The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (8 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

 

[bdb13]

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?

In my view, the House must push back on this as it's such an egregious violation. That's the point of it to me, more than anything.

 

[JRad]

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?

I said the Edelman thing before you said the "all witnesses" thing. You saying all the witnesses getting death threats after my comment only reinforces anonymity.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

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

Yes. The House has a duty to the people it represents to do its job. Every Senator will have to answer to their voters eventually. If you think history will look kindly on this administration and its enablers, and if you think the Senators who vote not to convict on the basis of Youtube acccounts or "Shifty Schitt" or whatever will never face consequences, we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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?

If you don’t think it’s possible to get to the truth with the mechanisms currently in place, what do you propose?

 

[Infoman]

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

Again... If the Senate does not vote him out of office... What has he been held accountable for?

I want to know the point of all this... realistically.... I have no idea what this is all for.

I don't see the Senate voting to remove him, and I don't see any of this moving his base further to the left.

 

[JRad]

Again... If the Senate does not vote him out of office... What has he been held accountable for?

I want to know the point of all this... realistically.... I have no idea what this is all for.

I don't see the Senate voting to remove him, and I don't see any of this moving his base further to the left.

I had mentioned this elsewhere, but don't think it got any response. I don't think there is literally any other method of accountability aside from an impeachment proceeding. So you either do nothing and let Trump break the law with no consequence, or you take the only accountability path you have.

For most people, I imagine being investigated to this extent would give you pause before proceeding with any further questionable activities. Unfortunately, I feel like this will just embolden Trump.

 

[JimEverett]

I said the Edelman thing before you said the "all witnesses" thing. You saying all the witnesses getting death threats after my comment only reinforces anonymity.

Come on, man. Your response about Edleman was to SaintForLife writing: "How would the whistleblower's safety be in any more danger than any of the other people who have testified?"

You even quoted his post.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

This aged poorly.

 

[superchuck500]

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?

I think there's a point. Cynicism aside, there is an underlying question here: The Office of the President comes with massive power. Is the United States Congress willing to concede that the President can wield that power for any end he chooses?

It is an extremely important, fundamental question. Under all of the partisan activity, that question remains in earnest. Where is the line and did Trump cross it?

I don't think the political unwillingness of the 67 Senators to convict the President has anything to do with what we think the answer to that question should be. And if members of the House of Representatives want to go on the record of history that they viewed this conduct as unacceptable for American government, they're entitled to do that - it is a process provided for in the Constitution and a topic of substantial discussion in the founding documents.

The motive of individuals involved in conducting these proceedings or voting on those questions will vary and certainly you're right that many of them simply want to try to remove the President. But I don't think that means you must ignore the underlying question.

It is very real, to me at least. I hope to others.

 

[JimEverett]

Again... If the Senate does not vote him out of office... What has he been held accountable for?

I want to know the point of all this... realistically.... I have no idea what this is all for.

I don't see the Senate voting to remove him, and I don't see any of this moving his base further to the left.

No one knows what the Senate will do. They may remove Trump, they may not.

I am not sure how to determine motivations of the actors conclusively. Maybe some are are wanting to impeach just to hurt Trump, maybe some are doing it to appeal their voters back home, maybe some are disgusted by the actions and think a PResident should be removed for doing them.

 

[Infoman]

If you don’t think it’s possible to get to the truth with the mechanisms currently in place, what do you propose?

No idea... that's why I was asking...

Just as an observation... as long as both sides are protecting influential people in this (and they are).... I don't think we get the "real truth"... we'll just get each sides' version of it... which is useless.

I'd like to OUT everyone on both sides of this... all the way from the bottom to the top... regardless of political affiliation... and burn them all out of office... but that won't happen... so here we are.

 

[st dude]

 

[Infoman]

I think there's a point. Cynicism aside, there is an underlying question here: The Office of the President comes with massive power. Is the United States Congress willing to concede that the President can wield that power for any end he chooses?

It is an extremely important, fundamental question. Under all of the partisan activity, that question remains in earnest. Where is the line and did Trump cross it?

I don't think the political unwillingness of the 67 Senators to convict the President has anything to do with what we think the answer to that question should be. And if members of the House of Representatives want to go on the record of history that they viewed this conduct as unacceptable for American government, they're entitled to do that - it is a process provided for in the Constitution and a topic of substantial discussion in the founding documents.

The motive of individuals involved in conducting these proceedings or voting on those questions will vary and certainly you're right that many of them simply want to try to remove the President. But I don't think that means you must ignore the underlying question.

It is very real, to me at least. I hope to others.

Okay... so recorded historical record (precedent) then?

I'll buy that... good response... thanks.

 

[superchuck500]

No idea... that's why I was asking...

Just as an observation... as long as both sides are protecting influential people in this (and they are).... I don't think we get the "real truth"... we'll just gte each sides' version of it... which is useless.

I propose smoking everyone on both sides of this out... all the way from the bottom to the top... regardless of political affiliation... and burning them all out of offices... but that won't happen... so here we are.

I'm just wondering where there is actual room divergent truths at this point? There is substantial testimony from a handful of well-placed officials that Trump was directing a scheme to exert pressure in the form of state meetings (Pence @ inauguration and a White House meeting later in 2019) and $400M in aid conditioned upon Zelensky's public announcement of an investigation of the Bidens and the DNC. And that those officials viewed the scheme as inappropriate an possibly illegal.

And now there is first-hand testimony that Trump himself was directing this scheme and wanted the US diplomats involved to make it clear to Kiev that it was deal.

Where is a possible alternative "real truth"?

 

[The moose]

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?

Of course there is a point.

The point is that the elected officials are either gonna do what the people want or do what the party wants and risk their own hide.

That is the true point to all of this to make a decision on party over country or not.

 

[MT15]

Okay... so recorded historical record (precedent) then?

I'll buy that... good response... thanks.

Infoman you said earlier that Trump’s base isn’t going to move to the left. I don’t think that’s the point. Speaking for myself I don’t care about them moving to the left, all I care about is exposing Trump so that maybe some of them can quit idolizing him as some sort of savior for this country. I just don’t want people to continue to call him “God Emperor” or claim he is single handedly going to war against corruption. He’s an old thoroughly corrupt con man without any integrity or morals. The whole point for me is to expose him for what he is.

 

[brandon]

No idea... that's why I was asking...

Just as an observation... as long as both sides are protecting influential people in this (and they are).... I don't think we get the "real truth"... we'll just get each sides' version of it... which is useless.

I'd like to OUT everyone on both sides of this... all the way from the bottom to the top... regardless of political affiliation... and burn them all out of office... but that won't happen... so here we are.

In order for you to be able to understand, I think you have to be willing to drop the “both sides” argument.

There is only one side at fault here. Just one. JUST ONE.

The sooner you can drop the dangling-by-thread attempt at equivocation, the sooner you can see this for what it is.

 

[wardorican]