The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (26 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

 

[JimEverett]

Probable Cause???

(A) Where is the PC in investigating the Bidens re Burisima? VP Bidens role in getting Shokin fired was exercised well within established US national interest. It was also the opinion of other western nations.

(B) Go for it. I'm not sure what the allegations against the Ukrainian government are, but have fun.
Keywords: Ukrainian Government

Not some DNC operative (American, btw) seeking opo research, what are the allegations against the Ukrainian government?

(C) The PC with the Trump campaign has been well documented, whether you believe the sources or not, there was plenty of Probable Cause for an investigation.

I am confused. Are you saying that the President has to conduct foreign policy using U.S. legal system requirements and concepts - like probable cause?

 

[LA - L.A.]

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

Polls indicate that most of the country actually followed the hearings because they think the impeachment inquiry is important.

 

[Dadsdream]

Polls indicate that most of the country actually followed the hearings because they think the impeachment inquiry is important.

Really?

Impeachment TV Ratings See Slight Uptick

Five days of impeachment hearings on President Trump's withholding of aid to Ukraine were a steady TV ratings draw for daytime news viewers.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

Pales in comparison to Nixon's hearings, according to Business Insider.

In comparison, testimony from former FBI Director James Comey in June 2017 received 19.6 million live TV viewers, and Christine Blasey Ford's testimony against then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh received 20 million in September 2018.

The number of Americans watching Trump's impeachment hearings on TV pales in comparison to Nixon, and some are worried it could spell trouble for the Democrats

The first public impeachment hearing on Wednesday got less TV viewership than hearings for James Comey, Christine Blasey Ford, and even Michael Cohen.

www.businessinsider.com

Like I said, viewer fatigue.

 

[Nebaghead]

Really?

Impeachment TV Ratings See Slight Uptick

Five days of impeachment hearings on President Trump's withholding of aid to Ukraine were a steady TV ratings draw for daytime news viewers.

www.hollywoodreporter.com

You do realize most people work during the hours of the impeachment. What other day time show had that many viewers?
I can answer that for you, no one. Ellen gets between 3.5 to 4 on a good show. Those viewership numbers were close to MNF ratings.

you also left out from that article this doesn’t take into consideration live streams or other non-traditional methods of viewing or listening to a hearing.

• And it's important to note that live TV viewership for Trump's impeachment hearings don't tell the full story — for instance, many people may have viewed the hearings via livestreams rather than on television networks, and the Nielsen data doesn't encompass the viewership for other television networks like PBS and C-Span.

 

[Dadsdream]

You do realize most people work during the hours of the impeachment. What other day time show had that many viewers?

Of course. Say, I updated after you posted. The Comey and Kavanaugh hearings were also during daytime hours. Check out the numbers . . . 19.6 million and 20 million vs 13.8.

I'll stand by my earlier assertions. Lots of people put these hearings on IGNORE.

 

[RegularChuck]

Lots of people put these hearings on IGNORE.

I believe you are 1000% correct.

Do you think crimes should be prosecuted based on tv ratings?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I know the first thing I always think about when someone’s personal lawyer threatens that they have “insurance” on their client that is signaling they may start driving the rhetorical bus toward them....Totally innocent!

 

[RegularChuck]

I know the first thing I always think about when someone’s personal lawyer threatens that they have “insurance” on their client that is signaling they may start driving the rhetorical bus toward them....Totally innocent!

Giuliani doesn’t seem like the best lawyer for a man so used to being surrounded by the best of everything.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Of course. Say, I updated after you posted. The Comey and Kavanaugh hearings were also during daytime hours. Check out the numbers . . . 19.6 million and 20 million vs 13.8.

I'll stand by my earlier assertions. Lots of people put these hearings on IGNORE.

It is not as high as the major one off events like Comey or Kavanaugh, but to downplay those steady numbers across a week of hearings is pretty silly.

Especially In a world of radio, digital, podcasts, and DVR.

I am not in any of those numbers, but I listened to every day of testimony at my desk that wasn’t interrupted by meetings. Either through YouTube, NPR, on the dvr at home, and one day I caught the parts I missed by listening to Lawfare’s edited down version on the way home that cuts out the breaks and long pauses.

But more absurd is that this is yet another one of those cagey arguments that avoids any substance to instead appeal to emotions and feelings and tries to use the conclusions drawn from that to try and delegitimize the substantive arguments you refuse to engage with head on.

 

[LA - L.A.]

But I do feel beat down this time, maybe it’s just my age. I was raised in a family where civility was taught and was important. It’s not so much Trump insulting and belittling people with his crudeness and spiteful nature that is wearing me out. It’s how so many people, including friends of mine, who are okay with it that worries and confounds me.
...Watching good people applaud the most rude, uncivil and selfish president we have ever had is the hardest part for me.

I'm selectively quoting what you said for focus, not to dismiss or diminish everything else you said.

For me, it goes beyond people being okay with or applauding Trump's antisocial behavior, it's the fact that so many are copycatting his antisocial behavior. That's one of the damages having Trump as president has done and will continue to do to our society as long as he is president.

He's normalizing antisocial behavior. I want to be clear on my usage of normalizing. "Normal" means typical, not good or right. It's "normal" during a genocide to murder people based solely on genetic traits, but there is nothing good or right about that. Trump as president is leading to antisocial behavior becoming the more typical behavior in our society. That's the kind of thing that destroys a society and it will destroy ours if we don't reverse the current trend.

Human beings have a tendency to emulate those in society who we see as powerful or prestigious. That's why we buy what celebrities buy. That's why people use the same language that our high profile political representatives. That's why so many in our society are copycatting the antisocial behaviors of Trump.

It's not just limited to those who support Trump. Even some of Trump's staunchest opponents mirror his antisocial behavior back at him. For a lot of people this is change from their previous way of interacting with people. I think we all know people from all points on all spectra/spectrums whose behavior has changed from mostly civil and reasoned to mostly antisocial.

If Trump doesn't suffer any adverse consequence for his antisocial behavior, then we have a bigger problem than political disagreement. I understand that Trump is part of a chicken-egg cycle, so he is both a cause and an effect. Regardless of he's more of one than the other, the fact still remains that he is currently the most powerful factor that drives the spiral into normalizing antisocial behavior.

If we as a society don't hold Trump accountable for his behavior, then our society as we have known it will collapse under the weight of an oppressive and viscous new society. It will be a bleak and painful world for the overwhelming majority of us.

I'm not prophesying anything. I'm just stating what I think is the consequence of the choices we will be making from now through November 3rd. I hope we choose wisely at each and every step.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Really?

Yes, really. As was pointed out to you by another poster, Nielsen ratings are not a good indicator of how many people watched the impeachment inquiry, because they can't and didn't measure a lot of the actual viewership.

Actually asking people if they watched and if it's important to them is a better indicator. All indications are that most of the country did watch, because it's important to them.

I'll stand by my earlier assertions. Lots of people put these hearings on ignore.

That's not your earlier assertion. Your earlier assertion was actually that "most of the country" ignored the hearings. That assertion was unfounded and by most indications is not true.

Without a doubt a lot of people didn't watch the hearings, while at the same time most people did watch them.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I am confused. Are you saying that the President has to conduct foreign policy using U.S. legal system requirements and concepts - like probable cause?

Forgive me, I thought we were talking about investigations.

Now that we have that cleared up, A,B nor C have nothing to do with the foreign policy, that's the whole point. In our country, each one of those examples that you cited are a matter for DoJ, not the President. You know, separation of powers and such.

 

[crosswatt]

I am a generally positive thinking person. My kids have been pretty freaked out by Trump and how divided the country is. I have to remind them, and remind myself, our country has been through many rough and divisive times during my lifetime, including race riots and Vietnam war protests and riots. We recovered from that and will recover from this.

But I do feel beat down this time, maybe it’s just my age. I was raised in a family where civility was taught and was important. It’s not so much Trump insulting and belittling people with his crudeness and spiteful nature that is wearing me out. It’s how so many people, including friends of mine, who are okay with it that worries and confounds me.

I have mixed feelings on impeachment, mostly I would have preferred to vote Trump out. During the hearings impeachment seemed the right way to go with a number of witnesses coming forward, at great risk, to do the right thing.

Alas, (I never say alas but it seems the right word here), it will be to no avail. Trump was right. He could murder someone on 5th Avenue and his supporters would stay with him.

Bolton can come forward and testify Trump ordered aid withheld for political reasons and it won’t move the needle at all. His supporters don’t care what he did.

I am just beat down and discouraged. I do still think he loses the election, but I am not so sure now. Whatever will be will be. I will survive it as will my kids. But I have lost a bit of faith in humanity I don’t know I’ll ever recover. Watching good people applaud the most rude, uncivil and selfish president we have ever had is the hardest part for me.

I could actually abide him being rude and uncivil if he wasn't such an absolute hypersensitive weakling whenever anything and I mean anything even a slight step beneath full worshipful praise comes his way. Everyone is "nasty" and "mean" and "disgusting" to him and he whines like a kindergartner about it. He could not embody my least respectable traits any fuller.

And to see people celebrate that is just disheartening.

 

[crosswatt]

The problem I have with what you are saying is the "legitimate concern." Who is the arbiter of "legitimacy"?

Further, Most Democrats are calling the investigation into Ukranian influence of the 2016 election "illegitimate" or something along those lines. Yet, I don't think there is a demand for legal action over it. There certainly isn't a call to impeach over it.

Why not? I think it is because there is a recognition that the demand or request for such an investigation is a proper exercise of Executive power - right? How else could it not be?


Now, does adding the element of investigating a company with ties to the Bidens change the lawfulness, or the propriety of the use of power? If yes, how so?

I understand your analogy, and agree that it looks bad on its face. At the same time, there are often local and state laws that specifically address such actions. There is nothing in the Constitution that so limits Executive action in conducting foreign policy.

Well here's the thing. The president controls the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Justice Department. He can direct them to investigate anybody he wants to. But he doesn't because he doesn't actually want an investigation done, he just wants to be able to use it as a deflection point. And I honestly for the life of me I can't figure out why it's working so well.

 

[JimEverett]

Forgive me, I thought we were talking about investigations.

Now that we have that cleared up, A,B nor C have nothing to do with the foreign policy, that's the whole point. In our country, each one of those examples that you cited are a matter for DoJ, not the President. You know, separation of powers and such.

The PResident demanding an investigation to a foreign head of state has nothing to do with foreign policy???? Okay

 

[crosswatt]

Giuliani doesn’t seem like the best lawyer for a man so used to being surrounded by the best of everything.

I can see Trump standing in front of the press saying, "listen... listen....this Giuliani....I barely know him. He was recommended...but I don't know him. I don't know him..."

 

[JimEverett]

Well here's the thing. The president controls the FBI, CIA, NSA, and Justice Department. He can direct them to investigate anybody he wants to. But he doesn't because he doesn't actually want an investigation done, he just wants to be able to use it as a deflection point. And I honestly for the life of me I can't figure out why it's working so well.

So that is the difference between a proper use of power vs. an illegal use of power that warrants removal?
I just do not get that logic.

 

[Dadsdream]

Yes, really. As was pointed out to you by another poster, Nielsen ratings are not a good indicator of how many people watched the impeachment inquiry, because they can't and didn't measure a lot of the actual viewership.

Actually asking people if they watched and if it's important to them is a better indicator. All indications are that most of the country did watch, because it's important to them.

That's not your earlier assertion. Your earlier assertion was actually that "most of the country" ignored the hearings. That assertion was unfounded and by most indications is not true.

Without a doubt a lot of people didn't watch the hearings, while at the same time most people did watch them.

I don't see how 13 - 14 million viewers in a country the size of ours is "most people."

So, if you could provide a quick estimate of the number of adults in the U..S. , we should be able to clear up which one of us is closer to the truth of the matter.