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

 

[JRad]

All true, yet the Democrats keep trying repeatedly.

No, that is not what is happening. The House is trying to perform its oversight role. End of story.

When you add this silly hyper-partisan tripe to your posts, it’s really hard to take anything you say seriously.

 

[Lazybones]

Not only did the people vote for him, they elected him President the way the Constitution requires. You many not like the Electoral College process but it's the way we elect our President. Who's flaunting the Constitution now, or are you just engaging in your usual demagoguery?

I mean gerrymandering is the only reason trump got elected, everyone knows that. Lol

Dems are very predictable in the responses when they are opposite of Charlie Sheen.

 

[JRad]

I don’t think overturn is being used that way. Basically since the dems did not approve of who and how he was elected, they have worked for three years to try and get him out of office or as being said, overturn the election.

It’s just regurgitating more garbage from far right sources. Say what you mean, because “undo 2016” is factually inaccurate in every conceivable way.

 

[Lazybones]

No, that is not what is happening. The House is trying to perform its oversight role. End of story.

When you add this silly hyper-partisan tripe to your posts, it’s really hard to take anything you say seriously.

You don’t think that Pelosi and her friends in the media haven’t been hanging on everything trump does waiting to try and impeach?

 

[Lazybones]

It’s just regurgitating more garbage from far right sources. Say what you mean, because “undo 2016” is factually inaccurate in every conceivable way.

That’s fine, but do you understand what I said? It seems some are playing word semantics and ignoring what is actually being said.

 

[JRad]

You don’t think that Pelosi and her friends in the media haven’t been hanging on everything trump does waiting to try and impeach?

No. He is being investigated for things that should be investigated. Same as both Clintons. Same as Hunter. Same as everyone. If you think chasing down everything Hillary or Obama did was valid, then you have zero high ground here.

That’s fine, but do you understand what I said? It seems some are playing word semantics and ignoring what is actually being said.

Of course I do. But the problem is that phrase is more than semantics at this point. There are people using that taking point in a very literal way, and we should be better than that.

 

[JRad]

Do you have any other fictional stories you would like to share with the class?

Sadly, semantics is all some people have to go on because their assertions are so laughable.

Why? So I can enjoy some more of these highly thought out zingers? Come back when you have some factually accurate responses to anything anyone posts.

 

[yuyi64]

He is being investigated for things that should be investigated. Same as both Clintons. Same as Hunter.

Wait, so you're agreeing now with everyone who's not a Democratic partisan that Hunter should be investigated for his shady dealings? Where are the House investigations on Hunter then?

 

[LA - L.A.]

Sadly, semantics is all some people have to go on because their assertions are so laughable.

You had said that the Democrats aren't following the same procedure that was followed with Clinton. I and two other posters took the time to factually show that the only difference between the current process and the Clinton process, is that an independent counsel conducted the Clinton investigation and House committees are conducting their own investigations.

I politely asked you if you would rather see an independent counsel be appointed to investigate Trump on this issue instead of the House committees.

Rather than dismissing what others are saying as just "semantics" and how "laughable" they are, please take the time to discuss how you think Trump's effort to get Ukraine to publicly announce that they were investigating Biden for corruption should be investigated.

 

[Lazybones]

No. He is being investigated for things that should be investigated. Same as both Clintons. Same as Hunter. Same as everyone. If you think chasing down everything Hillary or Obama did was valid, then you have zero high ground here.



Of course I do. But the problem is that phrase is more than semantics at this point. There are people using that taking point in a very literal way, and we should be better than that.

So if you disagreed with Bengazi investigations, you also have no leg to stand on? I just want to make sure I understand your base line.

 

[JRad]

So if you disagreed with Bengazi investigations, you also have no leg to stand on? I just want to make sure I understand your base line.

From what you quoted:

He is being investigated for things that should be investigated. Same as both Clintons.

Edit: I’m of the belief illegal activities should be investigated, especially when you’re dealing with people in positions of power - what they do has a far greater impact. I don’t care what party the alleged is aligned with, the law should be followed. Trump’s been investigated for several things, and they’re all pretty big deals. Normally, I’d give you the paying off an affair one - that’s not criminal (I don’t think?), and those matters should be settled personally. Unfortunately, the timing changes the optics on that one since it rubs up against campaign finance.

 

[Dragon]

He has openly admitted to what the first whistleblower told and you are ok with that? He is completely ignoring the emoluments clause and making a lot of money on the back of the ordinary taxpayers by promoting his businesses at every opportunity. He has openly admitted to sexually assaulting women and that too is ok as long he is "maga" great? He is calling members of congress "traitors" and openly talking about civil war if removed from office - but that too is ok?

Notice EVERY thing I mentioned is factual - not hearsay - not left wing propaganda but his own words and his own actions.

Your response is exactly what is being said by those that support trump. Because the left in the media doesn’t agree with his actions, they are trying to reverse the results of an election via impeachment.

None of what you described is impeachable. If there is no quid pro quo, what is the impeachable crime? Grabbing a groupies ****** 20 years ago is not impeachable. Every politician uses the office to make money, not saying it’s right, I’m saying it’s not unique.

But it actually is.

No Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

Just because Trump claim it isn't, the wording in the constitution is very clear.

 

[yuyi64]

please take the time to discuss how you think Trump's effort to get Ukraine to publicly announce that they were investigating Biden for corruption should be investigated.

We already wasted enough time and taxpayer dollars on an independent counsel for the past two years and as most sensible people suspected Trump is still in office. The effort you allude to in your sentence is not even worth investigating. You may not like his effort or think that Biden should be investigated but that doesn't rise to the level of a crime and there is no need for another lengthy expensive partisan investigation where we get to see politicians grandstanding in front of a camera every day. Enough is enough! If you don't like the man or his policies then vote him out of office in a year. In the meantime the rest of us will continue living our normal lives and not obsess over everything the man says or does.

 

[LA - L.A.]

We already wasted enough time and taxpayer dollars on an independent counsel for the past two years...

The effort you allude to in your sentence is not even worth investigating.

This investigation is on a different issue from Mueller's investigation.

Trump at the very least violated election law by seeking campaign assistance from a foreign government. He may have actually tried to extort the Ukraine into assisting him. Either of those is a violation of the law and any violation of the law is worth investigating and is an impeachable offense.

 

[yuyi64]

Trump at the very least violated election law by seeking campaign assistance from a foreign government. He may have actually tried to extort the Ukraine into assisting him. Either of those is a violation of the law and any violation of the law is worth investigating and is an impeachable offense.

If you're going to investigate every possible violation of election law that a politician might have committed you will spend the rest of your lifetime doing so or in this case Congress will be doing so for eternity. Even if we accept your interpretation of what happened (which a lot of people don't) for the sake of this argument, the offense isn't serious enough to subject the nation to a partisan divisive impeachment fight for the next year. Your definition of extortion is also very broad and alludes to something which is not uncommon between leaders of nations whenever something of value is being discussed.

 

[LA - L.A.]

First, let's start with the fact that your original argument was that the House was engaged in an unprecedented and unconstitutional impeachment process. Since three people have proven that argument to be factually untrue, you have now shifted to these new arguments. Let's look at these new arguments.

If you're going to investigate every possible violation of election law that a politician might have committed you will spend the rest of your lifetime...

This argument goes against our entire legal philosophy. The argument is that we can't investigate everyone, so we shouldn't investigate anyone. Nothing in a our legal system works that way. Nothing in our constitution works that way. It's disconnected from the reality of our legal system and our governmental system.

More proof of a need for a thorough investigation.

...the offense isn't serious enough...

Any deliberate and intentional violation of the law by a sitting President is serious. Trump put a lot of effort into hiding it. Since it's been made public, Trump has done everything he can to prevent an investigation into what exactly he did. These are the actions of someone who knows that what they did is seriously wrong and comes with serious consequences.

...a partisan divisive impeachment fight for the next year.

I don't agree with your opinion of the current investigation. I don't think it will be any more divisive than Trump is and I don't think it's being driven solely by partisanship. FOX's latest poll shows that the majority of Americans are in favor of an impeachment investigation. It might actually be uniting people against a corrupt Trump.

Also, it's partisan in nature to assume everything a Democrat or Republican does is completely partisan in nature.

Your definition of extortion is also very broad and alludes to something which is not uncommon between leaders of nations whenever something of value is being discussed.

You've said this before.

I asked you then and I'm asking you again, please name the other presidents that have asked a foreign leader to make a public announcement that the foreign leader is investigating a potential election rival of the president in the middle of a election cycle. You keep saying it's a common occurrence, but you haven't cited any other examples of it happening.

It seems that if it were truly as common as you claim, then you'd be able to point to other historical examples. Anyone can make any claim. The only legitimate claims are those that can be supported with proof which shows the claims to be true.

 

[Lazybones]

First, let's start with the fact that your original argument was that the House was engaged in an unprecedented and unconstitutional impeachment process. Since three people have proven that argument to be factually untrue, you have now shifted to these new arguments. Let's look at these new arguments.

This argument goes against our entire legal philosophy. The argument is that we can't investigate everyone, so we shouldn't investigate anyone. Nothing in a our legal system works that way. Nothing in our constitution works that way. It's disconnected from the reality of our legal system and our governmental system.

More proof of a need for a thorough investigation.

Any deliberate and intentional violation of the law by a sitting President is serious. Trump put a lot of effort into hiding it. Since it's been made public, Trump has done everything he can to prevent an investigation into what exactly he did. These are the actions of someone who knows that what they did is seriously wrong and comes with serious consequences.

I don't agree with your opinion of the current investigation. I don't think it will be any more divisive than Trump is and I don't think it's being driven solely by partisanship. FOX's latest poll shows that the majority of Americans are in favor of an impeachment investigation. It might actually be uniting people against a corrupt Trump.

Also, it's partisan in nature to assume everything a Democrat or Republican does is completely partisan in nature.

You've said this before.

I asked you then and I'm asking you again, please name the other presidents that have asked a foreign leader to make a public announcement that the foreign leader is investigating a potential election rival of the president in the middle of a election cycle. You keep saying it's a common occurrence, but you haven't cited any other examples of it happening.

It seems that if it were truly as common as you claim, then you'd be able to point to other historical examples. Anyone can make any claim. The only legitimate claims are those that can be supported with proof which shows the claims to be true.

“The only legitimate claims are those that can be supported with proof which shows the claim to be true.”

This doesn’t appear to be the standard the Democrats are operating under.

1. Mueller
2. Kavanaugh
3. Steele dossier
4. And now this

 

[LA - L.A.]

“The only legitimate claims are those that can be supported with proof which shows the claim to be true.”

This doesn’t appear to be the standard the Democrats are operating under.

Actually it does look like it's the standard being used:

1. Mueller - proved obstruction of justice
2. Kavanaugh - White House obstructed FBI vetting investigation
3. Steele dossier - many things from it have been proven true
4. And now this - ongoing investigation and Trump himself openly admitted and provided proof that he asked foreign government for campaign assistance