The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (14 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 15 (members: 0, guests: 15)
    Andrus

    Andrus

    Admin
    Staff member
    Joined
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages
    2,268
    Reaction score
    944
    Age
    65
    Location
    Sunset, Louisiana
    Offline
    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
     
    As I understand it, the WB had no personal knowledge, but rather he spoke to a number of peeps.

    What was the process that brought all of this about? What conversarions were held and when? Did the content of the conversations change over time? Did the witnesses make prior statements inconsistent with their current testimony? To what extent was the narrative orchestrated by Schift and/or someone like Brennan?

    It seems like the whistleblower is uniquely situated to shed some light on these issues.

    Are the Democrats planning on standing up and crowing about how the whistleblower and other witnesses are simply patriots looking out for the best interest of the nation?

    We should be able to explore whether that is really accurate, and in order to do so we need the full context in which this all arose.

    Otherwise, let's just go with the "transcript" and call it a day.
     
    I’m honestly surprised to see this fairly full throated call to out the WB from people who waxed poetic about the need to protect WBs just a few short years ago. Do all the R’s have amnesia?

    Also, yes to investigations, that’s fine. But we don’t need a public disclosure of the WB to look into things. In fact, didn’t the IG already investigate the WB complaint immediately upon receiving it?

    I also get perplexed by this avidity for complex conspiracy theories. Which is more likely, that a whole group of people are conspiring to oust Trump, and are so committed that they are all willing to commit perjury to do it? Or that a man known to have problems with the truth, known to have very loose ideas of right and wrong, and with issues about separating his political life from his public service life, got carried away with a scheme to give himself a political advantage?

    Furthermore, there would have to be dozens of other people on the periphery of the WB scheme and we need to believe that none of them would be willing to come forward and say something isn’t right about the testimony of these witnesses. Trump would probably give such people a medal if they would do that, so there would be a decent incentive for them to come forward.
     
    Inappropriate content, memes are discouraged on this board. Especially when they falsely target an individual.
    EIuGBL6XYAAB1DI.png


    I would like to know if the whistleblower in fact posed with that sour looking bunch of folks on the day the POTUS was sworn in.
     
    I’m really a bit surprised that you think that would prove anything, actually.

    So this staffer, who may or may not be sad about the election, we have no proof of anything in that meme, is so hell bent on revenge that he has somehow manipulated senior State Dept. and WH officials into committing perjury?

    Never mind that it turns out the President sent Rudy over to Ukraine to play pretend Secretary of State and pal around with two unsavory characters on the payroll of an oligarch? The two unsavory characters, btw, along with Rudy, smeared a senior diplomat to the point she was recalled, paid Rudy $500,000 which presumably came from the oligarch, and seem to have been trying to worm their way into a lucrative energy deal in Ukraine.
     
    MT15 said:
    I’m really a bit surprised that you think that would prove anything, actually.

    So this staffer, who may or may not be sad about the election, we have no proof of anything in that meme, is so hell bent on revenge that he has somehow manipulated senior State Dept. and WH officials into committing perjury?

    Never mind that it turns out the President sent Rudy over to Ukraine to play pretend Secretary of State and pal around with two unsavory characters on the payroll of an oligarch? The two unsavory characters, btw, along with Rudy, smeared a senior diplomat to the point she was recalled, paid Rudy $500,000 which presumably came from the oligarch, and seem to have been trying to worm their way into a lucrative energy deal in Ukraine.
    Click to expand...

    It's a piece of the puzzle.

    We have a long history of enjoying the peaceful transition of power in this nation. Those people don't look like they are dedicated to that tradition. Instead, they look more like they see themselves as part of the "resistance" that we have had heard about since before our President even took office.
     
    So that statement totally ignores the abuse of power that has been alleged, and that we are going through the process laid out in the Constitution to deal with abuses of power.
     
    Beach Friends said:
    ...Otherwise, let's just go with the "transcript" and call it a day.
    Click to expand...

    OK, these are all the transcripts I can find as of now. You can start here:

    Document Viewer : NPR

    apps.npr.org apps.npr.org

    Document Viewer : NPR

    apps.npr.org apps.npr.org

    www.cnn.com

    READ: Transcript for Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent’s House testimony | CNN Politics

    House impeachment investigators released the transcript of Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent’s closed-door deposition. Read a transcript of that deposition below:
    www.cnn.com www.cnn.com

    Document Viewer : NPR

    apps.npr.org apps.npr.org

    :9:
     
    Beach Friends said:
    I would like to know if the whistleblower in fact posed with that sour looking bunch of folks on the day the POTUS was sworn in.
    Click to expand...

    OK - let's say it is. What does that tell you?

    Does that mean Sondland did not believe that aid to Ukraine was contingent on Ukraine publicly announcing an investigation into Biden? Or any of the other people who have testified the same thing?
     
    Speaking of the Constitution- 2/3 of the Senate. The Democrats are not getting it.
    Trump is way too popular.
    All of this is futile.

    The Democrats would be better served trying to find a candidate that is electable.
     
    Beach Friends said:
    Speaking of the Constitution- 2/3 of the Senate. The Democrats are not getting it.
    Trump is way too popular.
    All of this is futile.

    The Democrats would be better served trying to find a candidate that is electable.
    Click to expand...

    The funny thing about that statement is that is exactly what the Democrats were saying to Republicans when they spent all that time investigating Hillary - butter emails, etc, because most people thought Trump wasn't electable.

    The fact of the matter is, the Republicans spent decades investigating the Clintons and millions of dollars to do so, and it worked. What lesson do you think the Democrats learned from that? It certainly isn't don't investigate.
     
    UncleTrvlingJim said:
    OK - let's say it is. What does that tell you?
    Click to expand...

    It tells me the real reason the Democrats are desperate to keep this guy behind the curtain. The guy is a partisan actor who would try to bring this POTUS down for any reason he could.

    Do you really think that the optics of this guy maneuvering behind the scenes are irrelevant to public opinion? I guarantee you the Democratic leadership sees how this is going to play.
     
    Beach Friends said:
    It tells me the real reason the Democrats are desperate to keep this guy behind the curtain. The guy is a partisan actor who would try to bring this POTUS down for any reason he could.

    Do you really think that the optics of this guy maneuvering behind the scenes are irrelevant to public opinion? I guarantee you the Democratic leadership sees how this is going to play.
    Click to expand...

    What's your definition of partisan actor? And what makes you say that he was maneuvering? And can't you get that information by follow-up questions to the people who have already testified?

    Do you think he manipulated Sondland into revising his testimony that there was quid pro quo?
     
    UncleTrvlingJim said:
    What's your definition of partisan actor? And what makes you say that he was maneuvering? And can't you get that information by follow-up questions to the people who have already testified?

    Do you think he manipulated Sondland into revising his testimony that there was quid pro quo?
    Click to expand...

    Oh come on. Knowing what we already know about this guy's background, his involvment with the initiation of the investigation, his critical conversations with key witnesses, his close connections to the President's adversaries - you are really going to try to convince me that anyone in the President's position would be okay without determining what he has to say under oath?
     
    Beach Friends said:
    Oh come on. Knowing what we already know about this guy...
    Click to expand...
    We don't even know if "this guy" is the person who filed the whistle blower complaint, let alone all the other stuff.

    It's all speculation at this time and it's irrelevant to what we actually do know about the people who have testified and what they have said.

    If Trump is being out played by a low level staffer, then Trump has bigger problems than impeachment to worry about. And so do we all.
     
    Beach Friends said:
    Speaking of the Constitution- 2/3 of the Senate. The Democrats are not getting it.
    Trump is way too popular.
    All of this is futile.

    The Democrats would be better served trying to find a candidate that is electable.
    Click to expand...
    The whole country would be better off if it did not have a lawless President.

    trump has shown time and again that he believes that the laws are not applicable to him. His congressional minions have excused his lawless actions as either ineptitude or ignorance, never once holding him accountable. Yeah, you may be right, trump will probably not be held accountable by the Senate, but at least the House will be on the record as to what is acceptable executive actions.
     
    Beach Friends said:
    Oh come on. Knowing what we already know about this guy's background, his involvment with the initiation of the investigation, his critical conversations with key witnesses, his close connections to the President's adversaries - you are really going to try to convince me that anyone in the President's position would be okay without determining what he has to say under oath?
    Click to expand...

    I'd be more interested in hearing from the people who are actually testifying and to see if their testimony was influenced by anyone.

    Are you saying you don't believe Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate the Biden's, and using American funds to do so? And to do so outside American judicial process?
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom