mind.

Gets me right in the feels, man.

[boost]

I'd guess the odds of Trump finishing his term, then being prosecuted for his actions while POTUS after the fact are very slim.

If he's going to be nailed for stuff he's doing as President, then it's gonna happen while he's President, or it wont happen
is my prediction.

It's an awkward position for a Democrat 46, because a huge part of what's blatantly wrong with Trump is that he attempts to persecute his political rivals. It would be very hard for a Dem46 to convince aggrieved MAGA hatters that that's not what's happening. But actively pardoning isn't an option, and even directing his DOJ to look the other way doesn't seem politically permissible.

Then there's the whole question of state AG's, who a Dem46 has no hard power over.

Trump is not the problem, he's a symptom, and even if he's prosecuted and sent to a min security prison for a couple minutes, it's not going to change the hearts and minds of the people that voted to put him in office.

Yeah, if all goes well over the next year and a half or so, we'll be able to breath a sigh of relief.. but then the real work starts.

[boost]

In order for Trump to be impeached, it has to happen before 2020 (he must be the sitting POTUS), and Pence will be sworn in.
46 can't take office before that.

Well, a couple of things:
1) being impeached is not synonymous with being convicted and therefore removed from office. Essentially to impeach is to indict. The House impeaches, the Senate adjudicates.
2) were he to be impeached and convicted, thereby removed from office, 46 would be Pence.
3) trump will still be president in 2021 (should he not be impeached and convicted before his term ends)
4) there is nothing that bars congress from impeaching and convicting a public official after their term has ended. Removal from office would obviously be moot at this point, but the guilty would then be barred from holding office from there on.

In this case, 46 wouldn't be on his side and wouldn't be likely to offer up a pardon.

This may have been a bit confusing-- what's implied is that, in all scenarios in which Trump does not get a second term, whether 46 is Pence or a Democrat depends on whether Trump resigns/is removed from office before January 20th 2021.

[MadMojoMonkey]

Well, a couple of things:
1) being impeached is not synonymous with being convicted and therefore removed from office. Essentially to impeach is to indict. The House impeaches, the Senate adjudicates.
2) were he to be impeached and convicted, thereby removed from office, 46 would be Pence.
3) trump will still be president in 2021 (should he not be impeached and convicted before his term ends)
4) there is nothing that bars congress from impeaching and convicting a public official after their term has ended. Removal from office would obviously be moot at this point, but the guilty would then be barred from holding office from there on.

1) Yeah. Impeachment is equivalent to a Grand Jury. If the impeachment hearing reaches a supermajority of votes to impeach, that amounts to a criminal indictment. That is, the impeachment hearing is a precursor to leveling criminal charges and any legal actions that follow. The purpose is to see if there is adequate evidence to take the time and effort to press charges, basically. It's meant to protect elected officials from frivolous law suits, as I understand it. IF the impeachment goes through, then removal from office to stand trial is the next legal action.

It should be noted that 2 US presidents have been impeached and neither left office.
Nixon was not impeached, but resigned when it became clear that he would be impeached. Nixon was pardoned by Ford, even though at first Ford said he'd only do it if Nixon apologized. Nixon said he didn't commit any crimes and had nothing to apologize for. Ford relented and pardoned him anyway.

4) That was a rabbit hole.
As far as I can tell, impeachment only applies to "officers of the US federal gov't." This includes not just POTUS, but top-level federal judiciary seats and all offices which are filled by presidential appointment with Senate approval.
In addition, it includes every officer in all branches of US military. I assume impeachment doesn't apply to military officers, as the military has its own courts, but it's a guess.

So, as far as I can tell, once the official is no longer in office, the impeachment clause does not apply to them. That's under the assumption that "officer of the US fed gov't" isn't a lifetime title, but that's not completely clear. A person may choose to hold the honorific "The honorable" [MMM] for life, having ever held one of these offices, though wikipedia says use of this honorific is not common.

I'm not exactly sure who and under what circumstances needs to be impeached to continue with criminal prosecution, and an ex-POTUS may or may not have that protection.

[boost]

1) Yeah. Impeachment is equivalent to a Grand Jury. If the impeachment hearing reaches a supermajority of votes to impeach, that amounts to a criminal indictment. That is, the impeachment hearing is a precursor to leveling criminal charges and any legal actions that follow. The purpose is to see if there is adequate evidence to take the time and effort to press charges, basically. It's meant to protect elected officials from frivolous law suits, as I understand it. IF the impeachment goes through, then removal from office to stand trial is the next legal action.

It should be noted that 2 US presidents have been impeached and neither left office.
Nixon was not impeached, but resigned when it became clear that he would be impeached. Nixon was pardoned by Ford, even though at first Ford said he'd only do it if Nixon apologized. Nixon said he didn't commit any crimes and had nothing to apologize for. Ford relented and pardoned him anyway.

4) That was a rabbit hole.
As far as I can tell, impeachment only applies to "officers of the US federal gov't." This includes not just POTUS, but top-level federal judiciary seats and all offices which are filled by presidential appointment with Senate approval.
In addition, it includes every officer in all branches of US military. I assume impeachment doesn't apply to military officers, as the military has its own courts, but it's a guess.

So, as far as I can tell, once the official is no longer in office, the impeachment clause does not apply to them. That's under the assumption that "officer of the US fed gov't" isn't a lifetime title, but that's not completely clear. A person may choose to hold the honorific "The honorable" [MMM] for life, having ever held one of these offices, though wikipedia says use of this honorific is not common.

I'm not exactly sure who and under what circumstances needs to be impeached to continue with criminal prosecution, and an ex-POTUS may or may not have that protection.

Yeah, the ex-POTUS impeachment is interesting but almost certainly will remain theoretical, and is a bit in the weeds. But if you're enjoying the rabbit hole, this is just a few paragraphs: https://slate.com/news-and-politics/...ton-again.html

Anyways, my point was that there are some interesting scenarios given the game board-- for example, it could be in Trump's best interest to get himself impeached if it's a lock that we'll have a Dem POTUS in January 2021 and he'll face criminal charges that Pence would preemptively pardon him for. Of course he still has the issue of being charged by state AG's..