The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (23 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

 

[MT15]

I saw this on Twitter and it sort of goes here. And it’s a bit true of Democrats as well as totally true of Republicans.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Look one post above.

I got sidetracked in the middle of my post and missed yours. The timing of all those calls is curious.

 

[Saintamaniac]

I don't know why so many of you focus so much on polls. Even if the polls should not support Impeachment, why are you using them as an argument in support of the president? It is like "yeah he did it, but people don't care..."

That simple fact should worry everyone FAR more than anything Trump has done. Indifference is the way democracy dies...

The people that are focusing on impeachment polls to support the criminal president don't care that he is a criminal and wouldn't care what he did, up to and including if he killed someone. He's on their "team" and that's all that matters. To them, they say "F" the truth, he's my guy.

 

[Dadsdream]

I don't know why so many of you focus so much on polls. Even if the polls should not support Impeachment, why are you using them as an argument in support of the president? It is like "yeah he did it, but people don't care..."

That simple fact should worry everyone FAR more than anything Trump has done. Indifference is the way democracy dies...

Hi Dragon!

If I assert my opinion based on my knowledge, education and experience, I am told that is anecdotal and I am shown polls that prove this or disprove that.

If I provide polls to the contrary, I am lambasted and told not to focus on polls.

From my perspective, polls showing indifference toward the impeachment hearings may translate into the actual polls next November.

If we try to have a dispassionate, pragmatic discussion, it shouldn't devolve into an accusation that an argument is being made in support of one politician or another.

I understand your point of view, Dragon, but you can't have it both ways.

Nice talking with you, as always.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[superchuck500]

Does anyone who considers themselves rational actually believe this nonsense? It's pure nonsense - the currency of fools. I keep expecting these people to sprout donkey ears and tails like when Pinocchio was on Pleasure Island.

 

[coldseat]

I saw this on Twitter and it sort of goes here. And it’s a bit true of Democrats as well as totally true of Republicans.

The only think I'd disagree with that tweet is that Congress is indifferent. That my be true for a minority of Republicans and Democrats, but the majority of Republicans I've seen and heard in Congress are willing participants, agitators and complicit with Trump in his actions that have lead to a distortion and destruction of our democratic norms.

 

[Dadsdream]

“This is not how an American president should be impeached,” Jonathan Turley, George Washington University law professor.

Read Jonathan Turley’s full opening statement in the Trump impeachment hearing

The Judiciary hearing comes after the House Intelligence Committee held hearings in late November and aims to define grounds for a presidential impeachment.

www.pbs.org

 

[Dadsdream]

Opening salvo.

Impeachment hearings live updates: Nadler says scholars’ testimony is ‘clear and compelling evidence’ that Trump abused his power

 

[superchuck500]

Opening salvo.

Impeachment hearings live updates: Nadler says scholars’ testimony is ‘clear and compelling evidence’ that Trump abused his power

The signs are so Busch league. What is this - student council?

 

[samiam5211]

Opening salvo.

Impeachment hearings live updates: Nadler says scholars’ testimony is ‘clear and compelling evidence’ that Trump abused his power

If the Dems were childish, they’d probably have signs with quotes from Republicans during Clinton’s impeachment.

 

[Dadsdream]

The signs are so Busch league. What is this - student council?

Political theater, to be sure.

Republicans are using massive signs to defend Trump so the cameras can catch them in the televised impeachment hearings

As millions of Americans tune in to the impeachment hearings, Republicans are trying to take back control of the narrative with huge posters.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

The signs are so Busch league. What is this - student council?

They know their audience.

It is effective because their audience will take those messages home and use them to justify their positions.

BTW, these stupid interruptions are just that, STUPID. They can make their parliamentary inquiries after the witnesses' opening statements, this is just STUPID grandstanding.

 

[crosswatt]

Does anyone who considers themselves rational actually believe this nonsense? It's pure nonsense - the currency of fools. I keep expecting these people to sprout donkey ears and tails like when Pinocchio was on Pleasure Island.

But can you prove it was him though? I mean, the question remains. Without video evidence of him making those calls we just can't know. And if the video emerges, what if it's a deep fake created by the deep state? We just can't really know, so it's just not worth it to go down this road.

 

[Dadsdream]

The thought did cross my mind that they could make the signs more entertaining in some way.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[crosswatt]

BTW, these stupid interruptions are just that, STUPID. They can make their parliamentary inquiries after the witnesses' opening statements, this is just STUPID grandstanding.

It makes the hearings boring and unwatchable. People get tired of it and tune out. Ratings drop, and the narrative of "the American people don't care about this" gets another data point to support it. It's brilliantly annoying.

 

[coldseat]

“This is not how an American president should be impeached,” Jonathan Turley, George Washington University law professor.

Read Jonathan Turley’s full opening statement in the Trump impeachment hearing

The Judiciary hearing comes after the House Intelligence Committee held hearings in late November and aims to define grounds for a presidential impeachment.

www.pbs.org

If more conservative where as level headed and as rational as Turley, I don't think we would be where we are at with this president. It would also be a lot easier for liberals like myself to digest and discuss topics with conservatives because we're not wading off into some fairy tail land where thing that are obviously false are propped up as truth.

I didn't read his entire opening statement, but I think he makes some good points in some areas. There are, however, some arguments that he makes where his explanations avoid some inconvenient truths.

First, this part should resonate with everybody:

My point is only this: it is easy to fall in love with lines that appeal to one’s moral approval. In impeachments, one’s feeling about the subject can distort one’s judgment on the true meaning or quality of an argument. We have too many happy warriors in this impeachment on both sides. What we need are more objective noncombatants, members willing to set aside political passion in favor of constitutional circumspection

I think the arguments that he makes that the democrats have proceeded to quickly with the Ukraine matter and haven't established a strong enough evidentiary basis for proceeding with the impeachment charges holds some water. The December deadline, while maybe optimal from a political standpoint, is a self-enforced deadline by dems. Where they to wait for some of these court cases to play out, they could get stronger first hand accounts and document to strengthen the impeachment charges.

His assertion that abuse of power on its own hasn't in the past been sufficient to bring impeachment charges, and therefore should not be considered enough for impeachment is rather weak. Just because past abuse of power hasn't risen to the level of impeachment, doesn't mean what Trump has done isn't sufficient. He makes to much in this area of tying impeachment to the breaking of criminal statues. Admittedly I'm no constitutional scholar, but I just think it's a weak argument.

In his discussion on bribery, he tends to leave out some important facts that we now know, mainly that the Ukraine know early on that there were issues with the security assistance and it was being withheld. He also conveniently leave out the fact that the administration made the collection of first hand testimony and documentation impossible with the executive wide ban on testimony and document production. And again, he ties to brush off the bribery claims by saying the aid was ultimately released without pre-conditioned by the administration, without acknowledging that they where basically caught red handed and had no choice but to release the aid. He's relying a little to strongly on republican talking points here. Sufficed to say, I find his argument unconvincing.

Didn't get to the obstruction of justice argument.