The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (21 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

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

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.

I understand the tactic and it is still dumb. I also understand that they plan on having a "roll call" vote on everything, no matter how insignificant or relevant that matter may be.

 

[Dadsdream]

I thought Turley's closing remarks were wry, amusing and succinct.
Hmmm . . . he's using repetition of the word "mad," in a similar fashion to the way the word "quibble" was used on this board last week. Interesting.

Allow me to be candid in my closing remarks.
I get it.
You are mad.
The President is mad.
My Democratic friends are mad.
My Republican friends are mad.
My wife is mad. My kids are mad.
Even my dog is mad . . .and Luna is a golden doodle and they are never mad.
We are all mad and where has it taken us?
Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad or will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration?
That is why this is wrong.
- Professor Jonathan Turley

 

[coldseat]

I thought Turley's closing remarks were wry, amusing and succinct.
Hmmm . . . he's using repetition of the word "mad," in a similar fashion to the way the word "quibble" was used on this board last week. Interesting.

Allow me to be candid in my closing remarks.
I get it.
You are mad.
The President is mad.
My Democratic friends are mad.
My Republican friends are mad.
My wife is mad. My kids are mad.
Even my dog is mad . . .and Luna is a golden doodle and they are never mad.
We are all mad and where has it taken us?
Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad or will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration?
That is why this is wrong.
- Professor Jonathan Turley

It's the least convincing part of his testimony/statement. It basically sidesteps all of the real concerning and impeachable behavior that Trump and this administration have undertaken and makes it all about feelings.

Yeah, people are mad, so what. There are also a lot of people who are indifferent. Neither really matter much, it's about the case, actions of this administration and evidence of wrongdoing.

Just because people are mad doesn't mean that this impeachment is slipshod, as he puts it. Even if that is the common republican talking point. That's a conclusion of convenvience.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

It's the least convincing part of his testimony/statement. It basically sidesteps all of the real concerning and impeachable behavior that Trump and this administration have undertaken and makes it all about feelings.

Yeah, people are mad, so what. There are also a lot of people who are indifferent. Neither really matter much, it's about the case, actions of this administration and evidence of wrongdoing.

Just because people are mad doesn't mean that this impeachment is slipshod, as he puts it. Even if that is the common republican talking point. That's a conclusion of convince.

And that is why I feel it was a mistake for Democrats to avoid questioning Turley. I would have benefited us all to get him on the record about why he believes that what POTUS has allegedly done in not an impeachable offense.

 

[SaintForLife]

And that is why I feel it was a mistake for Democrats to avoid questioning Turley. I would have benefited us all to get him on the record about why he believes that what POTUS has allegedly done in not an impeachable offense.

The Democrats had no interest in hearing anything else from Turley besides his opening statement.

 

[Nebaghead]

The Democrats had no interest in hearing anything else from Turley besides his opening statement.

The GOP is going to do the same with the other scholars.

 

[SaintForLife]

The GOP is going to do the same with the other scholars.

I'm sure that will be the case, but the Democrats are running the hearing. Also, could the Democrats have picked witnesses that didn't appear to be so upset and partisan? I doubt their demeanors will go over well with the non-democrat public. I know they are plenty qualified to be witnesses, but they are really laying it on thick.

 

[Nebaghead]

I'm sure that will be the case, but the Democrats are running the hearing. Also, could the Democrats have picked witnesses that didn't appear to be so upset and partisan? I doubt their demeanors will go over well with the non-democrat public. I know they are plenty qualified to be witnesses, but they are really laying it on thick.

Turley’s statement about being friends with Barr won’t play well.

 

[SaintForLife]

Turley’s statement about being friends with Barr won’t play well.

With who other than Democrats?

 

[samiam5211]

Turley is essentially saying that the record doesn't contain enough evidence to impeach because they don't have the documents or testimony that the president is refusing to provide.

 

[MT15]

I agree with Turley about one thing, that the democrats should slow down and get all the evidence. I don’t think Trump supporters would like the outcome of that, though.

It’s important to note that Turley’s main objection is that we don’t have all the facts, not that Trump didn’t do something impeachable. In fact my impression is that he thinks Trump probably did do something to be impeached, just that they don’t have the smoking gun. It’s out there, they just have to go get it.

 

[MT15]

With who other than Democrats?

anyone who doesn’t believe in an imperial presidency.

 

[coldseat]

Turley is essentially saying that the record doesn't contain enough evidence to impeach because they don't have the documents or testimony that the president is refusing to provide.

That's basically his main argument. There's some truth there, but it's full of holes because of his opinion on the obstruction charges and his lack of candor on the administrations attempts to prevent any of that information from coming forward. You can't say there isn't enough evidence but then not acknowledge all the efforts Trump and his hirelings have undertaken to prevent that evidence from coming forward. It's where his argument really falls apart in my lay opinion.

 

[Nebaghead]

I agree with Turley about one thing, that the democrats should slow down and get all the evidence. I don’t think Trump supporters would like the outcome of that, though.

It’s important to note that Turley’s main objection is that we don’t have all the facts, not that Trump didn’t do something impeachable. In fact my impression is that he thinks Trump probably did do something to be impeached, just that they don’t have the smoking gun. It’s out there, they just have to go get it.

I don't understand why they don't make the refusal to testify go to the SCOTUS. Are they afraid if it takes to long our ADHD country will move on? How long would it take. Didn't it take about 3 months for this to go to the SCOTUS with Nixon?

 

[wardorican]

I believe Turley also said that bribery requires cash.

Uh... no it doesn't.

 

[FullMonte]

Turley is essentially saying that the record doesn't contain enough evidence to impeach because they don't have the documents or testimony that the president is refusing to provide.

Also...did I misunderstand him, or did he say that bribery required an actual cash payment?

oops...see that wardorican beat me to it.

 

[Nebaghead]

Also...did I misunderstand him, or did he say that bribery required an actual cash payment?

So I can bribe cops with bitcoin and it is ok?

 

[BobE]

Because we don't have enough shirt going on