The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (22 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

 

[LA - L.A.]

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.

That Neilsen number of 13 to 14 million is only people watching the broadcast of the actual hearings at home on their television. It does not account for streaming or watching the broadcast of the hearings at some place other than home. So it is not the total number of people who watched the hearings. This has already been pointed out three times.

In addition, that Neilsen number is also just the number of people that tuned into the actual hearings. It doesn't not account for the number of people who followed the hearings by reading or watching media coverage of the hearings instead of watching the live broadcast of the hearings.

You are mistakenly assuming that everyone who followed the impeachment inquiry did so by watching the live broadcast of the hearings.

Polls that asked people if they followed the hearings are the best indication we have of what percentage of the population followed the impeachment inquiry. In those polls, over 50% of the people said they followed media coverage of the hearings, because the impeachment inquiries are important to them.

I don't need any estimate of the number of adults in the country to know that over 50% of people = most people. We all know that this is true.

So as it stands, there is more evidence indicating that most of the country followed the hearings, than there is that "most of the country" ignored the hearings.

A person can believe whatever they want to believe, but their beliefs do not change the truth.

 

[Dadsdream]

That Neilsen number of 13 to 14 million is only people watching at home. It does not account for streaming or watching at some place other than home. Most people were at work during the hearings. This has already been pointed out three times. More people watched the hearings away from home, than at home.

That Neilsen number is also just the number of people that tuned in at home to the hearings. It doesn't not account for the the number of people that read or watched news media that recapped the events of the hearings.

You are mistakenly assuming that everyone who interested in the impeachment inquiry watched the actual hearings while they were live, which is all that the Nielsen number reflects. Millions of people followed the hearings without watching it live or in it's totality.

The best indication we have of how what percentage of the population followed the impeachment inquiry are the polls that asked people if they followed the hearings. In those polls, over 50% of people said they followed the hearings, because the impeachment inquiries are important to them.

I don't need to provide a quick estimate of the number of adults in the country to show that over 50% of people = most people. We all know that is true.

So as it stands, there is more evidence indicating that most of the country followed the hearings, than there is that "most of the country" ignored the hearings.

A person can believe whatever they want to believe, but their beliefs do not change the actual truth.

The same pollsters who had Hillary winning in a landslide, right up until the moment she didn't?

We should never quote opinion poll statistics as though they are facts, an old professor once told me.

If you want the actual truth, the first thing to do is recognize that poll results are not facts.

If you think a poll is the best indication that we have of the number of people who said they followed hearings, that's fine for you.

That doesn't work for me. My father died at age 72, having never been asked to take part in such polls. I am 62, and I've never been polled like that either. The pollsters don't care what people in the Deep South think.

As my father said long ago, New York Times polls are nothing but New Yorkers asking other New Yorkers what the rest of the country should think.

He had a valid point, I have found, though the decades. It really struck home on election night 2016.

Thank you for taking the time to read my response.

 

[LA - L.A.]

We should never quote opinion poll statistics as though they are facts...

I guess you aren't aware that Nielsen uses the same polling methodology as political polls. Nielsen monitors the televsions of a small sample size of households and then extrapolates the results of that small sampling size across the entire population.

Nielsen did not get the number you are relying on by monitoring 13 to 14 million television sets. If you think political polls are not reliable, then you must not think Nielsen's number are not reliable either.

If you want the actual truth, the first thing to do is recognize that poll results are not facts.

You mean like the Nielsen numbers you presented as facts?

...I've never been polled like that either.

Just like most people never have and never will be a Nielsen household.

You can't question the reliability of political polls without also questioning the reliability of Nielsen ratings.

Are you now saying that the Nielsen numbers you quoted are not reliable and don't offer any facts that support your opinion?

 

[The moose]

Mike Pompeo

Your next

New Documents Reveal Details of Pompeo’s Role in Ukraine Affair (Published 2019)

Emails and documents released by the State Department support testimony showing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo enabled the Ukrainian pressure campaign at the center of the impeachment proceedings.

www.nytimes.com

Emails between Mike and old Rudy not looking good for him.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Mike Pompeo

Your next

New Documents Reveal Details of Pompeo’s Role in Ukraine Affair (Published 2019)

Emails and documents released by the State Department support testimony showing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo enabled the Ukrainian pressure campaign at the center of the impeachment proceedings.

www.nytimes.com

Emails between Mike and old Rudy not looking good for him.

I think the Intel committee needs to pursue enforcement of the subpoenas on Pompeo and the others before they conclude their hearings.

 

[Taurus]

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.

Yes.
If he'd been aboveboard and involved the proper departments, let them do whatever investigation without insisting on a big, public announcement from Ukraine, we'd have no problem here.

Thing is, none of the legit investigative communities would do the investigation he wanted because they all know it's bull****. "The server" he keeps yammering about never existed. Hunter Biden was never a subject of investigation because he joined Burisma after they'd done whatever it was that put them under scrutiny. Joe Biden helped get a corrupt prosecutor removed so investigations would proceed not be stopped. This is all in the public record.
But Trump wants to chase delusions, so he leans on Ukraine to do it. He uses the power of his position to coerce a foreign government to investigate a US citizen with our own diplomatic and security forces completely in the dark about it.
Not only that, but the big public announcement would harm a legit investigation. A public announcement does one thing, hurt Joe Biden. The only person that helps is Trump.
He asked a foreign government to do something for his own private benefit. It's bribery, pure and plain and obvious.

 

[RegularChuck]

I’m still trying to figure out how many viewers are required before crimes are investigated. Do we use Nielsen numbers, do we include digital downloads? What about print media? Does catching the recap from your preferred news source count?

Anyone?

 

[The moose]

I’m still trying to figure out how many viewers are required before crimes are investigated. Do we use Nielsen numbers, do we include digital downloads? What about print media? Does catching the recap from your preferred news source count?

Anyone?

Well argument about Nielsen numbers is just silly in the digital age.

It only says how old you really are.

The vast majority of news is not on TV as we know it.

 

[crosswatt]

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.

what I'm saying is that if anyone thought that there was truly a national security interest in the Biden's Ukraine activities, they can legally and morally and justifiably investigate it. the fact that they don't, shows me that they don't think there's anything legitimately there, and only want the narrative as a diversionary talking point.

 

[samiam5211]

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.

The fact that he didn’t use his own agencies to conduct an investigation combined with the fact that he only wanted an announcement of the investigation show that he wasn’t concerned about a meaningful investigation.

Ypu wouldn’t want a public announcement of an investigation at all if you were taking it seriously.

 

[insidejob]

what I'm saying is that if anyone thought that there was truly a national security interest in the Biden's Ukraine activities, they can legally and morally and justifiably investigate it. the fact that they don't, shows me that they don't think there's anything legitimately there, and only want the narrative as a diversionary talking point.

The fact that he didn’t use his own agencies to conduct an investigation combined with the fact that he only wanted an announcement of the investigation show that he wasn’t concerned about a meaningful investigation.

Ypu wouldn’t want a public announcement of an investigation at all if you were taking it seriously.

Well said. Not to mention, he had two years where Republicans controlled all three branches and they didn't try to start an investigation.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

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..."

Does feel like they’re gearing up for a big game of chicken

 

[JimEverett]

what I'm saying is that if anyone thought that there was truly a national security interest in the Biden's Ukraine activities, they can legally and morally and justifiably investigate it. the fact that they don't, shows me that they don't think there's anything legitimately there, and only want the narrative as a diversionary talking point.

Yeah, I get the argument. It just seems weak to me.

So - concern about corruption legitimates a demand that Ukraine investigates the country's role in the 2016 U.S. elections, but then when it comes to a demand for an announcement on an investigation into Burisma it becomes illegal and warrants removal.
That is not a very compelling argument, imo.

 

[RegularChuck]

Yeah, I get the argument. It just seems weak to me.

So - concern about corruption legitimates a demand that Ukraine investigates the country's role in the 2016 U.S. elections, but then when it comes to a demand for an announcement on an investigation into Burisma it becomes illegal and warrants removal.
That is not a very compelling argument, imo.

Perhaps because you’ve left out a key element of it? I find it hard to believe that was an accident.

 

[JimEverett]

Perhaps because you’ve left out a key element of it? I find it hard to believe that was an accident.

I take you have not followed the thread. I stated back when bringing this up that I was going to purposefully ignore the withholding of aid, I was just trying to get a handle on the demand for an investigation; or
I am completely missing your point.

 

[RegularChuck]

I take you have not followed the thread. I stated back when bringing this up that I was going to purposefully ignore the withholding of aid, I was just trying to get a handle on the demand for an investigation; or
I am completely missing your point.

Well no wonder you’re having trouble getting a handle on it.

 

[crosswatt]

Yeah, I get the argument. It just seems weak to me.

So - concern about corruption legitimates a demand that Ukraine investigates the country's role in the 2016 U.S. elections, but then when it comes to a demand for an announcement on an investigation into Burisma it becomes illegal and warrants removal.
That is not a very compelling argument, imo.

Intent matters. if I hit you in the head with a baseball bat because you're abusing your wife, it's not in my interest but in the interest society that you're stopped. If I hit you in the head with a baseball bat because I would like to date your wife and want you out of the way, it is not in society's interest, but in my own, and therefore a crime. I see the distinction personally.

 

[The moose]

I think the Intel committee needs to pursue enforcement of the subpoenas on Pompeo and the others before they conclude their hearings.

That will take forever.

Come in that is gonna be fought it court I would assume and be time consuming.

These guys were far from slick will be easy to get more dirt to the point they get charged.

They will rat

I take you have not followed the thread. I stated back when bringing this up that I was going to purposefully ignore the withholding of aid, I was just trying to get a handle on the demand for an investigation; or
I am completely missing your point.

Oh so we are ignoring the bribe part for what reason exactly?

That is what all of this is about.

Long thread can't remember what was posted a week ago.