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

 

[insidejob]

Sundland has ZERO reason to give Dems favorable testimony
But he certainly is
Is his testimony clearing up anything for you?

I bet he really wants that $1 million back he donated to Trump's campaign.

 

[JimEverett]

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?

No. Edleman was brought up as a response to the point that all witnesses who testify are in potential danger. The point that Edelman has received death threats did not strike me as a good point in that context. That is all.

The argument went like this:

A: No one should out the whistleblower because he/she could be in danger

B: Aren't all wintesses who testify in danger?

A: look at Edleman, he received death threats

C: Haven't all the people testifying received death threats?

 

[FullMonte]

I have no horse in this race (as most of you know I can't stand either side of this shirt show)... but realistic question...

What's the point of all this? I mean, it's a great day time TV drama, and I am sure it gives people with hard line bias a reason to pound their chests...

But I don't understand what the "end game" is here.... does anyone think there is a legitimate chance that the Senate will (majority) vote to remove the president? Because he sure as hell isn't going to resign.

Or is this just purely an attempt to sway public opinion on Trump from his base in 2020? And who thinks there is a legitimate chance of that? (his base isn't being swayed IMO no matter what)

Seriously... what's the real point here.

And don't say justice or truth (we're not getting that)... because that will immediately draw an ignore from me (LOL)... because both "sides" are up to their ears in dirt on this, otherwise we wouldn't be watching this.

Short version: To get the information out there about what happened.

Longer version:
If the senate decides that the information uncovered was damaging enough, they can exercise their constitutional powers and vote to remove the president.

If the senate decides that the information uncovered was not damaging enough, they can exercise their constitutional power and not vote to remove the president.

If the senate decides that the information was damaging enough, but they choose to follow their party's direction, they can choose to not vote to remove the president.

However that plays out, it then becomes a matter for the electorate.

If voters decide the information is damaging enough, they can choose to vote for someone other than Donald Trump for president due to his actions.

If voters decide that senators acted improperly in their vote, the voters can chose to vote for someone other than their current senator.

 

[superchuck500]

Trump is going to (try to) throw Rudy under the bus just like he did Michael Cohen. I don't know if that is possible after all these witnesses confirming that he did, in fact, attempt to bribe the Ukranians.

Sondland's testimony is that Giuliani and Trump acted in concert on the "deliverable" - and Sondland's testimony includes direct conversation with Trump about it. I don't see how Trump can throw Rudy under the bus at this point. It won't help him.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

No. Edleman was brought up as a response to the point that all witnesses who testify are in potential danger. The point that Edelman has received death threats did not strike me as a good point in that context. That is all.

The argument went like this:

A: No one should out the whistleblower because he/she could be in danger

B: Aren't all wintesses who testify in danger?

A: look at Edleman, he received death threats

C: Haven't all the people testifying received death threats?

‘Career danger’ counts too
You’re just talking about mortal danger

 

[FullMonte]

Watching this testimony, I can't help but look at this guy sitting behind Sondland. Is it just me, or does he look like the love child of Mark Ruffalo and Willem Defoe?

 

[insidejob]

Sondland's testimony is that Giuliani and Trump acted in concert on the "deliverable" - and Sondland's testimony includes direct conversation with Trump about it. I don't see how Trump can throw Rudy under the bus at this point. It won't help him.

Good point. I can only imagine how much screaming at the television is going on in the White House right now.

 

[insidejob]

Watching this testimony, I can't help but look at this guy sitting behind Sondland. Is it just me, or does he look like the love child of Mark Ruffalo and Willem Defoe?

I couldn't stop staring at him for most of the testimony.

 

[wardorican]

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?

I think he is the lawyer for the whistleblower. Seems to have a pedophile vibe. Just weirdness that doesn't help. Gives credence to the conspiracy theorists.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

Sondland pretty much wraps all of it up in a nice, tidy bow today. But instead of addressing his testimony and trying to excuse the steaming pile of shirt that the POTUS has walked into because he and Rudy Giuliani listen to too much Sean Hannity, let's hear more about the "whistleblower" and his lawyer's YouTube account or whatever else distracts from the public testimony.

 

[st dude]

I am editing this as Bozelle took his tweet down after Laura's tweet. Here was his original tweet that Laura responded to:

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

I bet he really wants that $1 million back he donated to Trump's campaign.

Trump on the other hand would still call selling an ambassadorship to some schmuck for $1 million -- even if that guy later threw his entire administration under the bus and guaranteed his impeachment -- good business. I mean, he still got the $1 million.

 

[superchuck500]

‘Career danger’ counts too
You’re just talking about mortal danger

I think you're correct that there are two prongs to the whistleblower issue - (1) the legal protection against workplace retaliation and (2) the ethical consideration of not exposing someone to harm especially when that person doesn't really matter to the proceedings.

This is why I think it's really dumb for the Trump administration to be tweeting negative things about the whistleblower from the official White House press secretary's twitter page. Really dumb. The physical danger threat is something that exists outside of the government and in the sphere of potential more than anything else. But the workplace retaliation protection is very real and the White House is already getting dangerously close to doing it publicly.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

To answer her question, yes.

 

[JRad]

It does matter to me - I'd love truth and justice ... we are not getting that... to get the "real truth" in any of this... everyone has to burn.... that's not happening.

So what's the real end game here...? that's the question... because for any of this to mean anything... The Senate has to majority vote to remove him.

I am not debating... I am asking a question.

If the Senate does not vote to remove him... or if his voting base doesn't abandon him in 2020 because of this... then all of this was just a good made for TV drama.

The alternative is to just let Trump do what he wants without any accountability.

 

[Infoman]

Again, I am not buying the "we are doing this to root out corruption / we have a righteous duty" angle on this... Like I said, too many people are protecting too many high level influential people to ever get the entire "truth" in all of this. To truly root out the corruption here - we'd have to burn down some very influential people (which isn't going to happen).

This is about removing a president from office publicly on a mid-day TV drama...

My question is... Is there a point to this?

FullMonte - Thanks for the response... I do think those are the only reasonable outcomes.

If the Senate doesn't vote him out... Is there a point?

 

[wardorican]

I have no horse in this race (as most of you know I can't stand either side of this shirt show)... but realistic question...

What's the point of all this? I mean, it's a great day time TV drama, and I am sure it gives people with hard line bias a reason to pound their chests...

But I don't understand what the "end game" is here.... does anyone think there is a legitimate chance that the Senate will (majority) vote to remove the president? Because he sure as hell isn't going to resign.

Or is this just purely an attempt to sway public opinion on Trump from his base in 2020? And who thinks there is a legitimate chance of that? (his base isn't being swayed IMO no matter what)

Seriously... what's the real point here.

And don't say justice or truth (we're not getting that)... because that will immediately draw an ignore from me (LOL)... because both "sides" are up to their ears in dirt on this, otherwise we wouldn't be watching this.

1. The truth. I still hold out that the truth is wanted.

2. Public opinion. May not get enough field hard republicans, but independents and others. Put pressure on their representatives, and get some level of bipartisan report. Most won't read the documents. Most wont listen to the hearings, but it will end up on the news.

3. Remove a Republican political talking point of it being a secret.

 

[superchuck500]

Yes - it is psychosis at this point.