The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (6 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

 

[RobF]

No there isn't; that's purely a self-serving subjective opinion on your part that aligns with your side's political objectives.

"No there isn't" is a purely self-serving subjective opinion on your part that aligns with your side's political objectives.

Considerably more so than "there is so much evidence of possible abuse of power and violations of laws", because, notwithstanding 'self-serving objective opinions', the evidence, objectively, exists. And speaking generally, this ongoing approach of simply pretending it doesn't, even while people have been arrested, charged, and convicted from following where the evidence has previously lead, is downright bizarre.

And before you say "no, you", this comment is not a "self-serving subjective opinion on my part that aligns with my side's political objectives." I certainly have opinions, but I'm not American. I don't have a side in this as such.

 

[yuyi64]

people have been arrested, charged, and convicted from following where the evidence has previously lead

Stop spreading falsehoods. Not a single person has been arrested, charged, and convicted from the Ukraine call that led to the Schiff Sham. That is what the post you quoted was referring to, so stop lying just to score political points.

 

[Beach Friends]

I don't think anyone's ever been upset that they didn't get a chance to defend themselves, because they were only investigated but never actually indicted and put on trial.

Now imagine if grand juries were handled differently, such that through out the grand jury proceedings the prosecutor and jurors continually spoke to the media to spin the evidence.

Or, at the end of the grand jury proceedings they decided not to indict, but nonetheless issued a report of all the evidence from the one sided investigation.

 

[RobF]

Stop spreading falsehoods. Not a single person has been arrested, charged, and convicted from the Ukraine call that led to the Schiff Sham. That is what the post you quoted was referring to, so stop lying just to score political points.

"And speaking generally... "

Please take the time to comprehend the post you're replying to before attacking other posters.

 

[Sledge Hammer]

Can we use this as an opportunity to clarify points rather than make [edit] accusations?

There are posts I'm seeing here and elsewhere that need to be reviewed. I'd consider revisiting what was said, or rather, how it was said and edit, rather than just wait and see.

 

[MT15]

Wait, so you're agreeing now with everyone who's not a Democratic partisan that Hunter should be investigated for his shady dealings? Where are the House investigations on Hunter then?

Hunter Biden isn’t a public servant who took an oath to uphold the Constitution, nor is he subject to oversight from the House of Representatives. President Trump is.

 

[wardorican]

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1888-yovanovitch-opening-statement/48cf6b834149b4867fb5/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

Opening statement.

 

[MT15]

Interesting - just looked up the Ukranian President's remarks.
If there is no quid pro quo here then what would be the illegal act? An election law violation? Or is there something more?
From what I have seen so far there doesn't seem to be enough to say the request was related to the election. For one thing, Biden is not even Trump's opponent.

Still, I want to know Trump's/the White House's reason for having Giuliani so involved.

What do you think the Ambassador to the EU was referring to when he texted something to the effect that the President was insisting on getting “the deliverable” before setting a date for the Ukrainian President to get a WH visit? To me seems to be a reference to the public announcement of an investigation into the Bidens.

The text messages seem pretty telling to me. You can see the career diplomats going along with the WH visit tied to a public announcement of an investigation, but pushing back when the military aid is withheld. These are a couple of career guys, they are apolitical and used to serving whichever party is in power. It seems that they were pretty concerned, though, when it became clear that the military aid was being used to exert pressure.

The first time the career diplomat raises questions about whether the military aid is truly being withheld now as part of this effort to secure an announcement of a Biden investigation, the EU Ambassador simply says “call me”.

When the career diplomat made his text where he repeats that “as I said on the phone” he thinks it’s crazy to withhold military aid to get help for an election, the EU ambassador is silent for 5 hours, during which time he calls the President, and then replies with a stilted, very formal, legalese reply. Totally different than all the other text messages.

Of course that isn’t ironclad proof, but imo there will be proof uncovered. We just have to be patient and let it unfold.

 

[Beach Friends]

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1888-yovanovitch-opening-statement/48cf6b834149b4867fb5/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

Opening statement.

The fact that this was released while the transcript from the testimony the other day (which has been characterized as having been favorable to Trump) has not, is an example of why I have a problem with the way this "inquiry" is being handled.

IMO, this serves to support the White House's demand for a vote to open an impeachment inquiry.

 

[MT15]

The fact that this was released while the transcript from the testimony the other day (which has been characterized as having been favorable to Trump) has not, is an example of why I have a problem with the way this "inquiry" is being handled.

IMO, this serves to support the White House's demand for a vote to open an impeachment inquiry.

She released her own statement, that was her decision.

 

[Beach Friends]

She released her own statement, that was her decision.

Do you think she did that with or without consultation with Schiff and company?

 

[MT15]

I think that’s idle speculation with no basis in fact. We should try to avoid that.

 

[LA - L.A.]

No there isn't; that's purely a self-serving subjective opinion on your part that aligns with your side's political objectives.

First and foremost, I have not thought of you as being part of any "side." I have not assumed you are part of any "side." I have not accused you of being part of any "side." I have not dismissed anything you have written as being a "purely self-serving subjective opinion on your part that aligns with your side's political objectives."

Please show me the same courtesy and respect.

Here is what I see as the objective evidence of possible impeachable abuses of power and violations of laws committed by Trump and his administration (please forgive all the links, but I don't want to be bombarded with accusations of self-servingingly and subjectively misrepresenting anything or demands to provide a source):

Federal prosecutors investigating Giuliani: report

Federal prosecutors in Manhattan are reportedly investigating whether President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani's dealing with Ukraine broke lobbying laws.

thehill.com

https://int.nyt.com/data/documenthelper/1888-yovanovitch-opening-statement/48cf6b834149b4867fb5/optimized/full.pdf#page=1

Pentagon officials worried withholding aid was illegal

The Ukraine affair has turned into an impeachment inquiry that could see President Trump removed from office. But it is also an example of yet another federal agency — this time, the Pentagon — caught off-guard by the president’s political imperatives.

www.yahoo.com

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-asked-tillerson-to-help-broker-deal-to-end-us-prosecution-of-turkish-trader-represented-by-giuliani/2019/10/10/fbe16976-eb6b-11e9-9306-47cb0324fd44_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/we-investigated-the-watergate-scandal-we-believe-trump-should-be-impeached/2019/10/10/5cf0c2ce-eb72-11e9-9306-47cb0324fd44_story.html

https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/at-least-four-national-security-officials-raised-alarms-about-ukraine-policy-before-and-after-trump-call-with-ukrainian-president/2019/10/10/ffe0c88a-eb6d-11e9-9c6d-436a0df4f31d_story.html

https://twitter.com/WSJ/status/1182355170979659777

The Actual Laws Trump Has Broken Amount to 10 Years in Prison

Take 18 U.S. Code § 872: “Extortion by officers or employees of the United States.” Or 18 U.S. Code § 610: “Coercion of political activity.”

theintercept.com

https://twitter.com/samstein/status/1182288316802228225

https://twitter.com/rebeccaballhaus/status/1182288822253604864

https://twitter.com/latimes/status/1182293292693823489

https://twitter.com/TimOBrien/status/1182066584787005440

By the numbers: How Trump properties profited from his presidency

And how much taxpayer money they've received

www.axios.com

Read the whistleblower's memo about Trump's Ukraine call, as described to CBS News

The memo, dated July 26, is based on a conversation the whistleblower had with an unnamed White House official who listened to the call

www.cbsnews.com

https://twitter.com/BillKristol/status/1181682899424350209

Trump’s (Insane) Conflict of Interest in the Turkey-Syria Dispute

Trump collects millions in royalties from a licensing agreement in Istanbul — a deal that an ally of Erdogan could cancel at any time.

nymag.com

https://twitter.com/washingtonpost/status/1181552061277708288

2nd Whistleblower With Direct Knowledge Of Ukraine Call Steps Forward, Lawyer Says

Attorney Mark Zaid, who is also part of the initial whistleblower's legal team, tells NPR that a new whistleblower has talked to the inspector general of the intelligence community.

www.npr.org

Trump's oldest son said a decade ago that a lot of the family's assets came from Russia

A decade-old quote from Donald Trump Jr. resurfaced in a New York Times column over the weekend.

www.businessinsider.com

NRA acted as 'foreign asset' to Russia before 2016 election, says Senate report

NRA officials traveled to Moscow in a December 2015 trip coordinated by Butina and Torshin, Senate Democrats found

www.theguardian.com

And that's just since Monday.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Absolutely not; it's not one's responsibility to call for an investigation to prove one's self innocent.

I never said it was a responsibility. I said it would be the most likely course of action of someone that knows they are innocent.

The reason I think that is because that's how I acted when I was falsely accused of a felony theft by an employer the day after he fired me. When I found out he had the police at his theater and was telling them I stole money from the safe the night I was fired, I immediately jumped in my car and drove to the theater. As soon as I got to the theater, I headed straight to the police officers and told them to ask me anything they wanted to ask me.

There is no need to call for an investigation or special counsel every time a political enemy makes an accusation of wrongdoing.

First, I think there is ample evidence that this is not a case of a "political enemy" making a completely unfounded accusation. I think my previous post shows an investigation is justified and necessary. If this really was just "political enemies" being "political enemies," then this would have happened to both presidents since Clinton.

Second, I think one of the causes of the increasing divisiveness we are seeing is that too many people see anyone who disagrees with their political beliefs as the "enemy." We don't have conversations and discussions with our "enemies." we fight them and we give them no quarter. Nothing good comes from seeing those who disagree with us as "the enemy."

If we get into a tit for tat pattern of demanding investigations every time a political opponent does something we don't agree with, we will be mired in endless politically-driven investigations indefinitely and controlled by whatever party controls the investigative process.

I agree. This is not any of that. There is ample evidence that there is a legitimate reason and need to investigate Trump. I guess the reason I don't share your concern that this is solely what the Democrats are doing is they did not do this with Regan, HW Bush, or W Bush. The Republicans did not do this with Obama either. All of those presidencies were seething with political opposition and animosity from Congress, yet not a single one was investigated for impeachable offenses.

This is not happening to Trump because he is a Republican or just because he has political opponents. This is happening to Trump because there is ample evidence to believe that he should be further investigated for abuse of power and breaking the law.

I'm not anyone's enemy and I'm not pushing anyone's agenda. I'm just sharing what I honestly believe.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Now imagine if grand juries were handled differently, such that through out the grand jury proceedings the prosecutor and jurors continually spoke to the media to spin the evidence.

We are still in the equivalent of the investigative stage, not the grand jury stage. I don't have to imagine what you are describing. I've seen the police and DA's make press statements presenting their version of events during the investigation and grand jury stage. I've even seen it happen during the actual trial.

I've also seen the defense do the same thing in all three stages, just like Trump is currently doing. The media spin is being done by all parties, so I don't see any injustice or lack of fairness in play when it comes to media spin. Everyone is doing their fair share of it.

Or, at the end of the grand jury proceedings they decided not to indict, but nonetheless issued a report of all the evidence from the one sided investigation.

Investigations are always one sided. That's just how it works. The investigated never gets a say in how they are investigated. If the House decides to move to the actual impeachment stage, then Trump and the Republicans will have their metaphorical day in court, before any vote to indict takes place.

If after the investigation the House decides not to have a vote for impeachment, then Trump and the Republicans will have the freedom to do their fair share of media spinning, just like they are now. I don't see any injustice or lack of fairness in regards to media spin.

Lately, Trump's been spending most of his waking hours engaged in media spin. He's getting to spin as much as anyone else. The same is true for the Republicans.

Would you prefer to see everyone under a gag order until the process is complete? I'd be all for that as long as it included everyone, all of Congress and Trump and his entire administration.

Would you be on board with that?

 

[LA - L.A.]

I'm not busting on you in any way or making light of the seriousness of your message. I just couldn't resist the opportunity to attempt a ittle friendly levity.

...clarify points rather than make acquisitions?

Are mergers allowed?

 

[MT15]

There is no need to call for an investigation or special counsel every time a political enemy makes an accusation of wrongdoing.

You just made the case for why what Trump is doing is so damaging to our nation. So you must agree that there’s no reason to investigate Joe Biden?

Can you not see it from the other side at all? How suspicious it is that Trump wants us to believe that he is trying to root out corruption in Ukraine by using the powers of the presidency and the State Department to enable his personal lawyer dig up dirt on his main political rival, when he has only ever cared about alleged corruption when it involves political enemies? He has defended actually corrupt Republicans, even going so far as to publicly chastise Jeff Sessions for allowing two corruption cases to go forward against Republican lawmakers, and his son is leading chants of “lock him up” about Biden.

There’s nobody in Washington less able to separate his Constitutional duties to country from partisan politics than Trump. He literally cannot rise above partisan politics.

 

[Ayo]

You just made the case for why what Trump is doing is so damaging to our nation. So you must agree that there’s no reason to investigate Joe Biden?

Can you not see it from the other side at all? How suspicious it is that Trump wants us to believe that he is trying to root out corruption in Ukraine by using the powers of the presidency and the State Department to enable his personal lawyer dig up dirt on his main political rival, when he has only ever cared about alleged corruption when it involves political enemies? He has defended actually corrupt Republicans, even going so far as to publicly chastise Jeff Sessions for allowing two corruption cases to go forward against Republican lawmakers, and his son is leading chants of “lock him up” about Biden.

There’s nobody in Washington less able to separate his Constitutional duties to country from partisan politics than Trump. He literally cannot rise above partisan politics.

If Hunter Biden’s potentially illicit past is somehow relevant to this election and serves as some legitimate commentary against his father, is it then both relevant and open season on Donald Jr and Ivanka and Eric?

i haven’t seen a clear explanation as to why it’s relevant, moreover I havent seen directly proportional calls for investigating Trumps children. Those two things, to me, seem obligatory.