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

 

[superchuck500]

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.

Some of that information has been covered in the public sphere. I think there is a bit of information about how Kiev was notified of the condition-scheme that was in the text message release by the House in October.

There is also some reliable information that by the Spring of 2019, Trump had instructed Giuliani to lay the foundation for pressing the new Ukrainian government for "the deliverable" - including this information from Lev Parnas that he conveyed the demand to Zelenksy officials in May, before the Ukrainian inauguration:

Not long before the Ukrainian president was inaugurated in May, an associate of Rudolph W. Giuliani’s journeyed to Kiev to deliver a warning to the country’s new leadership, a lawyer for the associate said.

The associate, Lev Parnas, told a representative of the incoming government that it had to announce an investigation into Mr. Trump’s political rival, Joseph R. Biden Jr., and his son, or else Vice President Mike Pence would not attend the swearing-in of the new president, and the United States would freeze aid, the lawyer said.

The claim by Mr. Parnas, who is preparing to share his account with impeachment investigators, challenges the narrative of events from Mr. Trump and Ukrainian officials that is at the core of the congressional inquiry. It also directly links Mr. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, to threats of repercussions made to the Ukrainians, something he has strenuously denied.

Giuliani Associate Says He Gave Demand for Biden Inquiry to Ukrainians (Published 2019)

The claim by the associate, Lev Parnas, is being vigorously disputed.

www.nytimes.com

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

 

[Saintamaniac]

Yeah, I don't care... I'm not saying they are equivalent, or the that POTUS isn't incompetent... because who the hell really knows... I wasn't there... nor was anyone else here... this all comes down to who's story you want to believe... I say they are all lying in one way shape or form...

My question stands... what's the point... what's the end game?

What's the point in having laws that say it's illegal to murder someone? Someone gets murdered every day. What's the point in saying it's illegal to rape someone? Someone gets raped every day. It's not like these laws make people stop raping and murdering. The point is that we live in a country of laws that are meant to be applied to everyone. No one is supposed to be above them. The point is that there is someone in the white house who is hell bent on destroying the current rule of law. There is also a party that is willing to go along with that plan to maintain power. The point is to expose the wrong doing to everyone, even the people who are currently going along with it.

If history has shown one thing is that these people never remain in power because the sanitation of public airing has a way of bringing things back into order. History will remember the name of trump in the same way it remembers names of other infamous figures in American history. Trumps children will bear a shame long after he is gone. The republicans going along with his shirt will be shamed and their namesakes will be shamed as well. History will serve up a justice to each and every person that went along with this. It may seem like a fruitless battle to you but just remember this; republicans won't always have the senate or the white house. This country didn't make it 230+ years by succumbing to the likes of Peice of work like trump and his family.

The point is that we have a constitution that had built in safe guards. Those are being threatened. The point is that this is what is supposed to happen when the constitution is threatened and no amount of lying or willful ignorance by 1 party is going to undo 230+ years of our country and constitution....not without a fight.

 

[superchuck500]

GOP counsel now questioning Sondland.

 

[brandon]

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)

It seems to be your assertion that because the senate (probably) won’t convict, and his base isn’t going to be swayed by literally anything, that this investigation should not happen.

So let’s imagine the next logical step. If Trump gets away with this crime with literally zero consequence (not even an investigation), then the assumption is he will get away with the next one. And the next one, and the next one.

If we get to the point where the president has absolutely no checks, we are no longer America.

It then is your assertion that we are already there—that there is no crime the president can commit on which he will he held accountable, no matter the evidence.

Some of us just don’t believe (maybe irrationally) that our country has gone to complete autocracy yet.

One of the biggest questions this impeachment process will answer is if we have already crossed the line into autocracy or if we still have hope.

 

[wardorican]

GOP counsel now questioning Sondland.

"You gotta get yourself a fall guy."

 

[Complex Kid]

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.

The huge difference is that "something we want in return" is something that benefits the country. Not Trumps re-election campaign. Good luck with that spin GOP.

 

[Sledge Hammer]

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.

The videos appear on a different tab, so the image was created (doctored), by combining two separate images.

However, as I stated, even though it is an edited image, it seems rooted in the truth. It was not misleading information, despite it not looking right.

 

[JimEverett]

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.

I don't know.
I think the possibility of removal is higher than you obviously think.

 

[not2rich]

"You gotta get yourself a fall guy."

If they're not careful, Rudy may seriously reconsider his refusal to testify.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

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.

GOP counsel now questioning Sondland.

something, something, “if they try it, I have good health insurance.”

Signed America’s Mayor in extra large font

 

[st dude]

I don't know.
I think the possibility of removal is higher than you obviously think.

Jim, I would love to be wrong. I say that, but I do worry about unrest if Trump were impeached. We might be better off if he just gets beat in an election, I do not know.

But I still do not see Senate removing him. It would be political suicide for any republican senator to vote to remove him. So far, not one senator has shown the guts to go after Trump.

MSN

 

[FullMonte]

To sum up my understanding of the Republican defense up to this point...

The president was so concerned with how corrupt Ukraine is that he endangered lives by withholding aid, but in spite of that corruption, they were the best people to investigate the Bidens for their misdeeds

 

[FullMonte]

Jim, I would love to be wrong. I say that, but I do worry about unrest if Trump were impeached. We might be better off if he just gets beat in an election, I do not know.

But I still do not see Senate removing him. It would be political suicide for any republican senator to vote to remove him. So far, not one senator has shown the guts to go after Trump.

MSN

I have a suspicion that there is some talking behind the scenes between republican senators about building a coalition to stand up against Trump's actions. I don't think any one senator will be willing to come out publicly and say that Trump needs to be removed, but if they can assemble a group, that may change.

 

[st dude]

I have a suspicion that there is some talking behind the scenes between republican senators about building a coalition to stand up against Trump's actions. I don't think any one senator will be willing to come out publicly and say that Trump needs to be removed, but if they can assemble a group, that may change.

That thought has occurred to me too. I dont have much faith any of them will do the right thing. If it did happen, thats how it would happen, a coalition.

You never know, maybe someone has a conscience and says enough is enough. I am so disappointed they stood idly by while Jordan and Nunes attacked good people. Shame on all of them.

 

[brandon]

I have a suspicion that there is some talking behind the scenes between republican senators about building a coalition to stand up against Trump's actions. I don't think any one senator will be willing to come out publicly and say that Trump needs to be removed, but if they can assemble a group, that may change.

I agree with this.

 

[Nebaghead]

I have a suspicion that there is some talking behind the scenes between republican senators about building a coalition to stand up against Trump's actions. I don't think any one senator will be willing to come out publicly and say that Trump needs to be removed, but if they can assemble a group, that may change.

I think if the Senate does do something against Trump, there will be a deal for a landmark piece of legislation be passed.

 

[buzd]

The first time I saw this, I didn't think it was real.

(The second tweet, not the first)