House Impeachment Inquiry

[JoeMorgue]

If it's your opinion that an impeachment inquiry would necessarily be redundant because it would be impossible for them to have access to any information that other inquiries don't already have access to, then can you tell me which inquiry, for example, already has Trump's tax returns?

What on Earth is his tax return going to do?

He's openly racist, openly xenophobic, so deep in Putin's pocket he's got Putin's keys stuck in his comb-over, runs concentration camps, mocked a disabled person, and those are just the ones that I can rattle off of the top of my head, and his supporters have either denied or rationalized ALL... OF.... THAT and you think his goddamn tax returns are going to shock them?

The investigation would have to uncover stuff worse then the stuff he's already done. And that's not even counting the fact that the luck these investigation's have been having the Dems are going to investigate Trump's tax returns and wind up finding out he's owed a refund.

Here we'll ask the board's Trumpers. If we investigate Trump's taxes and find them dirty, are you going to stop supporting him?

 

[Marcus]

I'm referring to the 28 SEPARATE INVESTIGATIONS currently underway against Trump. This mythical 29th one, even if it's an impeachment, isn't going to uncover anything new.

But fine, if the Dems are bound and determined to go forward with impeachment without a majority in the Senate, then wait a few months. Time it so the impeachment is going on on election day. Make people go to the polls while Trump is in the impeachment process. That's still risky (it runs the very real chance of turning the election into the referendum on the impeachment) but it mitigates the "Handing him a victor narrative" problem.

Also, and this is gonna be hard but it's important, no snide "Oh but you're okay impeaching Clinton for a blowjob!?" quips. Not one. Not from the Democratic Leadership, not from the network talking heads, not from the peanut gallery, not from the Democratic base, none. The Republicans are going to play the victim cards. They are going to say we aren't respecting the office. Ignore them. Shake it off.

Don't mention Clinton. If they mention him don't acknowledge it. Do not let this get turned into a narrative where this is just the Dems getting back for Clinton.

And as always if I'm wrong and they can get rid of Trump I'll eat all the crow anyone wants to serve me.

I don't think many people really had a problem with Clinton getting the occasional blowjob in the Oval Office. Lying under oath though, that's a good one. If they could get Trump on that, like Clinton, it probably wouldn't result in conviction in the Senate , but it might sway the election.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

What on Earth is his tax return going to do?

...

Why is he so reluctant to disclose them? Surely there is no noble principle Trump is standing on keeping them secret.

POTUSes have a right to IRS privacy?

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Investigations don't have to uncover anything more criminal than what is known already.
Something hard to deny and very unpresidential would be enough, something to rile up support for Dems and make some Reps stay at home.
Ideally something that would shame the GOP into supporting election security.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

What on Earth is his tax return going to do?

Depends what's in them. One possibility is provide evidence that he's been laundering money for the Russian mob for decades. Or, like his father did, set up a shell company to fraudulently siphon money from his tenants to line the pockets of whoever owns the company in this case, most likely Trump himself).

He's openly racist, openly xenophobic, so deep in Putin's pocket he's got Putin's keys stuck in his comb-over, runs concentration camps, mocked a disabled person, and those are just the ones that I can rattle off of the top of my head, and his supporters have either denied or rationalized ALL... OF.... THAT and you think his goddamn tax returns are going to shock them?

This thread is about impeachment proceedings, seeking to establish and prosecute criminal behaviour, not about shocking anybody. Do you think the aim of the "28 SEPARATE INVESTIGATIONS" is to shock Trump supporters?

Besides which, you've now changed your argument from being that such an investigation wouldn't turn up "something new" to that what new it might uncover not having an effect on Trump's supporters.

 

[Stacyhs]

I doubt the Senate would convict even if Trump got caught lying under oath. They don't care that he lies practically every time he opens his mouth so why would they care if it's under oath?

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I doubt the Senate would convict even if Trump got caught lying under oath. They don't care that he lies practically every time he opens his mouth so why would they care if it's under oath?

He has been caught lying under oath. One of the things that came out of Mueller's testimony was a) that the written answers to Mueller's question were under oath and, b) that they were contradicted by established facts.

 

[Delvo]

If you're the House of Representatives and you don't expect the Republican Senators to vote to convict, you send it to them just the same, not only because it's your duty, but also to force them to actually take that stand in public. Deny them the ability to pretend later on that they would have done the right thing if only they'd been given a chance.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

The #4 House Democrat now backs an impeachment inquiry

 

[plague311]

The number 4 Democrat, Rep. Ben Ray Luján, is now in support of moving forward with impeachment

The #4 House Democrat now backs an impeachment inquiry

Beat ya to it Squeegee!

What on Earth is his tax return going to do?

He's openly racist, openly xenophobic, so deep in Putin's pocket he's got Putin's keys stuck in his comb-over, runs concentration camps, mocked a disabled person, and those are just the ones that I can rattle off of the top of my head, and his supporters have either denied or rationalized ALL... OF.... THAT and you think his goddamn tax returns are going to shock them?

You seem to have this fundamental misunderstanding that Trump supporters are the targeted audience. I don't give a **** about Trump supporters. I want this done because it's the right thing to do. I want it done because this man broke the law repeatedly, and he deserves to go through the process. I want this done because I want to believe that the political party I most align with has some ******* balls to stand up for the law. I want this done because I'm sick of that miserable **** getting away with everything, and even if he isn't found guilty, as previously mentioned, we can take the Senators that defend him to task. I want this done because it's the ******* process designed when you have a dumbass bitch like Trump in office that acts the way he does.

Nothing will change Trump supporters minds. They're ******* dumb. They see all this **** and they have no issues with what he does. Again, they aren't the target audience. I'd rather try and fail than tuck tail and run. **** that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

You seem to have this fundamental misunderstanding that Trump supporters are the targeted audience. I don't give a **** about Trump supporters. I want this done because it's the right thing to do.

I don't give a **** (there some asterisks so you can understand it better) about the Dems needing some feel good "Yay we're doing stuff" moral victory nonsense.

I want Trump out of office and this is counter-productive to that.

 

[plague311]

I don't give a **** (there some asterisks so you can understand it better) about the Dems needing some feel good "Yay we're doing stuff" moral victory nonsense. I want Trump out of office and this is counter-productive to that.

So you claim anyway. You've provided **** all for evidence to support it, but you've certainly screamed it from the mountaintops.

Yeah, I swear. I'm glad you guys can continuously ******* cry about it. Good Lord.

This isn't feel good, it's an admitted fact that he's lied, broken the law, and caused turmoil with our allies. You have no clue at all if this will cause him to get re-elected or if it will be his downfall. Stop acting like you've proven some **** because if you want to act like that, ******* prove something.

 

[Belz...]

Why is he so reluctant to disclose them? Surely there is no noble principle Trump is standing on keeping them secret.

POTUSes have a right to IRS privacy?

You're missing the point. You and I might think it would be revealing to have them. But are GOP critters in the senate going to convict him one way or another? No.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I want Trump out of office and this is counter-productive to that.

How is investigating him for crimes in a manner that can uncover evidence other investigations can't counter-productive to getting him out of office?

 

[theprestige]

Serious question: What evidence of money laundering would likely be found in personal tax returns?

 

[plague311]

Serious question: What evidence of money laundering would likely be found in personal tax returns?

I can't speak for others because I'm not familiar with the process, but I'd assume there's a way. If there weren't it wouldn't make much sense to do it.

I would bet dimes to donuts that a forensic tax specialist would be able to find something though. I am also positive that Trump itemizes which means things would have to match up.

 

[CORed]

I think it's imperative that the Dems either take the White House or make major gains in the Senate in 2020 or they are gonna impeach Trump all the way into a Dictatorship gift wrapped for him.

Impeachment is nothing (worse then nothing since there will be a backlash) without conviction and a conviction would require getting 2/3s of a 53-45 Republican majority Senate to vote against the President. Not going to happen and it will hand jump a major victory narrative to role into 2020 with.

I get that I'm like the lone voice in this but an impeachment that goes nowhere is more dangerous then no impeachment at all.

I agree. The Democrats, at this point, should be concentrating on winning the 2020 election. That is the surest, and at this point, probably the quickest way of getting rid of Trump. Taking control of the Senate would also be good, for a variety of reasons (confirming or denying judge and executive appointments being perhaps the most important).

 

[WilliamSeger]

Serious question: What evidence of money laundering would likely be found in personal tax returns?

I don't know if the IRS would normally try to look for that when auditing someone like Trump, but unless you were looking for money laundering by relating declarations to other information, I don't think you could see it in just an individual return. The whole idea of money laundering is that it's superficially legal transactions.

 

[Marcus]

Serious question: What evidence of money laundering would likely be found in personal tax returns?

Unlikely. Also unlikely that he did any money laundering. Probably the tax returns would expose his inflated income claims, damaging his fragile ego.

 

[theprestige]

Unlikely. Also unlikely that he did any money laundering. Probably the tax returns would expose his inflated income claims, damaging his fragile ego.

The guy is 70 years old. Whatever he was going to become, he became long ago. If his ego really were fragile, it would have shattered in 2000, if not before. I think the more likely problem is that Trump's ego is more or less impervious to damage.