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

 

[Joe Okc]

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.

Unfortunately, That's not the message thats coming across...

AS to the Subarines and all that... You say first there has to be an investigation. The articles of Impeachment have not been written... No Charges have been filed... IS there any doubt which way that the Democratic Majority will go?.. I think that they will follow through so they don;t look bad... It's almost to a point of no return.

Former President Gerald Ford, while in Congress, famously said: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

Again, I ask.. IS there anywhere in his phone call that says... If you don't do this I will withhold aid?

I tell ya.. Nov 2020 cannot get here soon enough...

 

[brandon]

Unfortunately, That's not the message thats coming across...

AS to the Subarines and all that... You say first there has to be an investigation. The articles of Impeachment have not been written... No Charges have been filed... IS there any doubt which way that the Democratic Majority will go?.. I think that they will follow through so they don;t look bad... It's almost to a point of no return.

Former President Gerald Ford, while in Congress, famously said: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

Again, I ask.. IS there anywhere in his phone call that says... If you don't do this I will withhold aid?

I tell ya.. Nov 2020 cannot get here soon enough...

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?

 

[RegularChuck]

Unfortunately, That's not the message thats coming across...

I kept seeing you say the Democrats have no platform. I was taking your word for it all this time, now it turns out it was untrue all along.

 

[Dadsdream]

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?

Regarding that last paragraph, YES!

Under the United States Constitution as I understand, impeachment offenses include treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors.

Treason is a pretty sketchy thing to prove. People still argue about Aaron Burr and the Rosenbergs, although recent documents have fairly well proven that the Rosenbergs were guilty after all.

Bribery involves an exchange of one thing for another, whether that be something tangible, or information, or actions.

High crimes and misdemeanors is an archaic, ill-defined catch-all phrase for things that could only be done by somebody holding an office. It's the one that was deliberately left the most vague.

The problem is that in order to reach the point where you prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, you have to have a criminal trial, which will require the Senate to vote a two-thirds super majority in favor.

Barring some incredibly idiotic blunder (still possible, given the personality of whom I speak) I really do not see that happening. I believe it more likely that DJT will survive in office until the election. At that point, all bets are off.

"I am not a member of any organized political party. I'm a Democrat."
- Will Rogers

It's nice chatting with you, Brandon.

 

[coldseat]

Exclusive: Giuliani associate willing to tell Congress Nunes met with ex-Ukrainian official to get dirt on Biden

A lawyer for an indicted associate of Rudy Giuliani told CNN that his client is willing to tell Congress about meetings the top Republican on the House Intelligence Committee had in Vienna last year with a former Ukrainian prosecutor to discuss digging up dirt on Joe Biden.

www-m.cnn.com

I wouldn't trust Parnes, he's a Giuliani associate after all. Seems ideal for a setup.

But if this happened, would it surprise anybody at all? Nope. When you constantly prop up conspiracy theories and lies, it's not hard to believe you'd do anything to stay in power. And Nunes is a good errand boy.

There Republican party had abandoned their loyalty to this country in have our loyalty to Trump.

Trump is guilty of bribery and abuse of power. He also had quid pro quo for the aid and white house meeting. This is proven through evidence and witnesses testimony. If one party and 40 percent of this country weren't compromised, he'd be removed from office.

 

[not2rich]

Again, I ask.. IS there anywhere in his phone call that says... If you don't do this I will withhold aid?

If there was, I'm just curious where the goal post would be moved next.

 

[brandon]

The problem is that in order to reach the point where you prove that beyond a reasonable doubt, you have to have a criminal trial, which will require the Senate to vote a two-thirds super majority in favor.

That’s not exactly true though.
In fact, it will likely be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed bribery.

The problem is, the Senate is highly likely to hold unreasonable doubts, or more likely, disingenuous doubts, and will not vote to convict.

But I’m glad to hear that when it is proven beyond any reasonable doubts, you will support the president’s removal, even if the Senate does not.

 

[Dadsdream]

That’s not exactly true though.
In fact, it will likely be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed bribery.

The problem is, the Senate is highly likely to hold unreasonable doubts, or more likely, disingenuous doubts, and will not vote to convict.

But I’m glad to hear that when it is proven beyond any reasonable doubts, you will support the president’s removal, even if the Senate does not.

Not sure what you are referring to.

You have to have a trial and a verdict for the standard of beyond a reasonable doubt to be met.

Beyond that, it's uncharted territory, conjecture and quibbling.

The Supreme Court, perhaps? I don't see that.

A new Democratic president pursuing prosecution? Highly unlikely.

 

[MT15]

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

of course he’s suing, the man sued a cow.

 

[MT15]

Unfortunately, That's not the message thats coming across...

AS to the Subarines and all that... You say first there has to be an investigation. The articles of Impeachment have not been written... No Charges have been filed... IS there any doubt which way that the Democratic Majority will go?.. I think that they will follow through so they don;t look bad... It's almost to a point of no return.

Former President Gerald Ford, while in Congress, famously said: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

Again, I ask.. IS there anywhere in his phone call that says... If you don't do this I will withhold aid?

I tell ya.. Nov 2020 cannot get here soon enough...

Responding to the bolded: so, am I to understand that you require the criminal to announce his crime? If the bank robber goes through his planning and carries out his robbery, it doesn’t count unless he says “I am robbing this bank?”

The president directed several people to make it clear to Ukraine that they wouldn’t get a WH meeting, or military aid, unless the Ukrainian President went on CNN and announced an investigation into the 2016 election and the Bidens. They carried out his wishes on this. We have sworn testimony under oath.

It’s no longer honest to maintain that it didn’t happen. The only honest argument to be had is whether this level of corruption is impeachable.

 

[Joe Okc]

The president directed several people to make it clear to Ukraine that they wouldn’t get a WH meeting, or military aid, unless the Ukrainian President went on CNN and announced an investigation into the 2016 election and the Bidens. They carried out his wishes on this. We have sworn testimony under oath.

I am just curious...
Did the Ukrainian President go on CNN and announce an investigation into Biden?
Did Ukraine Get their Aid?

Can you quote testimony where a witness said: "The President told me to tell the Ukrainian President to either investigate Biden or he would with hold the Foriengn Aid."

Does the President have the right to withold aid from a country if he suspects that the country my be corrupt?

 

[Ayo]

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.

I said it months ago, that if the Trump supporters keep acting like the Democrats aren't running on anything and Trump doesn't respond with his own ideas, it's going to cost him.

And I still believe it.

We have Dads and Joe making reference to people not tuning in to the Impeachment proceedings.

Do you know what one major reason is?

Because it doesn't really matter to a lot of people who are more interested in so-called "bread and butter" issues. These issues are critical in a lot of places in swing states. And Trump hasn't spoken to them really at all, while Democratic candidates are, in fact, talking about them.

Now, there's obviously a ton of time, but it's naive and politically unwise to operate under the assumption that the Democrats aren't talking about these issues.

I also said months ago that I think healthcare is going to be a major, major issue - and Trump's total negligence in this regard and the GOP's Congressional disregard is a spot where they can be hurt. Trump offers empty rhetoric and failed attempts while the GOP in Congress sit on their thumbs.

"Bread and butter" will make a critical difference and there's really only one party right now talking about them. Of course, it's not necessary for the incumbent to necessarily tackle them now. But it's unreasonable to continue saying the Democratic candidates aren't talking about them and only talking about impeachment. That's demonstrably untrue

 

[Ayo]

I am just curious...
Did the Ukrainian President go on CNN and announce an investigation into Biden?
Did Ukraine Get their Aid?

Did the shoe bomber blow up the plane?

 

[not2rich]

I am just curious...
Did the Ukrainian President go on CNN and announce an investigation into Biden?
Did Ukraine Get their Aid?

No and yes. But Ukraine got their aid because the scheme got caught, and they didn't make the announcement on CNN because the aid got released.

Can you quote testimony where a witness said: "The President told me to tell the Ukrainian President to either investigate Biden or he would with hold the Foriengn Aid."

No, but it is a reasonable inference based on context and the totality of evidence. Are you choosing to ignore that? As well as the fact that the witnesses who might be able to provide that have been ordered to refused to testify by the WH?

Does the President have the right to withold aid from a country if he suspects that the country my be corrupt?

Ukraine had satisfied the official protocol for receiving the aid, which was approved by Congress. But Ukraine's alleged corruption was never the reason - just an after the fact attempt to justify what was really wanted, an "investigation" into the Bidens and a conspiracy theory about Crowdstrike.

 

[FullMonte]

I am just curious...
Did the Ukrainian President go on CNN and announce an investigation into Biden?
Did Ukraine Get their Aid?

Can you quote testimony where a witness said: "The President told me to tell the Ukrainian President to either investigate Biden or he would with hold the Foriengn Aid."

Does the President have the right to withold aid from a country if he suspects that the country my be corrupt?

Sure he does....now, explain to me the thought process:

--Congress approved the aid to Ukraine
--As part of the approval, the DOD determined that Ukraine had taken steps to address corruption, and sent a report certifying that in May
--The White House approved the release of the aid at least 50 times prior to July.
--In July, Trump suddenly decides that Ukraine is too corrupt to receive the aid
--Trump tells Ukraine that they must address corruption (specifically a theory that Russia didn't try to help him and that his political opponent's son did something improper in Ukraine....not corruption in general).

Questions:
--What happened between the DOD certifying that Ukraine had addressed corruption and the White House approving the release of the aid 50+ times and July to suddenly make corruption a problem?
--If Ukraine is so corrupt that they cannot be trusted with life-saving aid, why are they the only people who can investigate Crowdstrike and the BIdens? (and how can we possibly trust the results of an investigation by such a corrupt country?)

As for your question about the witness testimony...is it your position that the only way someone should be convicted of a crime is if there is a first hand witness who heard the defendant state "I am going to commit a crime"?

 

[MT15]

Joe the people that Trump directly communicated with about this scheme are largely being prevented from testifying by Trump. Trump is also refusing to release any of the requested documents.

If Pompeo, Mulvaney, Pence, etc, could exonerate the President, you can bet he would have them down there testifying in a flat minute. Same with the documents. If they exonerated the President they would be released.

Even still, we have testimony about how, when Sondland called Trump, the first question out of his mouth was “Is he going to announce the investigation?” And Sondland’s remark right after the call that Trump doesn’t care about Ukraine, only getting dirt on Biden.

We also know that Joe Biden didn’t do anything illegal or even unethical in Ukraine. He carried out official US policy that was in the interest of our national security. Not for his or his son’s personal gain.

Why do you think these career government servants, several of whom have loyally served this country under more than one Republican President, came forward now, and defied a State Department request that they defy lawful subpoenas? They risked their careers, in their own words, because they have a duty to tell the truth.

 

[FullMonte]

Just so one thing is clear, the president himself essentially copped to the quid pro quo this morning in a call to Fox and Friends.



The verbal acknowledgement really takes hold around the 5:30 mark and Steve Doocy jumps in to try and either clarify or derail where he thinks the president is going with this conversation around the 6:30 mark.

For some reason, that video is only 1 second long now....

 

[JimEverett]

Sure he does....now, explain to me the thought process:

--Congress approved the aid to Ukraine
--As part of the approval, the DOD determined that Ukraine had taken steps to address corruption, and sent a report certifying that in May
--The White House approved the release of the aid at least 50 times prior to July.
--In July, Trump suddenly decides that Ukraine is too corrupt to receive the aid
--Trump tells Ukraine that they must address corruption (specifically a theory that Russia didn't try to help him and that his political opponent's son did something improper in Ukraine....not corruption in general).

Questions:
--What happened between the DOD certifying that Ukraine had addressed corruption and the White House approving the release of the aid 50+ times and July to suddenly make corruption a problem?
--If Ukraine is so corrupt that they cannot be trusted with life-saving aid, why are they the only people who can investigate Crowdstrike and the BIdens? (and how can we possibly trust the results of an investigation by such a corrupt country?)

As for your question about the witness testimony...is it your position that the only way someone should be convicted of a crime is if there is a first hand witness who heard the defendant state "I am going to commit a crime"?

If the difference between removing Trump from office or not comes down to "why did he change him mind on corruption in the Ukraine?", then it is a weak reason for removal from the start.

Further, why is the asking for the investigation into the issue of Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election not at issue? Is it because that is generally recognized as a proper use of Executive power? I mean don't we have a U.S. attorney investigating the matter?