The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (7 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

 

[Infoman]

Where is a possible alternative "real truth"?

You're a lawyer right? (serious question) There is no alternative version of the truth... that was my point... how do we get to the real truth, and how do we know what that is?

Do you think we are getting the 100% truth in all of this... or an edited version of it, based on selective information, designed to expose one situation, while covering up others, and protecting some institutions while exposing others?

I obviously can't know who's being 100% honest (I wasn't on the call, nor have I ever been to Ukraine) - All I can do is base my opinion on the credibility and realistic odds are...

And it's hard for me to believe anyone in this 100% with everyone on both sides (historical and recent) propensity to lie to protect themselves and their post.

What is "real or alternative" truth... when you know everyone is lying in some way shape form?

 

[brandon]

How sad.

 

[st dude]

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.

Jim, they are not going to remove Trump. They are already en masse falling back to quid pro quo is fine, we have long made aid to other countries dependent on something we want in return.

Okay fine, as absurd as that is, they should at least say it out loud and stop the ridiculous cross examinations impugning the reputations of multiple witnesses who are clearly telling the truth.

If quid pro quo doesn't matter, why have they fought it tooth and nail?

Trump was right, he could murder someone in broad daylight on 2nd Avenue and his supporters would not care. I can see Jordan and Nunes now, asking the family of the murdered man what in the heck was he doing on 2nd avenue that day.

 

[brandon]

You're a lawyer right? (serious question) There is no alternative version... that was my point.

Do you think we are getting the 100% truth in all of this... or an edited version of it, based on selective information, designed to expose one situation, while covering up others, and protecting some institutions while exposing others?

I obviously can't know who's being 100% honest (I wasn't on the call, nor have I ever been to Ukraine) - All I can do is base my opinion on the credibility and realistic odds are...

And it's hard for me to believe anyone in this 100% with everyone on both sides (historical and recent) propensity to lie to protect themselves and their post.

What is "real or alternative" truth... when you know everyone is lying in some way shape form?

It’s hard to take this seriously. You’re saying that it will basically be impossible to convince you because all politicians lie so they must all be covering something up.

So why even participate in the conversation? Your mind is just as made up as Trump’s 30% and nothing that you will hear will change your mind.

 

[insidejob]

This is what the Republicans are going to hammer him on. That and the fact that he has changed his testimony so many times. That's all they've really got now that everyone has been thrown under the bus.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

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.

...No, the impeachment of trump has nothing to do with retribution and has everything to do with his lawless actions....If retribution is what they were seeking, they had the votes since Jan to impeach, and yet they didn't.
...
This time it is different. These allegations are about serious abuses of power by POTUS and they HAVE TO draw a line here, even if their R colleagues turn a blind eye. Regardless of the outcome, there will be a price to pay because the populace has been so poisoned by false information and obfuscation they will lash out and vote a lot of them out of office. So be it. The integrity of our government is worth the loss seats, at least they would have done the right thing and held trump accountable for HIS actions.

 

[coldseat]

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.

You keep stating this, but have yet to clarify what "real truth" needs to come out on the other side or who you think the other side is protecting. Which influential people do you think the Dems are protecting? Biden?

I don't think the constant mentioning of Hunter Biden's lucrative and cushy figurehead job with Bursima is in any way helping Biden. We all know he got it because his dad is Biden and we're all judging him for it. There is just no indication or evidence of inappropriate or illegal activity surrounding Jo or Hunter Biden. Just unsupported conspiracy theories.

Anything else?

 

[superchuck500]

You're a lawyer right? (serious question) There is no alternative version of the truth... that was my point... how do we get to the real truth, and how do we know what that is?

Do you think we are getting the 100% truth in all of this... or an edited version of it, based on selective information, designed to expose one situation, while covering up others, and protecting some institutions while exposing others?

I obviously can't know who's being 100% honest (I wasn't on the call, nor have I ever been to Ukraine) - All I can do is base my opinion on the credibility and realistic odds are...

And it's hard for me to believe anyone in this 100% with everyone on both sides (historical and recent) propensity to lie to protect themselves and their post.

What is "real or alternative" truth... when you know everyone is lying in some way shape form?

I would say that "100% truth" is a fantasy concept - about just about anything.

What you look for is a compelling set of apparent facts that creates a reliable narrative. One that matches up with the evidence that is most reliable and doesn't strain reality beyond which it can bear.

 

[Infoman]

I am not here for the hyperbole or partisan bickering.... I asked a question... What's the end game to all of this?

I got my answer - thanks for the responses Super / Monte.

As for anyone trying to convince me that any of this has to do with some type of righteous attempt to find the truth, or that there are not super influential people on both sides that don't need to be held accountable for this mess... or that we'll come close to the 100% truth before we do... you can stop... I am not here to be convinced or swayed into buying a brand... thanks.

 

[JimEverett]

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"?

First, I think future witnesses and the trial (assuming there is one) itself can add clarity and perhaps change interpretations of "facts"

One aspect that I think we will hear a lot about in the future is the extent similar types of "bribery" work in the political world. This is going down the road DadsDream is talking about. And I don;t think that is useful in the sense of "hey, they did it, so why can't we" but rather as an exercise in being very clear about what is impeachable.

As far as facts - one thing I would want to know is when did Ukranian officials know about the scheme and how was it relayed to them.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I am not here for the hyperbole or partisan bickering.... I asked a question... What's the end game to all of this?

I got my answer - thanks for the responses Super / Monte.

As for anyone trying to convince me that any of this has to do with some type of righteous attempt to find the truth, or that there are not super influential people on both sides that don't need to held accountable for this mess... or that we'll come close to the truth before we do... you can stop... I am not here to be convinced or swayed into buying a brand... thanks.

You are welcomed.

 

[FullMonte]

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 don't mean this to sound as snarky as it probably does...but did you only read half of my response?

If the Senate doesn't vote him out, then yes...there is a point:
--The voters can use the information that they would not have had without this process to determine whether or not Trump should be re-elected.
--The voters can use the information that they would not have had without this process to determine whether or not their Senator should be re-elected.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[N.O.Bronco]

So I guess the defense is Nunes is going to go full on infowars

it’s gonna be really fun hearing the defenders try and regurgitate this one. Because boy does it make Seth Rich and Uranium One look credible. We are likely about 24 hours before Trump officials and their followers becoming full on Russian kleptocrat defenders to defend Trump’s behavior.

Anyone wanting to preempt it should check out Trump Inc from Propublica.

 

[wardorican]

I get what Nunes is going throwing shade at all this, but he really should focus on punching holes in the narrative.

Him going on about Burisma and Biden (both), and the prosecutor (who should have been removed) is really hard to ignore. It is just silly. I think it undermines his credibility.

 

[Infoman]

I don't mean this to sound as snarky as it probably does...but did you only read half of my response?

If the Senate doesn't vote him out, then yes...there is a point:
--The voters can use the information that they would not have had without this process to determine whether or not Trump should be re-elected.
--The voters can use the information that they would not have had without this process to determine whether or not their Senator should be re-elected.

No, I read that... those are valid / reasonable responses, and I acknowledged you for that...

I personally don't think any of this will move the needle with his base away from him or his backers... they are nearly all (if not all) dug in like ticks...

My question is not about the fall out from this down the road (which is a valid point)... I am asking about direct impact now in regards to removing the POTUS from office today and /or Nov 2020 elections. (and what's the point / end game of this)

 

[J-DONK]

I don't mean this to sound as snarky as it probably does...but did you only read half of my response?

If the Senate doesn't vote him out, then yes...there is a point:
--The voters can use the information that they would not have had without this process to determine whether or not Trump should be re-elected.
--The voters can use the information that they would not have had without this process to determine whether or not their Senator should be re-elected.

Exactly, ask Susan Collins if this matters.

 

[JRad]

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.

"before you said" - I was speaking in context to the back and forth between the two of us. I apologize for misunderstanding your comment.

The fact still remains - if all individuals involved are receiving death threats, isn't that more reason to protect the whistleblower's identity? That individual is drawing more ire than any of the witnesses, are they not?