The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (24 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

 

[SaintForLife]

The Walls Are Closing In, or The Beginning Of The End...I forget what the phrase is this week.

 

[CoolBrees]

Jim, you are right. Other presidents did exert executive privilege and stonewall congress.

But these hearings aren’t about that. They are to determine if the President abused his power by withholding military aid to an ally, in order to extract a public statement from their newly elected leader to damage his anticipated opponent in our next election.

When people change to unrelated topic points, it muddies the water. When people make references to disassociated historical events, those following along become confused.

So for those of us that aren’t real smart or incite meaningful thought, I figured I would clear some things up with a quick historical list (chronologically)-

Bill Clinton was impeached for lying under oath, not a bj.

Obama instructed Eric holder to ignore subpoenas from Congress regarding Fast & Furious. He stated this was to protect the identities of those involved undercover. There were investigations into this by Congress. Nothing illegal identified.

The FBI, under James Comey, announced an investigation into Hillary 4 days before the 2016 election. Despite there also being an ongoing investigation into the Trump campaign, no mention was made about it.

The Russian investigation was not started because of the Steele Dossier. It was not started by Democrats. It was started by the FBI, under James Comey.

over 30 people have been indicted and several are in jail already- including Roger Stone and Paul Manafort. Both of who were intimately involved in the Trump campaign.

The Mueller investigation was started, run by and through Republicans. To the man or woman, including Mueller himself. This was also the case in the congressional hearings- lead by my favorite sycophant Devin Nunes.

This investigation ended with a split decision. It didn’t indict Trump, but it didn’t exonerate him either. It also has nothing to do with the current impeachment hearings.

The Russian investigation was an investigation into election fraud. The Ukraine investigation is determining bribery after he was in office.
Ukraine did not interfere in our elections.

Russia interfered in the 2016 election and is already working towards 2020.

If any of this is not true and accurate please explain where. I will be happy to discuss this as I am wrong a lot, just not here I believe.

If anyone cannot dispute HISTORY, can we just accept the truth of historical events? That are on video and stated under oath? that happened in our lifetimes for god sakes? And in accepting the truth, can we work and discuss inside these facts?

Can we agree that this idea of alternative facts is counterproductive? That arguing the truth becomes much harder when there is so much background noise? That when there is so much misinformation that people can’t tell the difference anymore and don’t trust any facts?

 

[JimEverett]

I'll have to refamiliarize myself there, because I don't remember anything past Chaffetz alluding to the threat of subpoenas.

Fast and Furious

Obama asserts executive privilege and backs Holder over Fast and Furious

House Republicans vow to press on with contempt vote with scene set for protracted struggle over attorney-general's future

www.theguardian.com

Lois Lerner

"But the GOP decided to hold her in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena. "

Congress vs. Lerner: A Time Guide to IRS Targeting Scandal

A TIME guide to the controversy over IRS targeting

time.com

David Simas

Simas Ignores Subpoena Again as White House Defies Issa (Updated) (Video) - Roll Call

Updated 12:27 p.m. | Top White House political adviser David Simas refused again Friday to honor a congressional subpoena, prompting Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to vote to rebuke the administration. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted...

www.rollcall.com

Ben Rhodes - I was mistaken, I thought he was subpoenaed but h was not, instead the WH did not allow him to testify citing Executive Privilege.

There are more, but I am not going to look for them right now.

 

[samiam5211]

Fast and Furious

Obama asserts executive privilege and backs Holder over Fast and Furious

House Republicans vow to press on with contempt vote with scene set for protracted struggle over attorney-general's future

www.theguardian.com

Lois Lerner

"But the GOP decided to hold her in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena. "

Congress vs. Lerner: A Time Guide to IRS Targeting Scandal

A TIME guide to the controversy over IRS targeting

time.com

David Simas

Simas Ignores Subpoena Again as White House Defies Issa (Updated) (Video) - Roll Call

Updated 12:27 p.m. | Top White House political adviser David Simas refused again Friday to honor a congressional subpoena, prompting Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to vote to rebuke the administration. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted...

www.rollcall.com

Ben Rhodes - I was mistaken, I thought he was subpoenaed but h was not, instead the WH did not allow him to testify citing Executive Privilege.

There are more, but I am not going to look for them right now.

Trump’s obstruction of justice involves much more than just defying subpoenas, but you know that already.

 

[JimEverett]

Trump’s obstruction of justice involves much more than just defying subpoenas, but you know that already.

Remember this?

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

 

[samiam5211]

Remember this?

Yes I do. I’m not surprised you would bring it up to make a false equivalency, given the current context.

 

[coldseat]

I also think it is relevant to consider the fact that no one that I am aware ever considered Obama's "bribery" of Germany, UK, and Spain (amongst others) to stop their investigations into U.S. torture of their citizens as impeachable. Even though such action can easily be seen as having a corrupt intent and most certainly provided a great political benefit to Obama.

If this is considered bribery, why didn't Republicans Impeach Obama? Is it because they're less aggressive and more pious? Is it because they clearly have a better understanding of what is and isn't an imp

Fast and Furious

Obama asserts executive privilege and backs Holder over Fast and Furious

House Republicans vow to press on with contempt vote with scene set for protracted struggle over attorney-general's future

www.theguardian.com

Lois Lerner

"But the GOP decided to hold her in contempt of Congress for refusing to comply with a subpoena. "

Congress vs. Lerner: A Time Guide to IRS Targeting Scandal

A TIME guide to the controversy over IRS targeting

time.com

David Simas

Simas Ignores Subpoena Again as White House Defies Issa (Updated) (Video) - Roll Call

Updated 12:27 p.m. | Top White House political adviser David Simas refused again Friday to honor a congressional subpoena, prompting Republicans on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee to vote to rebuke the administration. The Oversight and Government Reform Committee voted...

www.rollcall.com

Ben Rhodes - I was mistaken, I thought he was subpoenaed but h was not, instead the WH did not allow him to testify citing Executive Privilege.

There are more, but I am not going to look for them right now.

For you, this is analogous to what Trump and his administration are doing? Is it basically the same thing? If so, why/how?

If not, what are the differences between the two and why bring it up?

 

[JimEverett]

If this is considered bribery, why didn't Republicans Impeach Obama? Is it because they're less aggressive and more pious? Is it because they clearly have a better understanding of what is and isn't an imp

I don't know. I would hope it is because they recognize it is not bribery

For you, this is analogous to what Trump and his administration are doing? Is it basically the same thing? If so, why/how?

If not, what are the differences between the two and why bring it up?

Yes, there are many people arguing that fighting congressional subpoenas and claiming executive privilege are grounds for impeaching as obstruction of justice.
If you would read what I was responding to then it should be crystal clear why I bought it up.

 

[coldseat]

Yes, there are many people arguing that fighting congressional subpoenas and claiming executive privilege are grounds for impeaching as obstruction of justice.
If you would read what I was responding to then it should be crystal clear why I bought it up.

That's not the argument. Or maybe that is the argument that the right is accusing ther left of making and you've grabbed on to, but that's not the arguments Democrats are making.

It's the totality of the blocking of witnesses, documentation and any effort by Congress to provide oversight which adds up top the obstruction.

You've provided 2 examples of the Obama administration not complying with congressional subpoenas over 8 years. I'm sure I could provide 10 instances of the Trump administration doing this in just the last month, all directed by Trump himself. The scope and depth of the Trump administration blocking every effort by Congress to provide any oversight is unprecedented.

The thing is, you already know this. Yet you're choosing to act like it's the same thing. Why?

 

[JimEverett]

That's not the argument. Or maybe that is the argument that the right is accusing ther left of making and you've grabbed on to, but that's not the arguments Democrats are making.

It's the totality of the blocking of witnesses, documentation and any effort by Congress to provide oversight which adds up top the obstruction.

You've provided 2 examples of the Obama administration not complying with congressional subpoenas over 8 years. I'm sure I could provide 10 instances of the Trump administration doing this in just the last month, all directed by Trump himself. The scope and depth of the Trump administration blocking every effort by Congress to provide any oversight is unprecedented.

The thing is, you already know this. Yet you're choosing to act like it's the same thing. Why?

Is it grounds for impeachment to claim executive privilege and to fight congressional subpoenas? Is it even evidence of obstruction? That is a ridiculous claim. Almost as ridiculous as claiming that because it was only done x amount of times (certainly far more than 2) under Obama that it is qualitatively different from x+ times by whoever else.

 

[samiam5211]

That's not the argument. Or maybe that is the argument that the right is accusing ther left of making and you've grabbed on to, but that's not the arguments Democrats are making.

It's the totality of the blocking of witnesses, documentation and any effort by Congress to provide oversight which adds up top the obstruction.

You've provided 2 examples of the Obama administration not complying with congressional subpoenas over 8 years. I'm sure I could provide 10 instances of the Trump administration doing this in just the last month, all directed by Trump himself. The scope and depth of the Trump administration blocking every effort by Congress to provide any oversight is unprecedented.

The thing is, you already know this. Yet you're choosing to act like it's the same thing. Why?

Not to mention tweeting about witnesses as they testify, telling McGann to get rid of Mueller, and dozens of other acts that were intended to obstruct justice that are so numerous that we don’t even bother keeping up with them all.

 

[coldseat]

Is it grounds for impeachment to claim executive privilege and to fight congressional subpoenas? Is it even evidence of obstruction? That is a ridiculous claim. Almost as ridiculous as claiming that because it was only done x amount of times (certainly far more than 2) under Obama that it is qualitatively different from x+ times by whoever else.

It's not a simple yes or no answer and you know that, neither is it ridiculous assertion. Given the scope and ridiculously expansive lengths this administration has undertaken to prevent the truth from coming out through the use of these official acts, in this situation it very much is proof.

This isn't a ridiculous argument by any means, it's the common sense and logical conclusion to what this administration has been doing.

 

[JimEverett]

It's not a simple yes or no answer and you know that, neither is it ridiculous assertion. Given the scope and ridiculously expansive lengths this administration has undertaken to prevent the truth from coming out through the use of these official acts, in this situation it very much is proof.

This isn't a ridiculous argument by any means, it's the common sense and logical conclusion to what this administration has been doing.

I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that fighting subpoenas is evidence for grounds of removing a President? I find that absurd given that it will apply to every recent President going back to at least Carter.

Or maybe you are saying that while doing it 10 times isn't proof of obstruction but doing it x number of times is? That strikes me as equally absurd. What basis would anyone have for asserting that?

 

[coldseat]

I am not sure what you are saying. Are you saying that fighting subpoenas is evidence for grounds of removing a President? I find that absurd given that it will apply to every recent President going back to at least Carter.

Or maybe you are saying that while doing it 10 times isn't proof of obstruction but doing it x number of times is? That strikes me as equally absurd. What basis would anyone have for asserting that?

I'm saying that fighting every request to interview staff, every subpoena, every document request, every attempt by Congress to learn the truth and exercise oversight, and doing so with ridiculous and expansive claims of privilege (that are getting shot down left and right in court) certainly indicates an attempt by this administration to obstruct justice. I find it absurd that you find that claim absurd. What else would you call it?

What other presidents have done does not resemble what this president had done, unless you're talking about Nixon of course. And even he wasn't close to this bad.

 

[Beach Friends]

I'm saying that fighting every request to interview staff, every subpoena, every document request, every attempt by Congress to learn the truth and exercise oversight, and doing so with ridiculous and expansive claims of privilege (that are getting shot down left and right in court) certainly indicates an attempt by this administration to obstruct justice. I find it absurd that you find that claim absurd. What else would you call it?

What other presidents have done does not resemble what this president had done, unless you're talking about Nixon of course. And even he wasn't close to this bad.

As with all privileges, there are sound reasons for executive privilege. I am glad our President is standing up to defend executive privilege, not just for himself but future Presidents.

Do you really want a situation where a POTUS is afraid to consult with those around him for fear that they are going to run to Capitol Hill and repeat everything that was said during deliberations?

Our President is a saint for standing up for the office. I believe that once this is over you will join me and others in demanding that the current posers on Mt. Rushmore have their images blasted off that monument to make room for DJT and for the entire mountain to be painted orange.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

As with all privileges, there are sound reasons for executive privilege. I am glad our President is standing up to defend executive privilege, not just for himself but future Presidents.

Do you really want a situation where a POTUS is afraid to consult with those around him for fear that they are going to run to Capitol Hill and repeat everything that was said during deliberations?

Our President is a saint for standing up for the office. I believe that once this is over you will join me and others in demanding that the current posers on Mt. Rushmore have their images blasted off that monument to make room for DJT and for the entire mountain to be painted orange.

Are you trolling your own at this point?
I really don’t get the game here

 

[coldseat]

As with all privileges, there are sound reasons for executive privilege. I am glad our President is standing up to defend executive privilege, not just for himself but future Presidents.

Do you really want a situation where a POTUS is afraid to consult with those around him for fear that they are going to run to Capitol Hill and repeat everything that was said during deliberations?

Our President is a saint for standing up for the office. I believe that once this is over you will join me and others in demanding that the current posers on Mt. Rushmore have their images blasted off that monument to make room for DJT and for the entire mountain to be painted orange.

Not everything can be privileged the way this president is trying to claim. If these were legitimate claims, then maybe you'd have a point. As it stands, this is executive overreach, which is also a huge danger to our democracy. Congress has a constitutional mandate to provide oversight that is necessary for our democracy to work. It's a larger danger for those efforts to be stifled at every turn by the executive.

As to your last paragraph, lol. Sure.

 

[Beach Friends]

Are you trolling your own at this point?
I really don’t get the game here

Sorry, Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" started playing on the radio and I got carried away.