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

 

[BobE]

Man, why couldn't this have broken while the hearings were going on, for nothing more than to see Nunes' reaction on TV.

Allegedly he is now suing CNN and another paper over this. Sigh, Ima need more popcorn.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Do news organizations have talking points or meetings about the phrases they will use to describe a specific situation? Why do they all tend to use the same phrases?

First, because both Republicans and Democrats issue talking points to all of their party members which includes the specific language they them want to use in media interviews.

Second, most human beings parrot what they hear others say, so most people start parroting the language they hear from the interviewees who are reciting the talking points.

Look at how many people repeat "urban slang" and how quickly the usage of new "urban slang" words spreads. It's human nature, not a conspiracy.

Why do you think people use the same phrases?

 

[superchuck500]

chuck in stereo is going to take some getting used to.

Well, I think ‘stereo’ is a bit generous.

 

[Taurus]

The fact that anyone is indifferent to bribery in the highest office in the land is repulsive.

 

[brandon]

@Joe Okc

There are multiple testimonies explicitly stating that there was quid pro quo.

It was bribery.

So I’ll say it again: if the Bidens committed a crime, lock them up. If Trump committed a crime, what is your response?

Just wanted to bring this back since we had a slight pause for administrator identification.

I think it’s important for the board to know in black and white whether or not you would support prosecuting the president under any circumstances.

I’ll throw @Dadsdream in here too, for good measure.

I must really hate myself this morning.

 

[Dadsdream]

@Joe Okc



Just wanted to bring this back since we had a slight pause for administrator identification.

I think it’s important for the board to know in black and white whether or not you would support prosecuting the president under any circumstances.

I’ll throw @Dadsdream in here too, for good measure.

I must really hate myself this morning.

I am happy to see that you think so highly of my opinion that you want to hear from me personally.

Prosecute away as much as necessary.
But, be aware, it will not play out like the House hearings.

Hearsay evidence and vaguely overheard second-hand phone calls in restaurants won't be admitted in such a venue.

The witnesses' social media and other indicators of their attitude or bias toward the accused become fair game.

I really don't think it will come to a criminal prosecution. The Senate writes its own rules for its hearings. The witnesses who have the gall to sit there smirking and laughing at a Senator's questions will find themselves in contempt. The Senate takes itself much more seriously than the House. Nature if the beast.

No, I believe these articles are dead on arrival at the Senate.

The question then becomes whether DJT has been sufficiently smeared for it to affect the 2020 election. I believe that was the unstated intent of the hearing all along from the Democratic leadership's perspective.

By election time, these hearings will be a distant memory, as has already happened with the Russia Collusion accusations. A new"bombshell" revelation or international crisis will arise to blot out all else

All told, people are sick if listening to it and they are tuning it out. Russia collusion and impeachment fatigue is real. People want it to be over.

I work in a large government complex with a big cafeteria that has three big TVs - One tuned to CNN, one tuned to Fox and one tuned to an internal federal channel that shows the latest achievements and policy updates.

I've never seen people ignoring and avoiding sitting near or watching the news TVs, preferring the federal policy TV .. . Until last week. It was an amazing thing to behold.

Just because the good folks on this board were hanging on every word of the hearings, that doesn't mean the rest of the country did too.

I believe most of the country had this show on IGNORE.

Nice talkng with you, Brandon, as always.

 

[samiam5211]

I am happy to see that you think so highly of my opinion that you want to hear from me personally.

Prosecute away as much as necessary.
But, be aware, it will not play out like the House hearings.

Hearsay evidence and vaguely overheard second-hand phone calls in restaurants won't be admitted in such a venue.

The witnesses' social media and other indicators of their attitude or bias toward the accused become fair game.

I really don't think it will come to a criminal prosecution. The Senate writes its own rules for its hearings. The witnesses who have the gall to sit there smirking and laughing at a Senator's questions will find themselves in contempt. The Senate takes itself much more seriously than the House. Nature if the beast.

No, I believe these articles are dead on arrival at the Senate.

The question then becomes whether DJT has been sufficiently smeared for it to affect the 2020 election. I believe that was the unstated intent of the hearing all along from the Democratic leadership's perspective.

By election time, these hearings will be a distant memory, as has already happened with the Russia Collusion accusations. A new"bombshell" revelation or international crisis will arise to blot out all else

All told, people are sick if listening to it and they are tuning it out. Russia collusion and impeachment fatigue is real. People want it to be over.

I work in a large government complex with a big cafeteria that has three big TVs - One tuned to CNN, one tuned to Fox and one tuned to an internal federal channel that shows the latest achievements and policy updates.

I've never seen people ignoring and avoiding sitting near or watching the news TVs, preferring the federal policy TV .. . Until last week. It was an amazing thing to behold.

Just because the good folks on this board were hanging on every word of the hearings, that doesn't mean the rest of the country did too.

I believe most of the country had this show on IGNORE.

Nice talkng with you, Brandon, as always.

You didn’t answer his question.

He didn’t ask what you thought would happen. He asked what you think should happen.

Save the condescending courtroom skit.

 

[Dadsdream]

You didn’t answer his question.

He didn’t ask what you thought would happen. He asked what you think should happen.

Save the condescending courtroom skit.

I answered his question to my satisfaction.
The senate won't vote to impeach, there won't be a criminal prosecution, so the point is moot.
As to whether I personally think there should be a criminal prosecution, no I don't. I really don think it rises to that level.
I find your tone to be abrasive. You might consider dialing back a bit.

 

[Dadsdream]

I am happy to see that you think so highly of my opinion that you want to hear from me personally.

Prosecute away as much as necessary.
But, be aware, it will not play out like the House hearings.

Hearsay evidence and vaguely overheard second-hand phone calls in restaurants won't be admitted in such a venue.

The witnesses' social media and other indicators of their attitude or bias toward the accused become fair game.

I really don't think it will come to a criminal prosecution. The Senate writes its own rules for its hearings. The witnesses who have the gall to sit there smirking and laughing at a Senator's questions will find themselves in contempt. The Senate takes itself much more seriously than the House. Nature if the beast.

No, I believe these articles are dead on arrival at the Senate.

The question then becomes whether DJT has been sufficiently smeared for it to affect the 2020 election. I believe that was the unstated intent of the hearing all along from the Democratic leadership's perspective.

By election time, these hearings will be a distant memory, as has already happened with the Russia Collusion accusations. A new"bombshell" revelation or international crisis will arise to blot out all else

All told, people are sick if listening to it and they are tuning it out. Russia collusion and impeachment fatigue is real. People want it to be over.

I work in a large government complex with a big cafeteria that has three big TVs - One tuned to CNN, one tuned to Fox and one tuned to an internal federal channel that shows the latest achievements and policy updates.

I've never seen people ignoring and avoiding sitting near or watching the news TVs, preferring the federal policy TV .. . Until last week. It was an amazing thing to behold.

Just because the good folks on this board were hanging on every word of the hearings, that doesn't mean the rest of the country did too.

I believe most of the country had this show on IGNORE.

Nice talkng with you, Brandon, as always.

Oh, there's a fourth TV with the Weather Channel. Very popular during hurricane season. On the last day of the hearings, there were more people watching that than watching CNN or Fox.

Mind you, the audience is entirely federal employees or federal contractors with a vested interest in the goings on in Washington. They were totally ignoring the hearings.

And the headlines read "Interest Has Wained."

And so it has.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I answered his question to my satisfaction.
The senate won't vote to impeach, there won't be a criminal prosecution, so the point is moot.
As to whether I personally think there should be a criminal prosecution, no I don't. I really don think it rises to that level.
I find your tone to be abrasive. You might consider dialing back a bit.

When you conspiratorially accused Obama of doing something similar = blatantly criminal, possibly treason, undeniably an unallowable abuse of power that should be punished.

Trump actually doing it = it’s all good.

You have still yet to rectify this inconsistency DD.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[wardorican]

I agree. Lies are not ok, but one cannot simply count on the staff to recognize them as lies, or even see the posts in question. Understand that we cannot display anything that would create a perception of not being impartial here. So I think that the best solution is to report the post, cite the alleged lie, send us links to any proof substantiating that it is in-fact, a lie, and we will deal with it as long as we are in full agreement with the source.




I would highly advise that members here do exactly that. If the post lacks substance, ignore it, and consider placing the poster on your ignore list.

I would also advise that everyone be mindful that the MCB requirements are going to be too restrictive for some, that some of the members here won't make the cut and will eventually be removed for reasons ranging from rude/malicious/insulting behavioral issues as well as issues including, but not limited to deceitful, disingenuous, disruptive, propagandist, dishonest, militant, subversive, or staff undermining posting practices. In the meantime it's about trying to get everyone on the right track and used to the decorum here in the hope that the more edgy members can conform without our having to take such action. For some, I can see that happening, for others, not so much.

It's kind of sad, that in all the years I've known you, in the last month I've learned more about how you think than I ever knew before.

And I wish you posted more on SR.

Glad you've been able to create the time to lay all this out.

 

[wardorican]

Here is another poll with results that are probably not what the Democrats were hoping for.

Poll finds sharp swing in opposition to impeachment among independents

A new national survey finds independent voters leading a sharp swing in opposition to impeachment, the second major poll to produce those findings this week.The latest national poll from Emerson Co…

thehill.com

I posted this earlier, but it depends on the poll. Polls asking about starting the impeachment process, have a higher approval rating. Polls asking about impeachment or impeachment and removal have a lower approval rating. It's one thing to start the process, it's another to carry out the vote. So, what that tells me is that a clear majority of Americans wanted to know what was going on. It was worth investigating.

Sadly, I think all of the data separating out independents, democrats, and republicans are usually aggregate.

The Emmerson survey is one of the ones that asks about impeachment or impeachment and removal, so they always go lower.

Here is october, and I included the survey next to it, that also talked about removal. Again, when the story first broke, the public support was at the highest.

Some other polls. I think focusing on one poll showing a large change is unwise. There are many polls, and they seem to bounce around. When you talk to 1000-1500 people, and only like 300ish are independents, you'll get wildly differing numbers.

 

[brandon]

Oh, there's a fourth TV with the Weather Channel. Very popular during hurricane season. On the last day of the hearings, there were more people watching that than watching CNN or Fox.

Mind you, the audience is entirely federal employees or federal contractors with a vested interest in the goings on in Washington. They were totally ignoring the hearings.

And the headlines read "Interest Has Wained."

And so it has.

Public interest has, quite frankly, zero bearing on justice. There are thousands of court cases each day that have little public interest, yet the criminals go to prison just the same.

I realized too late that I had left you some wiggle room in my question and that you would certainly take advantage of the failure on my part to ask a clearer question. I appreciate your response. Humor me and answer my more intended question:

If it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the president has committed bribery, a high crime or misdemeanor clearly listed as an impeachable offense in the United States Constitution, in your sole opinion, should he be removed from office?

 

[Joe Okc]

Damn it @Dadsdream ... You typed all that and it still wasn't good enough to answer the question... I am not sure what you are quite asking Brandon, but I could not agree with dads any more.. Perfect answer.


This was my snarky reply for earlier... So... How are you guys coming along with your Democratic Candidate and their platform? Or is this it? Because I believe that this impeachment fiasco IS the Democratic platform of 2020.

Now I am gonna repeat some things that Dads said.

----------------


The witnesses' social media and other indicators of their attitude or bias toward the accused become fair game.

I believe that too... and it should.. These members writing shirt like. "Trump Sucks and he's the devil and should die" on social media... I have a hard time believing them when they stand before the cameras and go: "Oh, but we just want the truth and whats best for the country." I still think that the Whistleblower has bias, and is a Democrat and perhaps was spying for the democratic party himself.


The question then becomes whether DJT has been sufficiently smeared for it to affect the 2020 election. I believe that was the unstated intent of the hearing all along from the Democratic leadership's perspective.

I stated that early... This is the Campaign fo 2020 for the Dems... Look at all the free publicity from the Press on smearing the president and it's not costing them a freaking nickel from the Democratic Campaign fund... Millions of millions of advertising dollars and free TV airtime.. Yeah... What a ploy this was.


By election time, these hearings will be a distant memory, as has already happened with the Russia Collusion accusations. A new"bombshell" revelation or international crisis will arise to blot out all else

I believe that too... I want this to get over quick... Because I will wager $20 that before the election some other big crisis, the President is a criminal scam is gonna come up... You can BANK on it.


All told, people are sick if listening to it and they are tuning it out. Russia collusion and impeachment fatigue is real. People want it to be over.

Don;t forget Stormy Daniels... Right out the friggin gate it started.. First it was campaign funds or paying her off so it doesn;t come out and effect the election... OMG.. Stormy didn;t work so then it moved on to the Russians.. Mueller... Now Ukraine... What Next...?



Just because the good folks on this board were hanging on every word of the hearings, that doesn't mean the rest of the country did too. I believe most of the country had this show on IGNORE.

Tried to watch... But the home shopping network had lampshades for sale.

There was definitely quid pro quo, and QPQ is not necessarily illegal. The fact is, Trump used public funds mandated by Congress to (try to) leverage a foreign country to do something for him personally. That is both unethical, highly illegal, and in direct violation of the Constitution.

I am just curious... Was there anything in the transcript of the call that said: "If you don't investigate I will be holding up your aid?"

To me... This was a newly elected PResident.. ANd Trump asking him to investigate a few things from the former state seems reasonable to me... I have a feeling that a lot of presidents ask countries to investigate multiple things that happen in their counties and give them a report.

You guy are looking at this as it was his future rival.. I am looking at this as a past former VP who had a son on oil and gas board that was making lotsa $$$$ in a known corrupt country...

I think it’s important for the board to know in black and white whether or not you would support prosecuting the president under any circumstances.

Of Course.. IF you catch the guy giving 1,000 US submarines to the Russians or something... But Stormy, Fake Collusion and and Now Ukrainegate... nah... I view these as Democratic circus shows.

And I know you're probably running late for something and don't have time right now to explain why you're choosing to be [Mod edit - inflammatory phrasing. Replacing with "unaware"] unaware of factual goings on in the world around you, but please do so when you next get a minute or two to expound.

Crosswatt.. I have never had a problem with you.. I have always liked you.

But yesterday I took my 76 year old Mother to lunch... I view that as a little more important than arguing politics with a bunch of strangers on the internet.. But that's just me.

Right now there is no balance in here... We are still way loopsided as we were before... I guess cause it's the same old crew from before. But I can't answer everybody and I am not gonna try to.

But just for the record everybody... here's my schedule for posting.

8-9 am.. Wake up, coffee and post on message boards.
9-10 am Exercise.
10 - 11, Shower and head to work
11-7pm Herd Strippers.. limited internet activity
7-9 pm, Head home, hit store, cook dinner
9-10, Surf Web, internet, message board.
10 -10:30 Local news and weather.
10 - 12am Whatever I want.

 

[brandon]

I am not sure what you are quite asking Brandon,

I restated my question in what I hope is a clearer way to get to exactly what I am asking.

If it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the president has committed bribery, a high crime or misdemeanor clearly listed as an impeachable offense in the United States Constitution, in your sole opinion, should he be removed from office?

So you did state that you were ok with impeachment if he gave “1,000 submarines to the Russians.”

My question is, are you ok with removal for bribery, which is listed in the constitution specifically as an impeachable offense?

Also, if you’re ok with removal for catching him giving submarines to the Russians, how exactly do we find that information out without an investigation, keeping in mind that that’s where we currently are—an impeachment inquiry, not a trial? The articles of impeachment have not been written. The trial has not begun. Investigation must occur to find out if a crime has been committed and if articles should be drafted. Yet, it is your suggestion that we should not even be doing the current investigatory process.

But I assume you would be just fine with an investigation into the Bidens, correct?

 

[brandon]

This was my snarky reply for earlier... So... How are you guys coming along with your Democratic Candidate and their platform? Or is this it? Because I believe that this impeachment fiasco IS the Democratic platform of 2020.

The Democrats are running on health care, income inequality, infrastructure, the wage gap, marijuana legalization, immigration reform and yes, removing criminality from the White House.

 

[RegularChuck]

To me... This was a newly elected PResident.. ANd Trump asking him to investigate a few things from the former state seems reasonable to me... I have a feeling that a lot of presidents ask countries to investigate multiple things that happen in their counties and give them a report.

You guy are looking at this as it was his future rival.. I am looking at this as a past former VP who had a son on oil and gas board that was making lotsa $$$$ in a known corrupt country...

You may have missed it, but people have testified that the President wasn’t interested in an investigation into Biden. The President was only interested in a public announcement of an investigation. Does that change the way you look at it?