The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (5 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

 

[Intensesaint]

Just going to leave this here.

 

[Dadsdream]

I don’t think it’s an election strategy. If you think it is, wouldn’t you want them to continue with a losing strategy?

No. I want what's best for the country. This is the third presidential impeachment in my lifetime.
It's bad for the country and extremely divisive and disruptive in my opinion.
They should have concentrated picking the best candidate, beating him at the polls, then prosecuting him when he's out of office if they'd like.
Instead, there's been an incredible upswing in GOP campaign donations and corresponding downswing in Democratic campaign donations.
Like one left-leaning editorialist said this morning, if he's acquitted, they won't have egg on their faces, they'll have a whole omelet.

 

[RegularChuck]

No. I want what's best for the country. This is the third presidential impeachment in my lifetime.
It's bad for the country and extremely divisive and disruptive in my opinion.
They should have concentrated picking the best candidate, beating him at the polls, then prosecuting him when he's out of office if they'd like.
Instead, there's been an incredible upswing in GOP campaign donations and corresponding downswing in Democratic campaign donations.
Like one left-leaning editorialist said this morning, if he's acquitted, they won't have egg on their faces, they'll have a whole omelet.

Like I said, whether it is an election strategy is clearly a matter of opinion. I’m fine with people pursuing crimes even if it ultimately ends up being wrong. I’d prefer that over ignoring crimes because of potential political fallout. Ignoring crimes seems like it could be pretty disruptive to all of society.

 

[wardorican]

No. I want what's best for the country. This is the third presidential impeachment in my lifetime.
It's bad for the country and extremely divisive and disruptive in my opinion.
They should have concentrated picking the best candidate, beating him at the polls, then prosecuting him when he's out of office if they'd like.
Instead, there's been an incredible upswing in GOP campaign donations and corresponding downswing in Democratic campaign donations.
Like one left-leaning editorialist said this morning, if he's acquitted, they won't have egg on their faces, they'll have a whole omelet.

That depends on how the Senate does this. If the House votes to impeach, and the senate doesn't even have a trial, just moves to vote. Or they just go through the motions, I think that would look awful for republicans.

It is their duty to take this seriously.

 

[wardorican]

I also think it is odd to ask voters to remove someone who may have violated the law or the office (undefined), and ignore Congressional duties of oversight and accountability.

Let's charge him later? What?

 

[Intensesaint]

I also think it is odd to ask voters to remove someone who may have violated the law or the office (undefined), and ignore Congressional duties of oversight and accountability.

Of course actions which violate the law should be investigated and brought to charges if warranted. But almost immediately after the 2016 election there were rumblings in the media, academia and even in congress about looking for something they could use for impeachment.

Could Trump be impeached shortly after he takes office?

It’s highly improbable, but everyone from law scholars to political junkies are speculating about it.

www.politico.eu

 

[MT15]

Of course. And I am not saying Trump did not abuse his power. I am just trying to understand the argument.
Why is the demand for a Ukranian investigation of Burisma something outside the lawful bounds of the PResidency while a demand for an invetigation into the Ukraine's activities in the 2016 election not?
O maybe they both are?

[EDIT] I didn't answer your first question - I'll give an example of an abuse of power - using the intelligence community to spy on an opposition campaign.
OR - using the Justice Department to investigate political opponenets;
appointing cabinet members without the consent of the Senate, etc. . .

I know you haven’t really asked me, but I think your whole line of questioning is a bit of a red herring. Had Trump merely asked for an investigation of Burisma, that is suspect of a corrupt intent, but far from impeachable. It’s suspect because why only this company, and why now? The current administration has been approving aid to Ukraine for 3 years now. It’s fishy. Just like the ask for an investigation into 2016 election “interference” is fishy, but not impeachable. It’s fishy because there’s zero evidence of Ukraine’s involvement in the DNC hack, and it’s been determined that pinning the hack on Ukraine is a Russian disinformation strategy.

But we all know that’s not what happened, right? We have seen that Trump sent his personal lawyer to Ukraine, and enlisted political appointees in a “domestic political errand” to specifically target Joe Biden. His “ask” wasn’t for a legitimate investigation, it was for an announcement of an investigation on CNN by the new Ukrainian President. To extort this, he (or more properly his appointee) threatened to withhold properly appropriated military aid. This is clearly abuse of the powers of the President.

It hurts my heart that good people are arguing about these facts, as if they didn’t happen. That they are parroting Russian propaganda to try to make it look like Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. That they are getting into the weeds trying to excuse this unacceptable conduct for an American President. It should be a point of patriotism that we don’t accept this behavior from our leaders, no matter what party they belong to.

 

[SaintForLife]

It hurts my heart that good people are arguing about these facts, as if they didn’t happen. That they are parroting Russian propaganda to try to make it look like Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. That they are getting into the weeds trying to excuse this unacceptable conduct for an American President. It should be a point of patriotism that we don’t accept this behavior from our leaders, no matter what party they belong to.

Are you saying it's not true that the DNC operative A.Chalupa didn't work with some Ukrainian government workers to get them to publicly release that Manafort was under investigation before the 2016 election? Manafort was not under investigation by Ukraine and the public announcement was retracted after the election.

Ukraine Court Rules Manafort Disclosure Caused ‘Meddling’ in U.S. Election (Published 2018)

A prosecutor and a lawmaker broke the law by revealing details about possibly illegal payments earmarked for Paul Manafort, which “resulted in meddling” in the 2016 election, a court in Kiev said.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Nebaghead]

Are you saying it's not true that the DNC operative A.Chalupa didn't work with some Ukrainian government workers to get the to publicly release that Manafort was under investigation before the 2016 election? Manafort was not under investigation by Ukraine and the public announcement was retracted after the election.

Ukraine Court Rules Manafort Disclosure Caused ‘Meddling’ in U.S. Election (Published 2018)

A prosecutor and a lawmaker broke the law by revealing details about possibly illegal payments earmarked for Paul Manafort, which “resulted in meddling” in the 2016 election, a court in Kiev said.

www.nytimes.com

That is not what is being pushed by the WH. They are talking about the DNC Server and that the Ukraine hacked the server, not Russia.

Investigate that all you want, but have it done with the DOJ not your personal lawyer who is working with two associates that have been recently indicted for criminal behavior. What part of use the government agencies who do this for a living is so hard to grasp for Trump excusers?

 

[JimEverett]

I know you haven’t really asked me, but I think your whole line of questioning is a bit of a red herring. Had Trump merely asked for an investigation of Burisma, that is suspect of a corrupt intent, but far from impeachable. It’s suspect because why only this company, and why now? The current administration has been approving aid to Ukraine for 3 years now. It’s fishy. Just like the ask for an investigation into 2016 election “interference” is fishy, but not impeachable. It’s fishy because there’s zero evidence of Ukraine’s involvement in the DNC hack, and it’s been determined that pinning the hack on Ukraine is a Russian disinformation strategy.

But we all know that’s not what happened, right? We have seen that Trump sent his personal lawyer to Ukraine, and enlisted political appointees in a “domestic political errand” to specifically target Joe Biden. His “ask” wasn’t for a legitimate investigation, it was for an announcement of an investigation on CNN by the new Ukrainian President. To extort this, he (or more properly his appointee) threatened to withhold properly appropriated military aid. This is clearly abuse of the powers of the President.

It hurts my heart that good people are arguing about these facts, as if they didn’t happen. That they are parroting Russian propaganda to try to make it look like Ukraine interfered in the 2016 election. That they are getting into the weeds trying to excuse this unacceptable conduct for an American President. It should be a point of patriotism that we don’t accept this behavior from our leaders, no matter what party they belong to.

I agree the use of Giuliani is troublesome - but I am not sure how, on this particular question, it moves the needle for me.

I am not dismissing your concerns out of hand, so please don't read my comments/questions that way.

But if it can be shown that political appointees okayed or any way directed an intelligence investigation targeting people connected with the Trump campaign in 2016 would that be strong evidence of illegal intent?

 

[Nebaghead]

I agree the use of Giuliani is troublesome - but I am not sure how, on this particular question, it moves the needle for me.

Then you just don't care about justice. No other answer. Nothing he is doing is on the up and up. If you are ok with that, then a Dem president can bring in all kinds of personal lawyers and start digging up dirt with US backed resources when they win. I'm sure you will be fine with that.

Giulani was undermining diplomatic relations by the accounts of the state department and countless testimony. He was being directed by the president of the United States to do this. There is nothing OK with that at all.

 

[JimEverett]

Then you just don't care about justice. No other answer. Nothing he is doing is on the up and up. If you are ok with that, then a Dem president can bring in all kinds of personal lawyers and start digging up dirt with US backed resources when they win. I'm sure you will be fine with that.

Giulani was undermining diplomatic relations by the accounts of the state department and countless testimony. He was being directed by the president of the United States to do this. There is nothing OK with that at all.

Then you must not care about reading or comprehension. No other answer. I said Giuliani is troublesome for me, but on this particular issue I don't see his actions have any bearing.

 

[FullMonte]

I actually shared three . . . four if you count Moody's, but let's not quibble.
Perhaps you should find a poll or prediction from October 2016 that said Hillary would lose?
Anything is possible, CM, but I think you'd be hard pressed to find polls or predictions from October 16 that said Hillary do anything other than win big, even right up until the night of the election when she had celebrities waiting in the wings to come out on stage to sing and dance in a huge celebration that would never happen.
I really don't see why on earth anybody would want to deny that the polls and predictions were all for a landslide victory for Hillary. That's all we saw and heard for months.
I guess some folks just love to quibble.

No one said that the polls said she was going to lose. You say "I really don't see why on earth anybody would want to deny that the polls and predictions were all for a landslide victory for Hillary." That simply isn't the case. The actual polls never predicted a landslide victory. They predicted a fairly close race. Even your first article which used the word landslide in it's headline showed Hillary with a 6 point lead.

Here is another article from Newsweek, dated October 30, 2016. It shows Clinton with a 4.3 point lead over Trump, down from 5.2 points a few days earlier. (RealClear Politics). It shows her with a 5.2 point lead (FiveThirtyEight), and a 4 point lead (Upshot).

2016 Presidential Election: The Day in Polls

Polls show race tightening as the campaign enters its final stretch.

www.newsweek.com

 

[FullMonte]

On the day of the election 538 gave Clinton an almost 72% chance of winning.

But, that's not a poll. LMAO

You DO understand that saying she has a 72% chance of winning is not predicting a landslide victory...right?

 

[JimEverett]

You DO understand that saying she has a 72% chance of winning is not predicting a landslide victory...right?

No. I can not read. You must have went to college or something.

 

[FullMonte]

Of course. And I am not saying Trump did not abuse his power. I am just trying to understand the argument.
Why is the demand for a Ukranian investigation of Burisma something outside the lawful bounds of the PResidency while a demand for an invetigation into the Ukraine's activities in the 2016 election not?
O maybe they both are?

No one has said that any demand for an investigation (on it's own) is outside the lawful bounds of the presidency.

"Hey, we are concerned that some laws were broken. Can you work with our DOJ, who has an open investigation, and provide them with some information so that we can determine if those laws were broken?" (This is fine, and within the lawful bounds of the presidency)

"Hey, can you look in my political opponent, and provide a public announcement that you are doing that, and give any negative information you find to my personal attorney?" (This is not fine, and is outside the lawful bounds of the presidency)

Asking for an investigation is not, by itself, problematic. Doing it because it benefits the president (personally and politcally), however, is problematic. It's all about the intent behind the demand.

To make a simple analogy: Is it an abuse of power, and an illegal action, for a sheriff to send his SWAT team to raid a drug dealer's house and sieze the drugs therein? No. Is it an abuse of power, and an illegal action, for a sheriff to send his SWAT team to raid a drug dealer's house and seize the drugs therein, and bring them to the sheriff so that he can sell them?

 

[Dadsdream]

On the day of the election 538 gave Clinton an almost 72% chance of winning.

But, that's not a poll. LMAO

No one said that the polls said she was going to lose. You say "I really don't see why on earth anybody would want to deny that the polls and predictions were all for a landslide victory for Hillary." That simply isn't the case. The actual polls never predicted a landslide victory. They predicted a fairly close race. Even your first article which used the word landslide in it's headline showed Hillary with a 6 point lead.

Here is another article from Newsweek, dated October 30, 2016. It shows Clinton with a 4.3 point lead over Trump, down from 5.2 points a few days earlier. (RealClear Politics). It shows her with a 5.2 point lead (FiveThirtyEight), and a 4 point lead (Upshot).

2016 Presidential Election: The Day in Polls

Polls show race tightening as the campaign enters its final stretch.

www.newsweek.com

Let's see,
Raw Votes polls: 6-point lead, 5.2-point lead, 4.3-point lead, 5.2-point lead, 4-point lead (Not a landslide!)

Electoral College polls average of 14 polls: Clinton 306, Trump 179 (Landslide!)

Electoral College Projections as of October 26th - 270toWin

The current Election Day forecast from 14 organizations

www.270towin.com

On the day of the election 538 gave Clinton an almost 72% chance of winning.

Basically, this is boiling down to taking issue with application of the word "landslide."
That's a judgement call, with no right or wrong answer.

So, I'll leave you with this:

FullMonte, meet JimEverett.
Jim, meet Monte.

 

[Nebaghead]

Then you must not care about reading or comprehension. No other answer. I said Giuliani is troublesome for me, but on this particular issue I don't see his actions have any bearing.

The whole point is he is using channels that have no oversight. Giulani is a private citizen and is not accountable to the US Government. he is only accountable to Trump which makes this a personal investigation. The whole thing that is wrong about this is he didn't use the proper channels. If he did that, we might question what he was doing but hey he is following the right channels. Just like the DOJ investigating the FISA warrant process. That is the right way. No one is saying this is illegal.