The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (17 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 18 (members: 0, guests: 18)
    Andrus

    Andrus

    Admin
    Staff member
    Joined
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages
    2,268
    Reaction score
    944
    Age
    65
    Location
    Sunset, Louisiana
    Offline
    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
     
    Here's an interesting breakdown on the veracity of the republican defenses of Trump. I'll leave it to the lawyers to let us know how accurate it is.

     
    FullMonte said:
    Apparently, it was approved, and has been sitting there for months, waiting for OMB to release it. I'm thinking that EmBeeFiveOhFour may be right...but it also sounds like it may have been on hold since before this Ukraine thing started, so who knows?
    Click to expand...

    September 5 -- State Department informs Congress aid to Lebanon will be spent
    September 9 -- IG informs Congress of complaint by whistleblower re: aid to Ukraine
    Some undetermined point after that after scandal has already blown up -- aid withheld

    Also from the article: "The State Department has offered only a cryptic response to queries, defending the assistance but also calling for Lebanese authorities to implement economic reforms and rein in corruption."

    :unsure:
     
    wardorican said:
    How? I think shes signaling to Republican Senators they dont just have to remove him from office. They can censure him. Isnt that what ended up happening to Clinton?

    She still is on board for impeachment inquiry and seemingly impeachment.

    Just sounded like she was saying it isnt just the house may impeach and the senate would acquit. There are more options.

    Republicans can say he was wrong to do this, but not remove him.
    Click to expand...
    Ah, I posted before Rep Lawrence issued an update, which you read, that clarifies what she meant.

    Update: Lawrence issued a statement reversing her position again, saying she still supports impeachment but is “very concerned about Senate Republicans and the fact that they would find this behavior by the President unacceptable.”
     
    From a few weeks ago
    =================
    ........But by censuring instead of impeaching the president, Democrats could easily turn the political calculus against the GOP.

    The Post reports that a growing number of Republicans are ready to acknowledge that the president did use military aid as leverage to force Ukraine to investigate the Biden family but that “the president’s action was not illegal and does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.”

    To oppose a censure resolution, Republicans would have to argue not just that the president’s misconduct does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense, but that there was no misconduct at all. Clearly there was, and Americans know it.

    Censure would put public opinion squarely on the Democrats’ side and put Republicans in a political bind..........

     
    So now the distancing himself from his personal lawyer starts....

    Asked by O’Reilly what Giuliani was doing in Ukraine, Trump said “you have to ask that to Rudy.”

    “Rudy has other clients, other than me,” Trump said. “He’s done a lot of work in Ukraine over the years.”

    Trump denies directing Giuliani in Ukraine
     
    O'rly

    Trump Denies Sending Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine for Biden Probe


    Donald Trump denied directing Rudy Giuliani to go to Ukraine to look for dirt on his political rivals, in an interview with former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly.

    “No, I didn’t direct him, but he is a warrior, he is a warrior,” Trump told O’Reilly in an interview streamed on the internet on Tuesday.

    Giuliani has said publicly that he conducted an investigation “concerning 2016 Ukrainian collusion and corruption” on Trump’s behalf.
    Click to expand...
    Now that the House has moved to the next phase, trump seems ready to ditch Rudy. I have to wonder if his Senate minions will follow suit.
     
    Last edited:
    crosswatt said:
    So now the distancing himself from his personal lawyer starts....

    Asked by O’Reilly what Giuliani was doing in Ukraine, Trump said “you have to ask that to Rudy.”

    “Rudy has other clients, other than me,” Trump said. “He’s done a lot of work in Ukraine over the years.”

    Click to expand...
    ha, jinx
     
    crosswatt said:
    So now the distancing himself from his personal lawyer starts....

    Asked by O’Reilly what Giuliani was doing in Ukraine, Trump said “you have to ask that to Rudy.”

    “Rudy has other clients, other than me,” Trump said. “He’s done a lot of work in Ukraine over the years.”

    Trump denies directing Giuliani in Ukraine
    Click to expand...

    My guess is this is a coordinated strategy between them, not a throwing under the bus move.
     
    crosswatt said:
    I've read it twice now in mine and your posts and still can't really believe this isn't an elaborate Punk'd prank somehow.
    Click to expand...
    I actually laughed out loud at the predictability of it all. Rudy will be called to testify in either the Judicial Committee's hearing or at the Senate trial, then we will see how far all of them are willing to go.
     
    EmBeeFiveOhFour said:
    Complete coincidence. Perfect Call.

    Click to expand...


    “I recall in early September an email that attributed the hold to the President’s concern about other countries not contributing more to Ukraine.” That was after a Politico article in late August revealing the existence of the hold, but before the transcript of the president’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was declassified and released on Sep. 25.

    The folks complaining about hearsay and second hand information are using testimony from a guy with second hand information that NOW the reason for the Ukraine aid hold was because Trump was concerned other countries weren't giving enough.

     
    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump was briefed on the whistleblower complaint about his dealings with Ukraine before the White House released nearly $400 million in military aid to Kyiv, officials say, shedding new light on events that triggered the impeachment inquiry.......

    apnews.com

    Trump knew of whistleblower before releasing Ukraine aid

    WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump was briefed on the whistleblower complaint about his dealings with Ukraine before the White House released nearly $400 million in military aid to Kyiv, officials say, shedding new light on events that triggered the impeachment inquiry.
    apnews.com apnews.com
     
    President Trump was cranky when they spoke on the phone in September, Ambassador Gordon Sondland told members of Congress, but his words were clear: Trump wanted no quid pro quo with Ukraine.

    “This is Ambassador Sondland speaking to me,” Trump said outside the White House last week, looking down to read notes he’d taken of Sondland’s testimony. “Here’s my response that he just gave: ‘I want nothing. . . . I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.’ ”

    Sondland’s recollection of a phone conversation that he said took place on Sept. 9 has emerged as a centerpiece of Trump’s defense as House Democrats argue in an impeachment inquiry that he abused his office to pressure Ukraine to investigate Democrats.

    However, no other witness testimony or documents have emerged that corroborate Sondland’s description of a call that day.

    Trump himself, in describing the conversation, has referred only to the ambassador’s account of the call, which — based on Sondland’s activities — would have occurred before dawn in Washington. And the White House has not located a record in its switchboard logs of a call between Trump and Sondland on Sept. 9, according to an administration official who, like others in this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.............

     
    Optimus Prime said:
    President Trump was cranky when they spoke on the phone in September, Ambassador Gordon Sondland told members of Congress, but his words were clear: Trump wanted no quid pro quo with Ukraine.

    “This is Ambassador Sondland speaking to me,” Trump said outside the White House last week, looking down to read notes he’d taken of Sondland’s testimony. “Here’s my response that he just gave: ‘I want nothing. . . . I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.’ ”

    Sondland’s recollection of a phone conversation that he said took place on Sept. 9 has emerged as a centerpiece of Trump’s defense as House Democrats argue in an impeachment inquiry that he abused his office to pressure Ukraine to investigate Democrats.

    However, no other witness testimony or documents have emerged that corroborate Sondland’s description of a call that day.

    Trump himself, in describing the conversation, has referred only to the ambassador’s account of the call, which — based on Sondland’s activities — would have occurred before dawn in Washington. And the White House has not located a record in its switchboard logs of a call between Trump and Sondland on Sept. 9, according to an administration official who, like others in this report, spoke on the condition of anonymity because of the sensitivity of the matter.............

    Click to expand...
    I said it the day of the second hearing after he mentioned his hope to remain friends and colleagues with Trump, Sondland is trying to ride the fence on this: save his own skin and do what he can to protect the president. He is still not being forthright, and the subsequent testimony from Hill and others all but bend his assertion of not connecting Burisma to the Biden’s to the breaking point of any honest logic.

    it’s not the first time it was reported their were red flags about this assertion, but this is additional evidence that suggests this was likely not how things went down, if this conversation even occurred at all.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom