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
     
    FullMonte said:
    Do you have any examples of these former residents of the White House making phone calls to the Kremlin where they tried to advance their personal goals?
    Click to expand...
    No.

    Have you ever listened to the LBJ tapes or read the transcripts? Perhaps you should. They're a real eye-opener about what's presidential and what's not.
     
    Volker - We asked Ukraine not to investigate the former Ukrainian administration because it can be highly divisive.
    Ukraine (Yermak) - But it's ok for the US to ask us to investigate Clinton and Biden.

    Ukraine clearly understood who Trump and Guiliani wanted to be investigated.
     
    SaintForLife said:
    I don't see how you can compare a criminal situation to a political situation. They are totally different despite possible similarities in analogies.
    Click to expand...

    if we aren't talking criminal illegality, then why is this relevant?:

    SaintForLife said:
    Yovanovitch doesn't seem to think it was illegal.
    Click to expand...


    Does illegal = impeachable? Does something have to be illegal to be impeachable?

    It just feels like these things need to be defined if we're deciding what gets considered analogical and what's not.
     
    Dadsdream said:
    Any illusions or delusions I suffered regarding what the occupants of the Oval Office will do were dashed by revelations of what really took place there in the Kennedy administration, the transcripts of Lyndon Johnson describing in graphic terms how he would destroy his political opponents, Nixon getting nailed for essentially doing the exact same things Johnson talked about doing, and of course let's not for get Ollie North.
    Click to expand...

    A bunch of vague attempts to draw a false equivalency without actually stating the equivalency.

    Let's try this - just answer this question "yes" or "no."

    Are you cool with a President (whether this one, the previous one, or any other one) suspending military aid to a foreign country unless said country publicly announced phony investigations into a political opponent based on partisan conspiracy theories?

    "Yes" or "no."

    And if the actually give me a direct answer that happens to be "Yes," I have a follow up question.

    How would such an action be in the country's interest and not solely the President's interest?
     
    Dadsdream said:
    If you think that in the larger picture, a booming economy shouldn't be mentioned in this thread as a reason why the Democrat-controlled House wants to impeach a Republican president in order to divert attention, then by all means, delete my post and I'll move on.
    Click to expand...
    Booming economy?

    Nah.

    www.foxbusiness.com

    Is the US economy slowing? Bad economic data reignites recession jitters

    "There’s no doubt, at this point that the economy is slowing,” said Peter C. Earle, a research fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research.
    www.foxbusiness.com www.foxbusiness.com




    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...owdown-spurs-concern-it-s-nearing-stall-speed
     
    Dadsdream said:
    No.

    Have you ever listened to the LBJ tapes or read the transcripts? Perhaps you should. They're a real eye-opener about what's presidential and what's not.
    Click to expand...

    I've read some of them, yeah. But, this isn't about what's "presidential." I have the full confidence that our government works some shady deals with some disreputable characters, and that often comes back to bite us in the butt.

    But, us arming someone like Osama Bin Laden to help him fight the Russians, for example, is a far cry from the president of the United States using underhanded tactics to try to gain a political advantage for his personal gain.
     
    JimEverett said:
    Of course not - Edelman is just really unique:LOL:
    Click to expand...

    So your reason for making the WB identity public and exposing them to harassment and death threats is because the other witnesses have been threatened, so he/she might as well be threatened too?
     


    Morrison - Sondland said the President claimed no quid pro quo, but that Pres Zelensky had to make the statement about an investigation into Biden and 2016 investigation and that was the condition for the release of funds.

    Sondland testifies tomorrow.
     
    not2rich said:
    A bunch of vague attempts to draw a false equivalency without actually stating the equivalency.

    Let's try this - just answer this question "yes" or "no."

    Are you cool with a President (whether this one, the previous one, or any other one) suspending military aid to a foreign country unless said country publicly announced phony investigations into a political opponent based on partisan conspiracy theories?

    "Yes" or "no."

    And if the actually give me a direct answer that happens to be "Yes," I have a follow up question.

    How would such an action be in the country's interest and not solely the President's interest?
    Click to expand...
    I find your adversarial approach of issuing orders regarding how I should respond very abrasive, bordering on insulting.

    Am I cool with a President (whether this one, the previous one, or any other one) suspending military aid to a foreign country unless said country publicly announce phony investigations into a political opponent based on partisan conspiracy theories?

    Yes

    How would such an action be in the country's interest if not solely the President's interest?

    We have no way of knowing. As President, he is in possession of information that we do not know and will not know for some period of time. It's presumptuous to think we have even a fraction of the information at his disposal.

    Let's hope that going forward we can respect one another's points of view.
     
    So, DD, you’re saying that, oh let’s say, President Hillary Clinton would be given that sort of wide latitude by you? That sort of trust? 🤣

    (just a gentle jab because I feel pretty sure you‘d have the pitchforks at the ready)
     
    This is an interesting article of an opinion poll.

    fivethirtyeight.com

    Most Americans Think Trump Committed An Impeachable Offense

    As Democrats press forward with the first phase of their impeachment inquiry, they must try to convince a deeply divided American public that President Trump co…
    fivethirtyeight.com fivethirtyeight.com

    You can see the partisan divide on what people believe happened, but in some cases, less of a divide on of certain actions are inappropriate or not. Impeachable is also more partisan. The Military aid will be key. If the investigation can really thread that needle, then I think the general public would support impeachment.

    1574214822753.png



    So far, on the whole, it doesn't seem like a lot of change has happened since the Public hearings have started. At best, maybe a slight uptick in Democrats.

    1574215142746.png
     
    www.vox.com

    One of the Republicans’ witnesses confirmed a quid pro quo on TV

    Tim Morrison, former White House official and Republican witness, confirmed a quid pro quo during impeachment hearings.
    www.vox.com www.vox.com

    According to Morrison, it clearly was.

    “What did Ambassador Sondland tell you that he told Mr. Yermak?” Democratic counsel Daniel Goldman asked Morrison. Morrison replied, “That the Ukrainians would have to have the prosecutor general make a statement with respect to the investigations as a condition of having the aid lifted.”
    Click to expand...

    Morrison is a tough witness. He has Sondland telling him the President is conditioning the aid on investigations. He has Sondland state he told those conditions to the Ukrainians. Yet, he is cagey on why he restricts access to the memo and doesn't give an inch on his opinion that he didn't witness bribery during the call.

    I think the Dems could have drilled down more on him but were careful not to generate a soundbite where they look bad.
     
    He came across as hiding something to me, completely unbelievable that he had the call moved to a secure server so it wouldn’t “leak” but there was nothing wrong with the call.
     
    B4YOU said:
    www.vox.com

    One of the Republicans’ witnesses confirmed a quid pro quo on TV

    Tim Morrison, former White House official and Republican witness, confirmed a quid pro quo during impeachment hearings.
    www.vox.com www.vox.com



    Morrison is a tough witness. He has Sondland telling him the President is conditioning the aid on investigations. He has Sondland state he told those conditions to the Ukrainians. Yet, he is cagey on why he restricts access to the memo and doesn't give an inch on his opinion that he didn't witness bribery during the call.

    I think the Dems could have drilled down more on him but were careful not to generate a soundbite where they look bad.
    Click to expand...

    I think both of these last two guys know they were willfully ignorant and are trying to come clean about as little as possible and still save themselves.

    I also think they have put even more pressure on Sonland to tell the truth tomorrow. I think he knows as much as anyone.
     
    MT15 said:
    He came across as hiding something to me, completely unbelievable that he had the call moved to a secure server so it wouldn’t “leak” but there was nothing wrong with the call.
    Click to expand...
    Yes, it was wishy washy. he really didn't want to answer why he wanted it moved to the secure server or why he thought the lawyers should consider it. The Congresswoman had to basically say it for him. It was a bit odd, compared to the rest of the testimony.
     
    A key component is that these were the Republican's "witnesses", right? So, did they really move the needle that much back to Republicans?
     
    SaintForLife said:
    It was from some random twitter account. I tried to give you the direct link to that particular part of his YouTube account, but for some reason the link didn't work. If you don't feel like going to YouTube and searching for MarkSZaidEsq and then to playlist you must not be too interested in finding out if it's accurate.
    Click to expand...
    What I find curious is that in your post you posted two direct links to tweets.

    Then you also posted one image uploaded as an attachment instead of as a direct link to what you are now saying came from a tweet.

    The image you posted would be very easy to fake, which is why I'm interested in knowing your source for that image. I'd like to check out the source of the image.
     
    MT15 said:
    He came across as hiding something to me, completely unbelievable that he had the call moved to a secure server so it wouldn’t “leak” but there was nothing wrong with the call.
    Click to expand...
    Didn't he testify that he didn't move it to the server it's on, that it was done by someone else? That the server it was moved to was different than the one he wanted to move it to to prevent it from leaking and that when he asked about it it was claimed that it was moved there by "mistake"?

    I could have misunderstood but I thought that's what I heard.
     

    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