The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (8 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 9 (members: 0, guests: 9)
    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
     
    LA - L.A. said:
    I'm pretty sure that's a hypothetical quote and if it is, it should have been clearly stated that it is.
    Click to expand...
    Isn't it sad that a quote I thought was absolutely, blatantly sarcastic has to have a disclaimer that it is, in fact, not true?
     
    Dadsdream said:
    I'm flat out wrong, you say? Let's see what the whistleblower's attorney says.

    1574172476691.png


    1574172818170.png

    1574172942598.png


    Yeah, his tweets tell me I'm right about a lot of things . . . #coup #rebellion . . . etc.

    As for the word you highlighted, although it does have various meanings and shades of meanings, it is most often used to denote a degree from an institute of higher education. If you took it to mean something else, I can see where it might be confusing to you.

    Have a great day, V-Chip.
    Click to expand...

    Trump's lawyer posited to a federal court that the president could literally murder someone in public and not face criminal investigation - because he enjoys "absolute immunity."

    Lawyers are advocates - they aren't always the best source of fair characterizations.
     
    brandon said:
    Isn't it sad that a quote I thought was absolutely, blatantly sarcastic has to have a disclaimer that it is, in fact, not true?
    Click to expand...

    True, but it's also just good form in this kind of discussion board to indicate when an attribution is actually in jest. Even if you think it's obvious.
     
    superchuck500 said:
    Trump's lawyer posited to a federal court that the president could literally murder someone in public and not face criminal investigation - because he enjoys "absolute immunity."

    Lawyers are advocates - they aren't always the best source of fair characterizations.
    Click to expand...
    I understand. Look at the dates on the tweets. He's been on a mission for quite some time. So have a lot of other people . . . from the day after the election onward, just like I said.
     
    Dadsdream said:
    I understand. Look at the dates on the tweets. He's been on a mission for quite some time. So have a lot of other people . . . from the day after the election onward, just like I said.
    Click to expand...

    He has developed a strong niche practice of using legal process to force government transparency and in representing government officials and employees who, in his view, play an important role in ensuring that government functions in a transparent and appropriate way. He's been doing it since the late 1990s.

    It's no surprise that the kind of rhetoric from Trump the candidate (much of which has turned into action) would have an advocate like that poised for action. Mark Zaid didn't make Trump use his private lawyer as a shadow arm of White House diplomacy. Mark Zaid didn't make Trump pull aid from DOD to have control over it so he could use it as leverage over Zelensky to make a public announcement to harm Joe Biden and the DNC. Mark Zaid didn't make anyone attempt to use the power of the federal government for purely political purposes.
     
    Dadsdream said:
    I understand. Look at the dates on the tweets. He's been on a mission for quite some time. So have a lot of other people . . . from the day after the election onward, just like I said.
    Click to expand...
    You do understand that a person’s motives and beliefs have no bearing on the veracity of facts right?

    There seems to be this habitual avoidance of engaging in the substance of the matter at hand by a number of people and to instead focus on motives, projections, and broad stroking caricatures as some substitute.

    And at no point is it more clear how big of a red herring this ad hominem nonsense is toward the whistle blower when we have, as we speak, two highly respected state officials, one a decorated Purple Heart veteran that served in multiple administrations, that personally listened on the call, and is testifying under oath and has already corroborated everything the whistleblower said.
     
    So, if the whistleblower's attorney was part of the #coup and #rebellion groups on Twitter, was the whistleblower part of that too?

    Oh. right, I forgot. We're not supposed to know who the whistleblower is, so we can't tell if he was a #coup #rebellion groupie like his lawyer.

    Good grief.
     
    wardorican said:
    Vindman is hard to listen to. He nervous to speak in public? Or is he just garbled normally?
    Click to expand...
    It makes me wonder how he has made it this far considering his public voice. Vindman is coming across as a person who lacks confidence in his testimony.
     
    Dadsdream said:
    I understand. Look at the dates on the tweets. He's been on a mission for quite some time. So have a lot of other people . . . from the day after the election onward, just like I said.
    Click to expand...



    there are a bevy of "watchdog" groups that perform these duties for decades.

    The real question is if you know you are being watched, yet still commit the impropriety, then you call foul due to "partisan" politics?

    I would add that he, like many many Americans, saw thru the con and quickly realized Trump is NOT fit for POTUS. Therefore, made sure to pay close attention to moves and motives.

    and here we are.
     
    Dadsdream said:
    So, if the whistleblower's attorney was part of the #coup and #rebellion groups on Twitter, was the whistleblower part of that too?

    Oh. right, I forgot. We're not supposed to know who the whistleblower is, so we can't tell if he was a #coup #rebellion groupie like his lawyer.

    Good grief.
    Click to expand...

    Forget about the Wookie!!!

    So what if he is? It will not change the facts concerning the President's actions towards Ukraine.

    These impeachment hearings will be about the testimonies of Fiona Hill, William Taylor, LTC Alexander Vindman, George Kent, Kurt Volker, Gordon Sondland, and Marie Yovanovitch.

    All of them have confirmed, one way or another that there was a concerted effort by trump and his minions to extort an announcement from the President of Ukraine that an investigation of the Bidens has been launched by his government. And once Giuliani and his cohorts are compelled to testify, along with WH staff, it will reveal the depths of this influence campaign against Ukraine.
     
    V Chip said:
    You’re flat out wrong. Just because other people are as wrong about something as you are proves nothing.

    The Mueller investigation showed there was wrongdoing, full stop. It showed that Trump obstructed the investigation on 10 separate occasions and has resulted in the conviction of many others associated with the campaign. If that’s a witch hunt, then your definition of witch hunt is as wrong as your take on the Mueller report/investigation.

    And the word I highlighted is incorrect as well.
    Click to expand...
    Mueller highlighted so much wrongdoing that the Democrats aren't even pursuing that subject at all during the impeachment hearings!
     
    DJ1BigTymer said:
    It makes me wonder how he has made it this far considering his public voice. Vindman is coming across as a person who lacks confidence in his testimony.
    Click to expand...
    He's doing better now.

    He made a good crack about speaking Russian, Ukrainian, and a little bit of English.
     
    superchuck500 said:
    He has developed a strong niche practice of using legal process to force government transparency and in representing government officials and employees who, in his view, play an important role in ensuring that government functions in a transparent and appropriate way. He's been doing it since the late 1990s.

    It's no surprise that the kind of rhetoric from Trump the candidate (much of which has turned into action) would have an advocate like that poised for action. Mark Zaid didn't make Trump use his private lawyer as a shadow arm of White House diplomacy. Mark Zaid didn't make Trump pull aid from DOD to have control over it so he could use it as leverage over Zelensky to make a public announcement to harm Joe Biden and the DNC. Mark Zaid didn't make anyone attempt to use the power of the federal government for purely political purposes.
    Click to expand...
    And Mark Zaid had nothing to do with the Mueller investigation. He didn't make Trump associates meet with Russian officials to discuss getting dirt on political opponents. His tweets have nothing to do with the independent investigation into the Trump campaign and administration's shady dealings with Russian officials or the obstruction of the investigation. Pointing to some other third party with no connection to Mueller as an attempt to smear the investigation as a witch hunt does absolutely nothing to back up that spurious claim and reeks of desperation.
     
    Dadsdream said:
    I'm flat out wrong, you say? Let's see what the whistleblower's attorney says.

    1574172476691.png


    1574172818170.png

    1574172942598.png


    Yeah, his tweets tell me I'm right about a lot of things . . . #coup #rebellion . . . etc.

    As for the word you highlighted, although it does have various meanings and shades of meanings, it is most often used to denote a degree from an institute of higher education. If you took it to mean something else, I can see where it might be confusing to you.

    Have a great day, V-Chip.
    Click to expand...
    We shouldn't be questioning Zaid's motives. From what I've heard he's a great guy.


    IMG_20191119_091554.jpg
     
    Dadsdream said:
    Yes, he made a bundle acting as a proxy so others could say their hands were clean. I understand completely.
    Click to expand...

    Okay, you're going to have to connect those dots. How is Mark Zaid acting as a proxy to bring about the events that transpired among Giuliani, Trump, Sondland, Volker, Mulvaney, and the Zelensky administration between April 2019 and September 2019.

    Show your work.
     

    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