The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (2 Viewers)

[Andrus]

By Laura Bassett

After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

“Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

Read the Full Story - InStyle

 

[coldseat]

Hmmmm. Anyway, I meant to mention that Tucker almost certainly will be covering Nancy's hysterics during his show tonight, which starts at 7:00pm CST.

Hard pass.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Hmmmm. Anyway, I meant to mention that Tucker almost certainly will be covering Nancy's hysterics during his show tonight, which starts at 7:00pm CST.

There was nothing hysterical about her reaction.

 

[samiam5211]

My prediction?

The Senate will adopt rules that totally support the majority.
Witnesses who try to provide hearsay testimony will be shredded or thrown out entirely.
Character, voting records and campaign contribution records of all witnesses will be fair game.
If they take it to the extreme, they'll subpoena everybody from Pelosi on down and try to catch them in lies in order to indict them.

OR

Summary vote to accept or decline. Declined. Move to the next item on the days agenda.

What do you think, LA-LA?

EDIT - Oh, pigeon-hole it in committee and let it sit there until after the election and let it die from neglect. That's always an option.

Do you believe that the Senate should push to have Pompeo, Bolton, Mulvaney, Perry, and Rudy testify, so they can debunk all this hearsay evidence?

 

[Dragon]

My prediction?

The Senate will adopt rules that totally support the majority.
Witnesses who try to provide hearsay testimony will be shredded or thrown out entirely.
Character, voting records and campaign contribution records of all witnesses will be fair game.
If they take it to the extreme, they'll subpoena everybody from Pelosi on down and try to catch them in lies in order to indict them.

OR

Summary vote to accept or decline. Declined. Move to the next item on the days agenda.

What do you think, LA-LA?

EDIT - Oh, pigeon-hole it in committee and let it sit there until after the election and let it die from neglect. That's always an option.

So rule of law and taking your responsibility according to the constitution serious doesn't matter as long as you have majority?

Democracy just died then. Trump and his cohorts will see that as a sign that they can do anything they want - regardless of law. Then you really have "King Donald"

 

[Dadsdream]

Do you believe that the Senate should push to have Pompeo, Bolton, Mulvaney, Perry, and Rudy testify, so they can debunk all this hearsay evidence?

No. I think they should do the minimum necessary that takes the minimum amount of time.
Decline.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

No. I think they should do the minimum necessary that takes the minimum amount of time.
Decline.

Why should the Senate only do the minimum amount of work necessary? Surely anyone would agree that something as serious as the impeachment trial of the sitting US president deserves more than the minimum amount of work necessary.

 

[samiam5211]

No. I think they should do the minimum necessary that takes the minimum amount of time.
Decline.

So you complain that the case is based on hearsay (which isn't even true), but aren't interested in finding out the truth.

 

[Dadsdream]

Why should the Senate only do the minimum amount of work necessary? Surely anyone would agree that something as serious as the impeachment trial of the sitting US president deserves more than the minimum amount of work necessary.

It's the right of the Senate as the senior chamber to decline.
I happen to think that is the best and most correct course of action.
That doesn't mean they won't rattle their sabers and make the opposition waste time, money and effort to prepare for the alternative.
Oh, they'll do that to the maximum extent possible.
In the end, I think everybody is coming to the realization that Russia Collusion fatigue and Impeachment Hearings fatigue are real factors for 2020.
Democrats seeking re-election are already sounding distress calls.
Yeah, a Senate decline is the best course of action for the nation.

 

[Dadsdream]

So rule of law and taking your responsibility according to the constitution serious doesn't matter as long as you have majority?

Democracy just died then. Trump and his cohorts will see that as a sign that they can do anything they want - regardless of law. Then you really have "King Donald"

Hi Dragon.

Democracy has not died.
The rule that the Senate either accepts or declines an impeachment recommendation from the lower chamber is as old as the nation itself.
A decline by the Senate is well within it's constitutional mandate. In fact, a decision to accept or decline is part of the process.

Nice talking with you, Dragon, as always.

 

[samiam5211]

It's the right of the Senate as the senior chamber to decline.
I happen to think that is the best and most correct course of action.
That doesn't mean they won't rattle their sabers and make the opposition waste time, money and effort to prepare for the alternative.
Oh, they'll do that to the maximum extent possible.
In the end, I think everybody is coming to the realization that Russia Collusion fatigue and Impeachment Hearings fatigue are real factors for 2020.
Democrats seeking re-election are already sounding distress calls.
Yeah, a Senate decline is the best course of action for the nation.

Public fatigue doesn't have anything to do with what is right and the duty of the congressional branch.

If they don't uphold their oath to the constitution just because they think the public is tired of it, they have violated their oath.

 

[Dadsdream]

Why should the Senate only do the minimum amount of work necessary? Surely anyone would agree that something as serious as the impeachment trial of the sitting US president deserves more than the minimum amount of work necessary.

Perhaps the House should have been more selective about what they chose to impeach for?
A decline can send a "don't waste our time" message, much like when the Supreme Court declines to hear a lawsuit.
Lawyers and legal experts on the board, feel free to chip in here anytime.

 

[xpuma20x]

It's the right of the Senate as the senior chamber to decline.
I happen to think that is the best and most correct course of action.

I personally think that if they just decline to take up the process or immediately vote to end, they'll be destroyed when voting comes around. People would understand that they are purely doing this to save their guy and not even willing to give it an honest look. The bare minimum they can do, without it blowing up as a complete coverup, is to at least jump through the hoops and at the end come to the conclusion that they don't see what the House saw, and vote no. It needs to go through the steps and they need to put names to votes.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Perhaps the House should have been more selective about what they chose to impeach for?
A decline can send a "don't waste our time" message, much like when the Supreme Court declines to hear a lawsuit.
Lawyers and legal experts on the board, feel free to chip in here anytime.

Just to clarify: are you saying that the House should have chosen to not open an investigation based on whatever information you are using to form your opinion on the matter?

 

[Dadsdream]

I personally think that if they just decline to take up the process or immediately vote to end, they'll be destroyed when voting comes around. People would understand that they are purely doing this to save their guy and not even willing to give it an honest look. The bare minimum they can do, without it blowing up as a complete coverup, is to at least jump through the hoops and at the end come to the conclusion that they don't see what the House saw, and vote no.

I think your opinion has merit. But then, we're talking political strategy at that point . . . what's best for each party going into the 2020 elections.
Either way, I think CNN had a point when they grouped presidential election voters into those who have already decided to vote Democrat regardless, those who have already decided to vote Republican regardless, and a very small margin of voters who are stuck in the middle and haven't decided for the past two months and continue not to decide.

 

[dtc]

Kaplan is clearly a very intelligent scholar and yet she couldn't help making a snide remark about a 13-year-old child while on the biggest stage she has been on. I think its a sign of not thinking clearly and rationally.

Reading this I almost spit on my computer.

Are you defending Trump against this irrational, clouded thinker with diminished rational capacity because she made a snide remark about a man who chose the name "Barron" for his son and who clads everything he can in fake gold? That's the same man who makes belligerent, childish, demeaning remarks against everyone who ever does anything that displeases him.

Honestly, little Marco called and wants 2015 back.

 

[Dadsdream]

Public fatigue doesn't have anything to do with what is right and the duty of the congressional branch.

If they don't uphold their oath to the constitution just because they think the public is tired of it, they have violated their oath.

I'm a pragmatist and a realist. I deal in real-world considerations.

Wide-eyed political idealism has its place, to be sure. I appreciate and admire such sentiment. Heck, I even voted for Jimmy Carter! How many folks here can (or will) say that?

But, those who honestly think this impeachment about some lofty ideals and purely moral standards, not mudslinging gutter-level politics, simply haven't been paying attention, in my opinion.

 

[dtc]

I agree. I don't think she is a hateful person looking to make fun of a child. And her apology should be greatly appreciated. But I still stand by the point that is evidence that her hatred for this President clouds her views. How else to explain her making that joke on THAT stage. Her apology shows she clearly knows better.

Should we infer from your opinion of her and the obvious hatred that clouds her opinion with regard to Trump that you would similarly find Trump unsuitable for the office he holds because of his overt hatred of anyone and everything that doesn't please him? Does his caustic personality not belie an inherent flaw that precludes him from serving all Americans rather than just the ones who kneel at his feet?

 

[Dadsdream]

Just to clarify: are you saying that the House should have chosen to not open an investigation based on whatever information you are using to form your opinion on the matter?

Oh, they can investigate all day and all night. I think there are elements in the House that forced Pelosi's hand with that regard.
Taking the next step and sending it to the Senate is another matter entirely.