WTF Community

The Impeachment of President Donald J. Trump



Polls NBC/WSJ - gives T the approximate same numbers which reflects how he won the 2016 election in the popular vote. So when we see the closeness in this polling, not much has changed as far as what stands today…but a very slight shift when the impeachment evidence is coming out.

The conservative media firewall and the R support remains…and we see a huge misinformation campaign is being waged.

Then asked if Trump should be impeached and removed from office, 49 percent answer yes, while 46 percent say no.

Those are the findings from the latest national NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll, which was conducted amid the House Democrats’ impeachment inquiry against the president, after Trump’s decision to withdraw U.S. troops from Syria, and after the military raid that killed the leader of ISIS.

Despite those grim numbers for Trump, the poll also contains silver linings for the president, including more than 50 percent who approve of his handling of the economy and a GOP base that remains loyal to him, with nine-in-10 Republicans opposing his removal from office. That party support is a crucial factor given that an impeachment conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds vote.

“At this very early stage of the impeachment inquiry the data suggest a path for victory for Trump with the judges in the Senate,” said Democratic pollster Jeff Horwitt of Hart Research, who conducted this survey with Republican pollster Bill McInturff at Public Opinion Strategies.

But there’s a much more challenging road ahead come next November with the judges at the ballot box,” Horwitt added.

In the poll, 53 percent of Americans say they approve of the impeachment inquiry regarding Trump’s actions with Ukraine’s president, while 44 percent disapprove.

Then asked if Trump should be impeached and removed from office, 49 percent answer yes, while 46 percent say no.

That’s a reversal from a month ago, when the survey found the numbers essentially flipped — 43 percent yes, 49 percent no.

Views of Trump and Ukraine

Based on what you have seen, read or heard about President Trump’s call and actions related to his discussion with the Ukranian president, which best describes what you think?

There is enough evidence for Congress to impeach Mr. Trump and remove him from office now 24%

Congress should hold an impeachment inquiry to determine if there is enough evidence to remove Mr. Trump from office 31%

There isn’t enough evidence for Congress to hold an impeachment inquiry of Mr. Trump and he should finish the term 39%

Not sure 6%

Source: WSJ/NBC News telephone poll of 800 adults conducted Oct. 4–6; margin of error 3.46 pct. pts.

Those results represented an increased call for congressional action compared with the period when then-special counsel Robert Mueller was looking into Russian meddling in the 2016 election. Throughout that time, about 50% had said impeachment hearings against Mr. Trump were unwarranted.

Presented in a separate question with just two options—impeaching Mr. Trump and removing him from office, or doing neither—some 43% said lawmakers should push Mr. Trump from office, while 49% said they shouldn’t do so, based on what the public knows now.

Pollsters who conducted the Journal/NBC News survey said it showed that Americans want to learn more about Mr. Trump’s actions, but they disagreed over how the public viewed the matter so far. The poll was conducted Friday and through the weekend, while Americans were hearing new details, including the publication of text messages between State Department officials that showed them using the prospect of a White House meeting with Mr. Trump as leverage to persuade Ukraine’s president to launch investigations the U.S. leader wanted.

Bill McInturff, a Republican pollster, noted that Mr. Trump’s job approval rating remained stable. In the new survey, 43% of Americans approved of the president’s overall job performance, in line with the trend throughout his time in office.

What’s powerful about this poll is what has not changed… At this time, this is not a story that has fundamentally reset American politics,” he said.

Jeff Horwitt, a Democrat who conducted the survey with Mr. McInturff, found it meaningful that more Americans support an impeachment inquiry or impeachment itself now than during the course of the Mueller investigation. “It shows more openness to hearing this out,” Mr. Horwitt said.


Republicans are intractable…staying steady in their support of T. But I believe the total numbers reflected, ie number of R’s by population…there are more Dems/Independents. *

Trump’s approval rating among Republicans has never dipped below 79%

Gallup polling has found that an average of 86% of Republicans have approved of President Trump during his time in office and that his GOP approval rating has not dropped below 79% in any individual poll, according to AP.

The big picture: Those figures strike a stark contrast with the 7% of Democrats who have approved of Trump’s presidency on average, including no more than 12% in any individual poll. In the history of public opinion polling, no president has faced such “deep and consistent partisan polarization” as Trump has, according to AP. And though partisan divisions existed before Trump, his presidency has exacerbated them.

  • Gallup poll (via WIki)

populations numbers

31% Democrats
29% Republicans
38% Independents


As of September 2019, Gallup polling found that 31% of Americans identified as Democrat, 29% identified as Republican, and 38% as Independent.[3] Additionally, polling showed that 49% are either “Democrats or Democratic leaners” and 44% are either “Republicans or Republican leaners” when Independents are asked “do you lean more to the Democratic Party or the Republican Party?”[3]

(David Bythewood) #1188

You have to keep in mind too that many who oppose him have either left the party or aren’t voting in these polls out of disdain or disgust. It winds up artificially inflating the number of his supporters.


Yes, a poll is an estimated average…

Some are more credible than others…but an average reflects a bit of a trend.

(worked in research b4) :smile:


The Trump administration has blocked or refused to comply with 82 House Committee requests for testimony and/or documents.

Adrienne Cobb is well known for her work tracking who has left Trump’s administration and for her in-depth investigative reports on Forensic News. She has now also turned her talents to chronicling Trump’s unprecedented stonewalling as he attempts to cover up the truth about his administration.

Cobb has sliced and diced the numbers several ways and has provided a detailed who-what-when-where analysis. Here’s a sample:


With news reports of the Trump administration’s refusal to cooperate with Congressional probes piling up, I set out to find the true breadth of the stonewalling, digging through media reports and congressional press releases going back to the beginning of 2019, when the Democrats took control of the House of Representatives. I chose to focus on the House instead of the Senate because the Democrats have conducted significantly more oversight of this administration – or, at least, they have tried to.

As you will see, the Trump administration has blocked or refused to comply with 82 House Committee requests for testimony and/or documents.


It’s tough for Trump and his supporters to deny his extortion attempt when the evidence is right out in the open. Here are 5 public confirmations.

Your good news reading for a quiet Sunday…

White House official Alexander Vindman on Tuesday becomes the latest high-ranking government official to give an account of an incident that confirms a quid pro quo between the Trump team and Ukraine — something the White House previously dismissed entirely.

But not all of the confirming statements we’ve seen or heard are created equal. Below, we explain each one, along with how serious it is.

1) Alexander Vindman

The lieutenant colonel and National Security Council aide on Tuesday testified that European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland said that Ukraine’s long-sought meeting between its president, Volodymyr Zelensky, and President Trump was conditioned on specific investigations — including ones involving the Bidens and a conspiracy theory about the origins of the Russia investigation.

Vindman said Sondland’s admission came after a meeting with a top Ukrainian official, Oleksandr Danylyuk.

The key quotes: “Amb. Sondland started to speak about Ukraine delivering specific investigations to secure the meeting with the president, at which time [national security adviser John] Bolton cut the meeting short. Following this meeting, there was a scheduled debriefing during which Amb. Sondland emphasized the importance that Ukraine deliver the investigations into the 2016 election, the Bidens, and Burisma [Holdings, which employed Hunter Biden].

“I stated to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate, that the request to investigate Biden and his son had nothing to do with national security, and that such investigations were not something the NSC was going to get involved in or push. [Fellow NSC aide Fiona] Hill then entered the room and asserted to Amb. Sondland that his statements were inappropriate. Following the debriefing meeting, I reported my concerns to the NSC’s lead counsel."

Why it’s big: Vindman asserts that the looming request was so inappropriate that Bolton shut a meeting down and that two NSC aides formally raised concerns, including with Sondland personally.

The article continues with 4 more public confirmations of Trump’s quid pro quo – or, as I feel it should be termed, his extortion attempt.

(David Bythewood) #1192

This article is incredible and I am sharing it all over. Putting numbers to how much they’re stonewalling obliterates their claims of “transparency”.

Also this:

He also made a demand on twitter and continues to push for this.

(David Bythewood) #1193

I have a headache.

When Trump says “we’ll see what happens”, that is never a good sign.


Mulvaney allies to try to stonewall Democrats’ impeachment inquiry, officials say

Russell Vought, a Mulvaney protege who leads the White House Office of Management and Budget, intends a concerted defiance of congressional subpoenas in coming days, and two of his subordinates will follow suit — simultaneously proving their loyalty to the president and a creating a potentially critical firewall regarding the alleged use of foreign aid to elicit political favors from a U.S. ally.

The OMB is at the nexus of the impeachment inquiry because Democrats are pressing for details about why the White House budget office effectively froze the Ukraine funds that Congress had already appropriated.

Congressional Republicans are also predicting that Mulvaney’s deputy, Robert Blair, will refuse to show for his scheduled Monday appearance before impeachment investigators — though a White House spokesman and Blair’s attorney, Whit Ellerman, did not respond to questions about his plans. Blair was on the July 25 phone call when Trump asked Ukraine’s president for a “favor” investigating former vice president Joe Biden, a 2020 presidential contender.


Whistleblower willing to answer Republicans’ questions in impeachment probe, lawyer says

A lawyer for the whistleblower who reported concerns about the president’s dealings with Ukraine told CBS News he offered to have Republicans on the House Intelligence Community submit questions to his client directly without having to go through the committee’s Democratic majority.

Attorney Mark Zaid told CBS News he contacted Representative Devin Nunes, the committee’s ranking member, on Saturday to say his client is willing to answer Republicans’ questions under oath and penalty of perjury if lawmakers submitted written questions to the whistleblower’s legal team. The inspector general of the intelligence community, a President Trump appointee, could verify the whistleblower’s identity in order to satisfy the committee’s minority members while protecting the individual’s anonymity.


If Republicans were OK with Trump providing written answers to Mueller rather than appearing in person then they should be OK with the same process for the whistleblower. But of course, they’re still going to whine. :weary:


Here’s the Independent’s take:

Three words: Bring. It. On.

Trump’s 2018 government shutdown tanked his approval rating. This time it would be even worse. Remember how he became the Grinch last holiday season?

At least last year, his base could still cut him some slack because he claimed he was shutting down the government to secure their precious border wall. (BTW, how did that work out?) But despite that excuse, Trump’s approval ratings still plummeted. Imagine if he pulls another shutdown stunt this holiday and he’s doing it just to cover up his crimes?

My holiday wish is that we do not have a shut down – why should the families of government workers suffer to help Trump evade justice? But if Trump does decide to go down that road, he’d better be prepared to pay some serious political consequences. In addition to hardening public opinion against him, it could push many Republican Senators and Reps to turn on him – thus the whole gambit could backfire catastrophically. I believe that even toying with this idea is hurting him.


And here we go. Obstructing justice on an epic scale. Trump’s base may cheer on the way Trump is trashing the rule of law, but we shall see if the 10% or so who are on the fence will tolerate his flagrant cover up.

(David Bythewood) #1199

Will John Bolton show up when others refuse? Some think so…

John Bolton is now a ‘born-again Never Trumper’: Conservative expects ‘devastating insider’s indictment’

(David Bythewood) #1200

I find it useful to look at what the right is saying. This article from perennial bad actor Breitbart was re-tweeted by Trump.

Look at the language. “Obama holdover.” “Rat’s nest.” “Colluded.”

They tear down career civil servants and project their own crimes onto others. It’s very short, and worth a read to know what they’re saying.

Incidentally, the Trump regime and right-wing propaganda media has decided that Eric Ciaramella, a CIA analyst and National Security Council staffer, is the whistleblower. No idea if that is true or not, but that’s what they’re pushing. A quick google search reveals a LOT of rihgt-wing articles railing about him and insistent both that he’s the whistleblower and that his complaint is wholly political.


A Sunday night special…story via

written by Cockburn

Mischief, mayhem and Washington gossip. Send tips to [email protected]

Some we know about already. There’s the original whistleblower, the CIA officer at the White House who first reported Trump’s call to the Ukrainian president. Republicans are now pushing to ‘unmask’ him, though his name is already all over the internet. He is, supposedly, a 33-year-old graduate of Yale, a registered Democrat who had worked for both Joe Biden and John Brennan. These facts, so helpful to the White House, are in a ‘dossier’ circulated on Capitol Hill by the president’s allies. There’s also Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the senior Ukraine expert on the National Security Council, who came to the US from Ukraine — to Little Odessa in Brooklyn — as a child aged three. He arrived to give evidence to the House Intelligence Committee wearing his dark blue Army dress uniform and military ribbons. He said that the White House transcript of the call between Trump and Ukraine’s president had important gaps — and that his attempts to include ‘crucial words and phrases’ had been rebuffed. ‘I am a patriot and it is my sacred duty and honor to advance and defend our country irrespective of party or politics.’ And there’s Tim Morrison, the NSC’s director for European and Russian Affairs, who was one of the small group to have listened to the call. He said that Trump’s ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, told him that Ukraine wouldn’t get US arms unless it investigated Biden.

That’s three whistleblowers. What about the other four? Cockburn’s source says that at least one is nothing to do with Ukraine but instead was reporting a call between Trump and the Saudi ruler, Mohammed bin Salman. Specifically, the whistleblower is said to have ‘concerns’ about what was said on the call about the president’s son-in-law and adviser, Jared Kushner. Kushner himself is known to have a very close relationship with MBS. Cockburn has previously written that Kushner may have been what Cosmo would call an ‘oversharer’ when it came to MBS. Unfortunately, it’s claimed that what he was sharing was American secrets: information Kushner had requested from the CIA would (allegedly) be echoed back in US intercepts of calls between members of the Saudi royal family. Once source said this was Kushner lost his intelligence clearances for a while.

According to Cockburn’s source about the seven whistleblowers, there’s more. It is that Kushner (allegedly) gave the green light to MBS to arrest the dissident journalist, Jamal Khashoggi, who was later murdered and dismembered in the Saudi consulate in Istanbul. A second source tells Cockburn that this is true and adds a crucial twist to the story. This source claims that Turkish intelligence obtained an intercept of the call between Kushner and MBS. And President Erdogan used it to get Trump to roll over and pull American troops out of northern Syria before the Turks invaded . Cockburn hears that investigators for the House Intelligence Committee know this whole tale and the identities of some of the people telling it. Whether any of is true is another matter but Adam Schiff certainly seems to be smiling a lot these days.

  1. Whistleblower #1- CIA officer who knew about the Ukraine Call
  2. Whistleblower #2 - Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, the senior Ukraine expert on the National Security Council
  3. Whistleblower #3 - Tim Morrison, the NSC’s director for European and Russian Affairs
  4. Whistleblower #4 - not identified? but re: T and MBS and concerns over Jared
    being an ‘oversharer’ and may have divulged state secrets from CIA.
  5. Whistleblower # 5 - This source claims that Turkish intelligence obtained an intercept of the call between Kushner and MBS. and Erdogan became aware of this, and used it against T by getting troops out of Syria (for Turkey)
  6. Whistleblower # 6
  7. Whistleblower #7

(I have to divulge that I copied this Spectator article from another source, as it immediately said I had used up my free visits…just a fyi. - Not at all sure this is part commentary, and/or Spectator article)

(David Bythewood) #1202

TWO appeals courts that have said Trump needs to hand over his tax returns, dismissing his claims that he is immune from prosecution or investigation. Rather than abide by that, Trump will take this all the way to the Supreme Court. Let that sink in. Trump is asking SCOTUS to personally protect his tax returns from being revealed.

Trump will ask Supreme Court to take New York tax returns case after losing appeal


More on this…

A federal appeals court on Monday rejected President Trump’s effort to block New York prosecutors from accessing his tax records and Trump’s sweeping claims of presidential immunity.

The decision is the second time in recent weeks that a federal appeals court has ruled against the president in his bid to stop investigators from scrutinizing his private financial records. The case is one of several legal clashes testing the limits of presidential power that is expected to reach the Supreme Court as soon as this term.

The Manhattan District Attorney is investigating hush-money payments made in the lead up to the 2016 presidential election. The ruling does not mean that Trump’s tax records will be turned over immediately. Local prosecutors agreed to delay enforcement of the subpoena to Trump’s longtime accounting firm if the president’s lawyers move quickly to ask the Supreme Court to intervene.



Today, Rep. Adam B. Schiff, the Chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, Rep. Eliot L. Engel, the Chairman of the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and Rep. Carolyn Maloney, the Acting Chairwoman of the Committee on Oversight and Reform, released the transcripts of former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie “Masha” Yovanovitch and former Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State Ambassador P. Michael McKinley.

Both of these individuals testified before the Committees as part of the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry of President Donald J. Trump. The resolution passed by the House last week authorized the Committees to make the inquiry transcripts of their recent depositions and interviews available to Members and public at the discretion at the Chairman of the Intelligence Committee in advance of open hearings.

The three Chairs issued the following statement announcing today’s releases:

“As we move towards this new public phase of the impeachment inquiry, the American public will begin to see for themselves the evidence that the committees have collected. With each new interview, we learn more about the President’s attempt to manipulate the levers of power to his personal political benefit.

“The transcripts of interviews with Ambassadors Yovanovitch and McKinley demonstrate clearly how President Trump approved the removal of a highly respected and effective diplomat based on public falsehoods and smears against Ambassador Yovanovitch’s character and her work in support of long-held U.S. foreign policy anticorruption goals.

“Ambassadors Yovanovitch and McKinley’s testimony also demonstrates the contamination of U.S. foreign policy by an irregular back channel that sought to advance the President’s personal and political interests, and the serious concerns that this activity elicited across our government.

“Unfortunately, despite those concerns, the transcripts also show clearly that efforts to secure public support for Ambassador Yovanovitch from the senior-most levels of the State Department were never realized, thanks to worry among those leaders that such support would be directly undermined by presidential attacks.”

The testimony of former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie “Masha” Yovanovitch from October 11, 2019 can be found here. Key excerpts from Yovanovitch’s testimony can be found here.

The testimony of former Senior Advisor to the Secretary of State Ambassador P. Michael McKinley from October 16, 2019 can be found here. Key excerpts from McKinley’s testimony can be found here.


All four White House officials scheduled for House inquiry depositions Monday won’t testify

All four White House officials who are scheduled to give depositions on Monday during the House’s impeachment inquiry won’t show up, as a source with knowledge of the situation tells CNN that National Security Council lawyers John Eisenberg and Michael Ellis will not testify.

The two officials will join Robert Blair, assistant to the President and senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, and Brian McCormack, associate director for natural resources, energy & science at the Office of Management and Budget, in not testifying on Monday, CNN reported earlier. Energy Secretary Rick Perry, who was scheduled to appear Wednesday, will not participate in a closed door deposition, an Energy Department spokesperson said Friday.

An administration official says Eisenberg isn’t showing up due to executive privilege while Blair, Ellis and McCormack aren’t going to appear because they won’t be able to have an administration lawyer present.

On Sunday night, the House Intelligence Committee issued subpoenas to Blair and Ellis, according to an official working on the impeachment inquiry.

Blair’s attorney, Whit Ellerman, told CNN Saturday that "Blair is caught between the assertions of legal duty by two coequal branches of government, a conflict which he cannot resolve."

Two other OMB officials, Michael Duffey and Russell Vought, also won’t show up to their depositions later this week, a source with knowledge of the situation tells CNN.