The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (2 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

 

[Lazybones]

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.

again you are either purposely skewing what I’m saying or I’m not saying it well. The investigation is over. However since it did not accomplish what they were looking to accomplish, this circus followed.

Now I have been very open with my answers, please reciprocate.

If the impeachment fails, will you still support the democrats in charge in Washington? And will you come to the conclusion that trump is better at politics than the career politicians?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

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

So, then why does it not register with you that people are apoplectic over Trump's abuse of power?

Biden pressuring the president of Ukraine to fire a corrupt investigator is an appropriate use of power.

Trump pressuring the president of Ukraine to announce an investigation into a political rival is not.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

again you are either purposely skewing what I’m saying or I’m not saying it well. The investigation is over. However since it did not accomplish what they were looking to accomplish, this circus followed.

If they believe that Trump is breaking the law, how do you expect them to behave?

Now I have been very open with my answers, please reciprocate.

If the impeachment fails, will you still support the democrats in charge in Washington? And will you come to the conclusion that trump is better at politics than the career politicians?

What do you mean by support? None of them are in my district, so I'm not in position to vote for them or against them, nor do I have any friends that are in their districts to try to persuade them.

If they fail to remove Trump for office, which I'm not sure I actually support - I'm not sure why you think that has any bearing on my "support" for them or not.

Are they breaking the law? Do I have evidence that they don't believe Trump broke the law and are therefore wasting my time? I don't have evidence of either of those claims, do you?

As far as Trump being better at politics than the career politicians? I don't know... they all seem to be doing pretty well at staying elected... so they all seem like decent politicians by that metric, including Trump.

 

[Lazybones]

So, then why does it not register with you that people are apoplectic over Trump's abuse of power?

Biden pressuring the president of Ukraine to fire a corrupt investigator is an appropriate use of power.

Trump pressuring the president of Ukraine to announce an investigation into a political rival is not.

I don’t think it’s that big is a deal. I don’t see a ton of difference with the DNC and Hillary buying the Steele dossier. It’s politics. It’s a nasty business.

do you really think that Biden squeezing the prosecutor being fires had ZERO to do with his son? By admitting that there might be a connection, is not the same as saying what trump did was legit. Im just curious to know if you think it is implausible for the actions of Biden to have some personal motives.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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

Then what do you mean when you say this, specifically the bolded part?

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.

You mention Biden pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin, Trump's actions that spurred the impeachment inquiry, and Clinton's meeting with Lynch.

You then said "it is all in the same wheel house."

If you aren't comparing the two, perhaps you could explain what you meant in a way that clarifies things for those of us that took it the wrong way.

 

[Lazybones]

Then what do you mean when you say this, specifically the bolded part?



You mention Biden pressuring Ukraine to fire Shokin, Trump's actions that spurred the impeachment inquiry, and Clinton's meeting with Lynch.

You then said "it is all in the same wheel house."

If you aren't comparing the two, perhaps you could explain what you meant in a way that clarifies things for those of us that took it the wrong way.

please read the above 10 or so post that I have made regarding this. I’m not going to keep repeating the same narrative.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I don’t think it’s that big is a deal. I don’t see a ton of difference with the DNC and Hillary buying the Steele dossier. It’s politics. It’s a nasty business.

Do you think it's appropriate to use the resources of the United States, taxpayer money, to damage political opponents? Do you think it's the same thing as people using their personal resources for their personal benefit?

do you really think that Biden squeezing the prosecutor being fires had ZERO to do with his son? By admitting that there might be a connection, is not the same as saying what trump did was legit. Im just curious to know if you think it is implausible for the actions of Biden to have some personal motives.

So, sure, it might have had something to do with it... in ethics classes that I'm required to take for my company every year, you have to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. That's again why I'm 100% in favor of more laws/rules/etc that limit the businesses family members can be involved with - or would otherwise force a recusal.

However, those laws don't exist, so I'm instead forced to try to figure out if my politicians are acting in the national interest or abusing their power. And since Biden pressuring the President of Ukraine to fire a corrupt investigator was in line with the policy of several other countries, that I have not heard that Biden was not pushing this policy outside of anyone else in the Obama administration, and that Hunter Biden was never the focus of any investigation; it seems likely that this was a normal use of power and not an abuse of power.

If you have other evidence that this was an abuse of power, I'd welcome it.

 

[Lazybones]

Do you think it's appropriate to use the resources of the United States, taxpayer money, to damage political opponents? Do you think it's the same thing as people using their personal resources for their personal benefit?



So, sure, it might have had something to do with it... in ethics classes that I'm required to take for my company every year, you have to avoid even the appearance of conflict of interest. That's again why I'm 100% in favor of more laws/rules/etc that limit the businesses family members can be involved with - or would otherwise force a recusal.

However, those laws don't exist, so I'm instead forced to try to figure out if my politicians are acting in the national interest or abusing their power. And since Biden pressuring the President of Ukraine to fire a corrupt investigator was in line with the policy of several other countries, that I have not heard that Biden was not pushing this policy outside of anyone else in the Obama administration, and that Hunter Biden was never the focus of any investigation; it seems likely that this was a normal use of power and not an abuse of power.

If you have other evidence that this was an abuse of power, I'd welcome it.

it seems as if you are giving Biden 100% reason of doubt (why is that a saying) and trump none?
As far as me having evidence, I don’t, but the Ukrainians do, and that’s why trump asked for it.

if Biden becomes the candidate, are you comfortable with hunters connections to a country that originated election tampering? Or should it not be an issue based on your answer above?

I understand either way and I’m not tying to get you to say something different, I’m just trying to clarify your two answers on the subject.

and the first question, trump didn’t USA anyone’s money. He used the influence of money. The DNC actually used the public’s money to purchase the Steele dossier (I’m sure this has been done a thousand times and not necessarily saying it’s wrong). The unions have been peddling influence for as long as their were unions.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

please read the above 10 or so post that I have made regarding this. I’m not going to keep repeating the same narrative.

You said "I don’t think it’s that big is a deal. I don’t see a ton of difference with the DNC and Hillary buying the Steele dossier. It’s politics. It’s a nasty business."

Do you believe there is a difference between the following three situations:

A private organization hiring a private individual to look into another private individual
A government employee acting through proper channels to further governmental policy in coordination with other allies
A government individual acting through improper channels to coerce a foreign government into providing something of personal value

 

[Lazybones]

You said "I don’t think it’s that big is a deal. I don’t see a ton of difference with the DNC and Hillary buying the Steele dossier. It’s politics. It’s a nasty business."

Do you believe there is a difference between the following three situations:

A private organization hiring a private individual to look into another private individual
A government employee acting through proper channels to further governmental policy in coordination with other allies
A government individual acting through improper channels to coerce a foreign government into providing something of personal value

I think I just answered this to him above while you were typing.

but to answer your question, there are obvious differences. Not impeachable ones.

 

[crosswatt]

it seems as if you are giving Biden 100% reason of doubt (why is that a saying) and trump none?
As far as me having evidence, I don’t, but the Ukrainians do, and that’s why trump asked for it.

if Biden becomes the candidate, are you comfortable with hunters connections to a country that originated election tampering? Or should it not be an issue based on your answer above?

I understand either way and I’m not tying to get you to say something different, I’m just trying to clarify your two answers on the subject.

and the first question, trump didn’t USA anyone’s money. He used the influence of money. The DNC actually used the public’s money to purchase the Steele dossier (I’m sure this has been done a thousand times and not necessarily saying it’s wrong). The unions have been peddling influence for as long as their were unions.

Trump has literally forty years of a clear cut record of why he doesn't really deserve any benefit of the doubt. That's the biggest difference in the two situations.

 

[Lazybones]

Question to both of you.

Do you think the mueller investigation and the attempted impeachment were done for the betterment of the country or the betterment of the Democratic Party?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I think I just answered this to him above while you were typing.

but to answer your question, there are obvious differences. Not impeachable ones.

I don't believe you did. It is a yes or no question. Do you see any differences in those three situations? As soon as that is answered, we can discuss why you see it the way you do.

 

[Lazybones]

I don't believe you did. It is a yes or no question. Do you see any differences in those three situations? As soon as that is answered, we can discuss why you see it the way you do.

did you read what I said? Here is the problem. I don’t think you are reading anything I said. You have a predisposed idea and are rubbing with it. I answers your with 2 sentences AND YOU DIDNT EVEN READ THE SECOND ONE!

Are you being sincere in your actions? It seems that you are trying to push a narrative that isn’t there.

 

[JimEverett]

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?

Some so-called secret information did get out - at least by September 2016. And yes, I think it is safe to assume that it did affect the election.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

did you read what I said? Here is the problem. I don’t think you are reading anything I said. You have a predisposed idea and are rubbing with it. I answers your with 2 sentences AND YOU DIDNT EVEN READ THE SECOND ONE!

Are you being sincere in your actions? It seems that you are trying to push a narrative that isn’t there.

I genuinely did not see the second sentence when I responded. I apologize.

Do you think there is any legitimate reason for POTUS to withhold congressionally approved aid money until the president of the country set to receive the aid money makes a public declaration that damages a political rival?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

it seems as if you are giving Biden 100% reason of doubt (why is that a saying) and trump none?

There is more evidence of Trump misusing his office than there is of Biden, right? We have people in the Trump administration saying that Trump was inappropriately using his office to damage a political opponent. Is there similar evidence against Biden?

As far as me having evidence, I don’t, but the Ukrainians do, and that’s why trump asked for it.

Why do you believe the Ukrainians do?

Why would the Ukrainians have evidence of Biden shaping US policy? Were Ukrainians inside the Oval office? Why wouldn't Trump actually order a US based investigation if Biden broke US law?

if Biden becomes the candidate, are you comfortable with hunters connections to a country that originated election tampering? Or should it not be an issue based on your answer above?

Perhaps you could illustrate what you mean by Hunter's connections to Ukraine. Are you talking about anything more than being on a board of directors of a company based in the Ukraine? He's no longer on that board of directors correct?

Also, I'm not aware of any election tampering on the part of Ukraine. I know they told a DNC consultant that Manafort had a close association with the corrupt oligarch that was overthrown in the Ukraine. That is not election tampering. That was trying to influence the election... is that what you're talking about?

If so, then yes, I'm fine with that. Hunter no longer has any business dealings with a country that made a disclosure to a DNC consultant. I'd be curious to see if that disclosure runs afoul of campaign finance laws, but someone with more knowledge than me would have to weigh in on that.

I understand either way and I’m not tying to get you to say something different, I’m just trying to clarify your two answers on the subject.

and the first question, trump didn’t USA anyone’s money. He used the influence of money.

That's still using taxpayer money for his own political purpose to damage a political opponent.

The DNC actually used the public’s money to purchase the Steele dossier (I’m sure this has been done a thousand times and not necessarily saying it’s wrong). The unions have been peddling influence for as long as their were unions.

The DNC used their own money, not taxpayer money.

One is legal and one is not.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Some so-called secret information did get out - at least by September 2016. And yes, I think it is safe to assume that it did affect the election.

So, this is where I think there is a legitimate complaint (with the leaks), and where the focus should be, IMO.

Could you refresh my memory about what came out prior to the election?