The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (15 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 16 (members: 0, guests: 16)
    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
     
    JimEverett said:
    That is debatable - but the more important point is that Trump is not being tried in a court of law. he will be tried before a political body by a political body.
    Click to expand...
    Then why keep making the argument that Trump deserves to face the whistleblower like the accused has the right to face their accuser in a court of law?

    Also, even in a court of law, the accused does not have a right to face an informant unless that informant is called as a witness during the trial.
     
    Last edited:
    SaintForLife said:
    We shouldn't be questioning Zaid's motives. From what I've heard he's a great guy.


    IMG_20191119_091554.jpg
    Click to expand...

    Since this was a point of contention, I went on YouTube for myself. This is a doctored image, but it seems rooted in the truth. https://www.youtube.com/user/MarkSZaidEsq/playlists

    On the MarkSZaidEsq YouTube page, where he videos are about 10 years old, there is a tab for "playlists". There is one playlist on that page, and it shows this:

    1574216970776.png
     
    Dadsdream said:
    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.
    Click to expand...

    So what are your thoughts on the FISA warrant for Carter Page during Obama's tenure?

    Once upon a time you called it basically treason(and by once upon a time, not even a year ago). Outraged and off the handle that in your mind, based on discredited conspiracies, that a sitting president would supposedly force an investigation onto his party's chief rival's campaign by incorporating oppo research as a footnote.....Funny how the posture completely changes with the party label.
     
    Dadsdream said:
    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.
    Click to expand...

    Asking for a direct answer to a direct question is hardly "issuing orders." But I appreciate that you gave direct answers. I'm glad you would be just as nonplussed if a hypothetical President HRC had been caught in the same circumstances.

    As for the President being in possession of information that we don't know that would justify his actions based on the country's interests, I feel pretty strongly that if that were the case, Trump and his enablers would already have tried it out. After all, self-discipline is not Trump's strong suit.
     
    Sledge Hammer said:
    Since this was a point of contention, I went on YouTube for myself. This is a doctored image, but it seems rooted in the truth. https://www.youtube.com/user/MarkSZaidEsq/playlists

    On the MarkSZaidEsq YouTube page, where he videos are about 10 years old, there is a tab for "playlists". There is one playlist on that page, and it shows this:

    1574216970776.png
    Click to expand...
    What's doctored? It looks like an updated image with a different view. There are now 2 private channels. The Top 10 prettiest and Selena Gomez videos appear in both images. It appear like the Top 10 Disney was removed or made private.
     
    FullMonte said:
    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.
    Click to expand...
    I'm seriously doubt it's the first time in the history of the country that the President used underhanded tactics to try to gain a politcal advantage.
     
    SaintForLife said:
    I'm seriously doubt it's the first time in the history of the country that the President used underhanded tactics to try to gain a politcal advantage.
    Click to expand...
    And the next time someone robs a bank, won't be the first time someone robbed a bank.

    And the next time someone embezzles, money won't be the first time someone embezzled money.

    And the next time someone accepts a bribe, won't be the first time someone accepted a bribe.

    And the next time someone commits fraud, won't be the first time someone committed fraud.

    And the next time someone lies under oath, won't be the first time someone lied under oath.

    I mean why enforce any of our laws now and in the future, since they've all been broken in the past?
     
    SaintForLife said:
    I'm seriously doubt it's the first time in the history of the country that the President used underhanded tactics to try to gain a politcal advantage.
    Click to expand...
    For weeks I asked people to try and provide substance to this deflection, so far no one has been able to provide a solid answer.

    Perhaps you have one? Can you provide one of these times a president undermined national security that potentially cost ally lives in order to bribe a foreign official through a shadow diplomatic channel to interfere in our elections by taking actions that would harm their political rival for personal gain?

    I looked, occasionally one or two people offered vague and not at all similar events, but the only comparison I was ever able to find was Nixon during his election campaign that used a donor back channel to undermine Johnson’s diplomatic efforts to curry favor with his incoming administration. And when that was uncovered and verified decades after the fact it was held up as bad or worse than Warergate and likely would have disqualified him immediately.

    Furthermore the argument offered here is essentially an endorsement of illiberalism. That because you think corruption happened before we should allow it to fester indefinitely. If that is your position, fine, but let’s not sugar coat what it really is.
     
    It occurs to me that the WB identity would be public by now, had Trump not attacked them, smeared them and done some very public intimidation in an attempt to “out” them. So for everyone claiming that the media (including Fox, BTW) is engaging in some sort of conspiracy to conceal their identity, just consider that it could very well be that they don’t want to be sued if and when something terrible happens to the WB due to them exposing him.

    The simple answers are usually correct, in my experience. Trump has only his terrible Twitter habit and raging personality disorder to blame for the fact that the WB identity is still unknown.
     
    My other morning thought. Yes, we all know now that Trump used Rudy and Sondland to be the point persons on his attempt to extort Ukraine into smearing Joe Biden. It wasn’t just a simple “ask” on a phone call. And it went on for months. It cost an esteemed diplomat her career. That’s just wrong, morally, ethically and possibly legally.

    The only valid question to me, at this point, is whether this is an impeachable offense. To me, that’s an easy question to answer, but Rs seem to be having difficulty with it. Imagining myself in this sort of quandary (someone I really like has done this), the difference maker to me would be recognition of wrongdoing. Trump has none. He would do something like this again and again. We have literally zero evidence that he would even hesitate. You have to remove someone like that from office, they’re unfit and they’re a detriment to the national security.
     
    Alright I've scrolled back through a few pages and I seem to be missing the reasoning why this guy's YouTube like page is important. Would someone mind filling me in please?
     
    Any Trump defenders want to stand up for his comments about Lt. Col Vindman?
    xpuma20x said:
    Alright I've scrolled back through a few pages and I seem to be missing the reasoning why this guy's YouTube like page is important. Would someone mind filling me in please?
    Click to expand...
    It is an attempt to discredit the lawyer for the WB. Because he likes Disney teen shows he is a perv. Imagine if he walked in on teen pageant contestants changing they might elect him president.
     
    If I were Sondland I would not bank on Trump's pardon.

    He is in a hole would love for him to just say I am not going to jail for this here is exactly what happened.

    He will probably plead the 5th but coming clean would be great.

    We sould have a bet on how many times he does use the 5th.
     
    The moose said:
    If I were Sondland I would not bank on Trump's pardon.

    He is in a hole would love for him to just say I am not going to jail for this here is exactly what happened.

    He will probably plead the 5th but coming clean would be great.

    We sould have a bet on how many times he does use the 5th.
    Click to expand...
    It seems as if Sondland has opted for the "no jail" option according to his opening statement. There's no link to it yet, but he says he acted with the explicit orders of POTUS and those orders were to solicit the public statement of an investigation of the Bidens.
     
    Dadsdream said:
    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 don't agree with this logic. What if a future president committed actual, verifiable treason? Does treason then become presidential? Because LBJ (or Nixon or JFK) did something doesn't make it presidential. If it did, talking to people with the door open while you're on the toilet would be considered presidential.
     

    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