The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (3 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

 

[Lapaz]

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.

I bolded the important fallacy in your thinking. If you don't care why, how can you assess whether something was done for the right reason? Although you say you don't care why, please humor me. Why do you think Biden sought to remove the prosecutor?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I’m not sure where The line is. I don’t think this is so something that is impeachable or that uncommon. I don't trust politicians. I don’t trust that trump has altruistic motives, nor do I think schiff and Pelosi have altruistic motives.

this whole deal may have had more legitimacy if the media and the liberal politicians would have treated this president with some inkling of decency after the election.

So, if you legitimately believe that Russia had made contacts with the Trump campaign and that issue was worth investigating, how should they have acted?

Further, how should they have reacted when Trump officials lied to investigators? Further, how should they have reacted when Trump started calling into question the integrity of the people doing the investigating?

How exactly did Trump behave, and do you think his actions were designed to establish trust, and reconciliation?

I think the democrats and the media lost all credibility pertaining to trump after the mueller circus. That investigation was assured to bury the president, but it didn’t.

Didn't the Mueller report state that Russia helped the Trump campaign, the Trump campaign knew about that help and welcomed it, and that Trump directed his people to lie to investigators?

 

[Lazybones]

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?

I never made the claim it was. You guys are twisting the scenario that was laid out.

 

[Lazybones]

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.

it wasn’t a question about trump supports. So I want to further explore. Who do you want to look into his family dealings?

 

[Lazybones]

I bolded the important fallacy in your thinking. If you don't care why, how can you assess whether something was done for the right reason? Although you say you don't care why, please humor me. Why do you think Biden sought to remove the prosecutor?

I really don’t think y’all are not following what I’m saying. The scenario is that in politics, politicians use their influence to influence others. I said THIS ISNT EXACTLY THE SAME AS WHAT TRUMP DID (because some of you want to be obtuse and want an exact comparison).

the fact that the prosecutor was fired, via pressure from the VP, shows that political bullying is commonplace.

if the lot of you want to keep disregarding this line of thinking as BS, 2020 is going to be a huge let down for you.

I

 

[Lazybones]

So, if you legitimately believe that Russia had made contacts with the Trump campaign and that issue was worth investigating, how should they have acted?

Further, how should they have reacted when Trump officials lied to investigators? Further, how should they have reacted when Trump started calling into question the integrity of the people doing the investigating?

How exactly did Trump behave, and do you think his actions were designed to establish trust, and reconciliation?





Didn't the Mueller report state that Russia helped the Trump campaign, the Trump campaign knew about that help and welcomed it, and that Trump directed his people to lie to investigators?

for the sake of argument, let’s go with everything you say as truth. What is the impact? The investigation did Not so what it was intended to do. Much like the Steele dossier and now the impeachment.

When the impeachment fizzles, what’s next? Will you accept that trump is better at being a politician than the career politicians? He is beating them at their own game.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I really don’t think y’all are not following what I’m saying. The scenario is that in politics, politicians use their influence to influence others. I said THIS ISNT EXACTLY THE SAME AS WHAT TRUMP DID (because some of you want to be obtuse and want an exact comparison).

the fact that the prosecutor was fired, via pressure from the VP, shows that political bullying is commonplace.

if the lot of you want to keep disregarding this line of thinking as BS, 2020 is going to be a huge let down for you.

I

If Larry speeds today and Rick speeds tomorrow, are you willing to say their actions are in the same wheelhouse even though Larry was simply running late for work while Rick was fleeing after robbing a gas station?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

it wasn’t a question about trump supports. So I want to further explore. Who do you want to look into his family dealings?

I'm not asking anyone to look into Biden's family dealings. It's legal for family members to have business dealings in all sorts of areas even when they have direct influence over policy that could effect those business dealings. I'm saying I'm in favor of passing laws that would either forbid that, or in some way regulate that.

Are you saying that we should investigate every politician who has a family member with business affairs?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I never made the claim it was. You guys are twisting the scenario that was laid out.

I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I thought you said that any time the US uses it's influence to force another country to do something, such as when Biden put pressure on Ukraine to fire a corrupt official, that was in the same wheelhouse of what Trump did.

 

[bdb13]

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.

Gotcha. Using regular law enforcement likely would have brought this to a public head of some sort prior to election day 2016, correct? I can see the argument that an investigation into an opposition party's campaign should probably be more... transparent, I guess... than what we had.

My thoughts on all this are kind of all over the place. I have an issue with a (former?) foreign intelligence officer essentially working for and gathering information for a political party to use against a political opponent and I have an issue with any of that information unverified by us being used in a FISA court (which is further complicated by the disinformation campaign that Russia was likely implementing on Steele), and its use in a FISA court is made worse by Steele's tie in with the DNC (was that disclosed? Do not recall). Probably stuff there that should be made illegal, but not sure if anything actually was.

That said, based upon the available evidence and facts as we know them to be, I still strongly believe that an investigation was necessary and justifiable into Trump/Russia (if you don't generally agree I'd be curious to hear why). If an investigation into the Bidens is necessary I'm all for it but I'm honestly unclear as to what the specific accusation is and what if any supporting evidence is currently available.

I feel confident that I'd call it impeachable/a crime if it came out that Obama in 2016 had leverage four hundred million in tax payer dollars in order for the ______ President to announce on TV an investigation into, let's say, the Trump Org. And that's considering my believe that our domestic Trump/Russia investigation was justified.

To a large extent I don't really see a way around there not being a well defined standard on this issue. Even if you believe Trump never should have been investigated, certainly there are things a candidate or political party could do that would necessitate an investigation, and if the rival party is in power they would likely have to be the ones to initiate it.

But if the means (leveraging $400 million) and the ends (damaging a political opponent) are both nefarious and result in what can reasonably be considered a crime, as is what's basically alleged with Trump/Ukraine, I think it becomes a rather egregious offense.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

for the sake of argument, let’s go with everything you say as truth. What is the impact? The investigation did Not so what it was intended to do. Much like the Steele dossier and now the impeachment.

When the impeachment fizzles, what’s next? Will you accept that trump is better at being a politician than the career politicians? He is beating them at their own game.

I think I missed something in your question. If everything I said was the truth, then what has followed - condemnation of Trump frequently is logical, correct?

 

[Lazybones]

If Larry speeds today and Rick speeds tomorrow, are you willing to say their actions are in the same wheelhouse even though Larry was simply running late for work while Rick was fleeing after robbing a gas station?

for the hundredth time, IM NOT COMPARING THE TWO. At this point I think you are being purposefully obtuse.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

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.

Do you think using public courts would have had an impact on the election?

Do you think it's reasonable for investigators to think that the most minimally invasive method to open an investigation is to do what they always do with CI investigations which is to go through the FISA courts, and wished to avoid inserting themselves further into the election?

 

[Lazybones]

I'm sorry if I misunderstood, but I thought you said that any time the US uses it's influence to force another country to do something, such as when Biden put pressure on Ukraine to fire a corrupt official, that was in the same wheelhouse of what Trump did.

I said that what Biden did, what Clinton and I think I used another example, shows that I’m the world of politics, people use their power and influence. It is common hat. So when the left is apoplectic about what trump did, it just doesn’t register.

 

[Lazybones]

I think I missed something in your question. If everything I said was the truth, then what has followed - condemnation of Trump frequently is logical, correct?

being correct and being petty are not mutually exclusive. So your saying the impact of the mueller investigation is more of the same and think it’s justifiable based on the lack of positive outcome of the investigation?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I said that what Biden did, what Clinton and I think I used another example, shows that I’m the world of politics, people use their power and influence. It is common hat. So when the left is apoplectic about what trump did, it just doesn’t register.

I think this is where the disconnect is -- some use of power is legitimate and for the benefit of the country, and some is not, correct?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

being correct and being petty are not mutually exclusive. So your saying the impact of the mueller investigation is more of the same and think it’s justifiable based on the lack of positive outcome of the investigation?

I definitely think we're missing each other's point.

I'm saying the Mueller report found that Trump's campaign and Russian intelligence had contact with each other. Officials in the Trump campaign lied about that contact. Trump further instructed his subordinates to lie and otherwise obstruct a lawful investigation.

Why you're ok with that I'm not sure, but that's your prerogative.

 

[Lazybones]

I think this is where the disconnect is -- some use of power is legitimate and for the benefit of the country, and some is not, correct?

Of course. And there are degrees to the use of power.