The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (1 Viewer)

[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]

It helps promote meaningful discussion if you say what you think rather than say what you think someone else thinks.

You are right. I edited my post. My apologies.

 

[Zardnok]

I don’t disagree that is his MO. It is also the MO of the media to cast all conservatives as racist, bigots, homophobes. The difference is they tried this with someone who plays the same game.

You seem excited the President is tearing our country apart from the inside.

When Trump surrounds himself with racists, bigots, and homophobes and Trump excuses racists, bigots, and homophobes, perhaps the media isn't the problem.

 

[Zardnok]

As I stated, it’s common hat. Hence the reason the country is not getting behind this escapade.

It is common Red MAGA hat. As for the Country not getting behind this episode, more of the Country favors impeaching Trump than not, even Trump himself claims to welcome impeachment. So far we have only gone through the evidence gathering portion and have only just referred it to the Judiciary committee for their review. Historically things don't shift until they get to the trial portion in the Senate. We will see which direction it goes from here. If Trump supporters pay attention to the facts and evidence, it will be interesting to see if their Red-Hat loyalty can overcome their own sense of right and wrong.

 

[samiam5211]

The line is important because I think there are many people who will say Obama using US intelligence and a secret court to investigate people closely connected to the Trump campaign was completely lawful.

I‘d hope that Trumps government has reviewed that process and will cite any who broke the rules.

I don’t have a problem with the process as a whole based on the facts we have. I think those who acted wrongly are being held accountable, but the process as a whole was legitimate.

Now, could you talk about where your line would be and what if anything done by the past two administrations crossed it?

 

[JimEverett]

I‘d hope that Trumps government has reviewed that process and will cite any who broke the rules.

I don’t have a problem with the process as a whole based on the facts we have. I think those who acted wrongly are being held accountable, but the process as a whole was legitimate.

Now, could you talk about where your line would be and what if anything done by the past two administrations crossed it?

For starters, I will say that using U.S. intelligence via a secret court to investigate people closely related to an opposition party campaign strikes me as a far more serious potential line crossed than asking a foreign government to investigate a company with ties to a member of the opposition party.

 

[samiam5211]

For starters, I will say that using U.S. intelligence via a secret court to investigate people closely related to an opposition party campaign strikes me as a far more serious potential line crossed than asking a foreign government to investigate a company with ties to a member of the opposition party.

I think that you are misrepresenting the context of that situation.

 

[bdb13]

For starters, I will say that using U.S. intelligence via a secret court to investigate people closely related to an opposition party campaign strikes me as a far more serious potential line crossed than asking a foreign government to investigate a company with ties to a member of the opposition party.

Broadly speaking, what are the alternative mechanisms available to investigate such things if they're necessary to investigate?

If an investigation was going to happen, what was the more appropriate way to handle it?

 

[JimEverett]

Broadly speaking, what are the alternative mechanisms available to investigate such things if they're necessary to investigate?

If an investigation was going to happen, what was the more appropriate way to handle it?

You use regular law enforcement - not U.S. intelligence. And you use regular courts, not secret courts.

More specifically to the comparisons with the impeachment inquiry: The investigation into people closely connected to the Trump campaign clearly had a political element. What is more - we know that there are many examples of quid pro quo that are beneficial, to one degree or another, to a politician or political party. If the response to that is something along the lines of "Well, sure, but in those cases there is something that goes beyond the pure political advantage. But then the question becomes, "what is the standard?"
And that seems to be the heart of it. Certainly, there are many who don't think a certain threshold standard was met with the FBI investigations in 2016, just like many don;t think the standard was met with Trump and Ukraine. And it generally falls along political lines.

 

[crosswatt]

For starters, I will say that using U.S. intelligence via a secret court to investigate people closely related to an opposition party campaign strikes me as a far more serious potential line crossed than asking a foreign government to investigate a company with ties to a member of the opposition party.

I'm interested to see what the report actually says, and there was investigation initiated that has led to thirty-four instances of charges being filed, but the spying accusations appear like they're going to fall flat...

Russia Inquiry Review Is Expected to Undercut Trump Claim of F.B.I. Spying (Published 2019)

The F.B.I. never tried to place undercover agents or informants inside the Trump campaign, a highly anticipated inspector general’s report is expected to find.

www.nytimes.com

 

[FullMonte]

The line is important because I think there are many people who will say Obama using US intelligence and a secret court to investigate people closely connected to the Trump campaign was completely lawful.

There are two big problems with this line of thinking:

A) There is ZERO evidence to support the claim that Obama ordered the US intelligence services and FISA court to investigate people connected with the Trump campaign.

B) There is a plethora of evidence that the FBI and intelligence services opened the investigation on their own based on credible sources and evidence, and that the investigation was warranted.

 

[Lazybones]

You seem excited the President is tearing our country apart from the inside.

When Trump surrounds himself with racists, bigots, and homophobes and Trump excuses racists, bigots, and homophobes, perhaps the media isn't the problem.

It didn’t take long for you to show your true colors. Shameful

 

[Lazybones]

It is common Red MAGA hat. As for the Country not getting behind this episode, more of the Country favors impeaching Trump than not, even Trump himself claims to welcome impeachment. So far we have only gone through the evidence gathering portion and have only just referred it to the Judiciary committee for their review. Historically things don't shift until they get to the trial portion in the Senate. We will see which direction it goes from here. If Trump supporters pay attention to the facts and evidence, it will be interesting to see if their Red-Hat loyalty can overcome their own sense of right and wrong.

Please show me where the majority of America supports impeachment. Be careful, because I will comb through the link. The reason I say this is I don’t want you to fall for a headline.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I would say you are calling the kettle black. Read my post and then ask a question pertaining to it and I will answer.

Sam quoted you and asked a question that I would love to see an answer to. I have quoted it below in case you missed it.

What specific underhanded dealings with regard to the firing of the prosecutor are you referring to?

 

[Lazybones]

Sam quoted you and asked a question that I would love to see an answer to. I have quoted it below in case you missed it.

I think I may not be clear on what I’m saying. Biden put pressure to fire the prosecutor, I don’t care why and it really doesn’t matter. He used the power of the country to make a country do what we wanted done.

I understand what trump did was different. The point is that it is all in the same wheel house. Just like the Clinton and Lynch meeting. People using power to influence other people. It’s not an impeachable type action in my opinion.

 

[Lazybones]

Sam quoted you and asked a question that I would love to see an answer to. I have quoted it below in case you missed it.

I have a question for anyone who wants to answer.

if Biden becomes the nominee, are any of you concerned with his sons connections in the Ukraine?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I think I may not be clear on what I’m saying. Biden put pressure to fire the prosecutor, I don’t care why and it really doesn’t matter. He used the power of the country to make a country do what we wanted done.

I understand what trump did was different. The point is that it is all in the same wheel house. Just like the Clinton and Lynch meeting. People using power to influence other people. It’s not an impeachable type action in my opinion.

So, I think this is important to explore further. Why do you think that pursuing US interests is in the same wheel house of abuse of power?

You're on firmer footing with Clinton meeting Lynch. When you have people in power all cozy with each other, it makes it hard to believe that they can be objective when it comes to pursuing justice.

But that has nothing to do with Biden asking Ukraine to fire a corrupt official. Can you explain why that is in the same wheel house of a corrupt abuse of power?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I have a question for anyone who wants to answer.

if Biden becomes the nominee, are any of you concerned with his sons connections in the Ukraine?

His son no longer has a connection in the Ukraine. If you're asking if I'm concerned in general with the family of high level officials pursuing business interests in areas where their relatives have power to influence policy... absolutely. But I somehow don't think Trump or his supporters care about that.

 

[samiam5211]

I have a question for anyone who wants to answer.

if Biden becomes the nominee, are any of you concerned with his sons connections in the Ukraine?

Hunter Biden is of poor moral character.

Ukraine aside, scandals relating to Hunter will be an issue for Biden in a general election.