The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (1 Viewer)

[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]

This statement seems to imply that it's abnormal and irrational to investigate someone when there is evidence that indicates the possibility of wrong doing. It's actually the normal and rational response. It's how the legal system works. It's how the government works. It's even how parents work. At every level of our society, when we see metaphorical smoke, we check to see if there is a fire. We don't turn our heads away and ignore it.

There is enough smoke billowing from the Trump adminstration regarding the Ukraine to warrant and necessitate an investigation.

If Trump is innocent of doing anything wrong in regards to Ukraine, then a thorough investigation will reveal that there's no fire.

I would think that anyone who believes Trump is innocent would actually welcome, if not demand, an investigation to prove there is no fire. If they don't trust the Democrats in the house to be fair, then they should demand an independent counsel. I'd think anyone that loathes Democrats would be happy to see them come up empty handed after an investigation.

I'm not hearing, "let the Democrats investigate Trump and make fools of themselves again when they come up empty handed." What I'm hearing is "it's unfair and it's wrong that the Democrats are investigating Trump and they need to be stopped." One of those statements comes from a place of true confidence, the other does not.

Well you haven’t been reading what I have been posting. If and when this comes back, as the mueller report, with nothing of substance that warrants action, will we hear a different story from you?

 

[yuyi64]

Well you haven’t been reading. If and when this comes back, as the mueller report, with nothing of substance that warrants action, will we hear a different story from you?

You won't because the partisans will claim the substance really is there, as they did with the Mueller report.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Well you haven’t been reading.

I've actually been reading quite a lot. There's no need and no place on this forum for these types of personal insults. I have not insulted you, so please show me the same courtesy and respect.

If and when this comes back, as the mueller report, with nothing of substance that warrants action...

The Mueller report detailed several instances of obstruction of justice. That is something of substance and actionable.

Mueller didn't take action due to his deferrence to DOJ guidelines that says the DOJ does not indict a sitting president. He made it clear that there were indictable offenses.

The House chose not to pursue impeachment based on the obstruction of justice findings. They could have, but they chose not to.

...will we hear a different story from you?

Please be very specific and very clear as to what you think my current "story" is. I don't know what you're questioning or getting at here. If you clarify, I will gladly answer.

 

[Lazybones]

I've actually been reading quite a lot. There's no need and no place on this forum for these types of personal insults. I have not insulted you, so please show me the same courtesy and respect.

The Mueller report detailed several instances of obstruction of justice. That is something of substance and actionable.

Mueller didn't take action due to his deferrence to DOJ guidelines that says the DOJ does not indict a sitting president. He made it clear that there were indictable offenses.

The House chose not to pursue impeachment based on the obstruction of justice findings. They could have, but they chose not to.

Please be very specific and very clear as to what you think my current "story" is. I don't know what you're questioning or getting at here. If you clarify, I will gladly answer.

It wasn’t a jab with the reading. I went back and edited my post and added “what I have been posting”. It was not intended as an insult.

So here is the question again. If this turns out just like the mueller investigation, will YOU change your mind about this being a witch hunt. The obstruction in the mueller case would not even been an issue if the steel dossier wasn’t given so much clout.

Meaning without the paid for propaganda being bought as gospel, there would not have been a witch hunt. If no unjust investigation, no obstruction. I even referenced this as being “Scooter Libbey’d”.

I’m not trying to read your mind or anything if that nature. Your position seems to be advocating both the mueller investigation and this investigation. If that’s not your position, I misunderstood.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

It wasn’t a jab with the reading. I went back and edited my post and added “what I have been posting”. It was not intended as an insult.

So here is the question again. If this turns out just like the mueller investigation, will YOU change your mind about this being a witch hunt. The obstruction in the mueller case would not even been an issue if the steel dossier wasn’t given so much clout.

Meaning without the paid for propaganda being bought as gospel, there would not have been a witch hunt. If no unjust investigation, no obstruction. I even referenced this as being “Scooter Libbey’d”.

I’m not trying to read your mind or anything if that nature. Your position seems to be advocating both the mueller investigation and this investigation. If that’s not your position, I misunderstood.

Obstruction is obstruction. It doesn't cease to be obstruction because someone doesn't believe the investigation is genuine.

Also:

Dossier Not What 'Started All of This' - FactCheck.org

In an interview about the special counsel's report, Rep. John Ratcliffe said that what "started all of this" was "a fake, phony dossier." But a House Republican intelligence committee memo said it was information about a Trump campaign foreign policy adviser that sparked the FBI's...

www.factcheck.org

Trump falsely says Steele dossier triggered Russia probe

President Donald Trump claimed newly released documents underlying the FBI’s surveillance of a former campaign adviser s

www.politifact.com

The basis for the investigation started with Papadopoulos, not Steele. The only reason the Steele dossier was incorporated into the notes of the FISA application(cleared by a Republican-appointed judge mind you), was because at Steele's behest, he contacted the FBI and the FBI determined some of it corroborated what they had already uncovered in their own investigation. Which was all in the Simpson testimony.

 

[MT15]

Lazybones, you’re really interested in finding out how other people will behave in a theoretical future scenario. Maybe you could share how you will react if Trump is impeached by the House?

So you still maintain there wasn’t anything of an untoward nature in Trump’s actions brought to light by the Mueller report? If you read the report, or just the executive summary, and you don’t think there was anything unethical going on, I’m not sure we can have a productive discussion.

Off the top of my head I can think of at least 3-4 completely unethical things that were brought to light that occurred after Trump assumed the presidency.

But anyway, kind of pointless to rehash this in this thread, IMO. Maybe you should start a Mueller report thread?

 

[LA - L.A.]

So here is the question again.

I appreciate you clarifying your question for me.

If this turns out just like the mueller investigation, will YOU change your mind about this being a witch hunt.

We disagree on how the Mueller investigation turned out. I think it clearly showed a legitimate and necessary reason to have the investigation. I think it clearly showed several instances of Trump obstructing justice. I think it clearly showed that Trump sought out campaign assistance from the Russians. I acknowledge that it did not show clear evidence of collusion with the Russians. I do not think it was a "witch hunt."

If this investigation turns out like just like how I think the Mueller investigation turned out, then it will end up clearly showing that Trump did in fact do most are all of what he's been accused of doing. If that turns out to be the case, then I would have no reason to consider it a "witch hunt."

If this investigation does not clearly show that Trump did any of what he is accused of doing, then I still won't think it's a "witch hunt." I've already established that I believe there is already enough objective and verified evidence to justify the investigation. Even if the investigation does not result in the finding of definitive evidence of wrong doing, I don't think that would make it a "witch hunt."

An investigation failing at finding definitive evidence, does not invalidate the original justification for the investigation. I have seen valid investigations fail to find definitive evidence and I've never thought any of them were "witch hunts."

If the investigation uncovered definitive evidence of planted and falsified evidence designed to falsely implicate the person being investigated, then at that point I would consider it a frame up and I would want to see the frame up thoroughly investigated. I'd also want to see everyone who participated in it held accountable.

I'm fairly objective and very consistent.

Your position seems to be advocating both the mueller investigation and this investigation.

It's my opinion that neither investigation was or is a "witch hunt." I don't consider that advocating, it's just what I believe.

 

[Lazybones]

Lazybones, you’re really interested in finding out how other people will behave in a theoretical future scenario. Maybe you could share how you will react if Trump is impeached by the House?

So you still maintain there wasn’t anything of an untoward nature in Trump’s actions brought to light by the Mueller report? If you read the report, or just the executive summary, and you don’t think there was anything unethical going on, I’m not sure we can have a productive discussion.

Off the top of my head I can think of at least 3-4 completely unethical things that were brought to light that occurred after Trump assumed the presidency.

But anyway, kind of pointless to rehash this in this thread, IMO. Maybe you should start a Mueller report thread?

Though I have not received an answer from any of you, I will answer easily. If trump is impeached of committing a crime against our country, you are darn right I will say so.

There is a huge difference in doing something perceived as unethical vs committing an actual crime.

I love to gamble. Does anyone want to make a friendly bet as to the outcome? I’m not talking money. Anything that is fun and in good spirits.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Though I have not received an answer from any of you,

I answered you in the post above this post by you. Just pointing it out, because I know it's easy to miss a post.

 

[Lazybones]

I answered you in the post above this post by you. Just pointing it out, because I now it's easy to miss a post.

It is easy to miss and I didn’t see it. I really need to figure out my preferences.

 

[Lazybones]

I appreciate you clarifying your question for me.

We disagree on how the Mueller investigation turned out. I think it clearly showed a legitimate and necessary reason to have the investigation. I think it clearly showed several instances of Trump obstructing justice. I think it clearly showed that Trump sought out campaign assistance from the Russians. I acknowledge that it did not show clear evidence of collusion with the Russians. I do not think it was a "witch hunt."

If this investigation turns out like just like how I think the Mueller investigation turned out, then it will end up clearly showing that Trump did in fact do most are all of what he's been accused of doing. If that turns out to be the case, then I would have no reason to consider it a "witch hunt."

If this investigation does not clearly show that Trump did any of what he is accused of doing, then I still won't think it's a "witch hunt." I've already established that I believe there is already enough objective and verified evidence to justify the investigation. Even if the investigation does not result in the finding of definitive evidence of wrong doing, I don't think that would make it a "witch hunt."

An investigation failing at finding definitive evidence, does not invalidate the original justification for the investigation. I have seen valid investigations fail to find definitive evidence and I've never thought any of them were "witch hunts."

If the investigation uncovered definitive evidence of planted and falsified evidence designed to falsely implicate the person being investigated, then at that point I would consider it a frame up and I would want to see the frame up thoroughly investigated. I'd also want to see everyone who participated in it held accountable.

I'm fairly objective and very consistent.


It's my opinion that neither investigation was or is a "witch hunt." I don't consider that advocating, it's just what I believe.

Thanks for the response. We are total opposites in this regard. Just as the Clinton impeachments were unjustified. It was a political move to undo a politician that was successfully moving the agenda.

I think it is the same thing with trump. Promos and friends thought the mueller investigation was going to give them what they wanted. (To get rid of trump). It did not, so this is plan “B”.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

“I pled guilty in federal court to felonies for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in coordination with ‘Individual 1,’” Cohen said, reading from his prepared statement. “And for the record: ‘Individual 1’ is Donald J. Trump.”​

Michael Cohen, under oath in congressional testimony.

If criminal conduct was truly the Rubicon needing to be crossed to justify impeachment, and because for some reason or another obstruction doesn't count, many of those claiming so in here should have been on that train over a year ago.

 

[Sledge Hammer]

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.

Are mergers allowed?

Good catch.

By the end of the year. I could create a thread by 'merging' all of my typos or bad mobile auto corrects...

 

[LA - L.A.]

Good catch.

By the end of the year. I could create a thread by 'merging' all of my typos or bad mobile auto corrects...

At least you can blame auto correct. I'd be lying if I did.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I found this hypothetical discussion interesting. It's suggested that one defense Trump could offer is to admit the he did withhold aid to the Ukraine, because getting Ukraine to investigate possible corruption was in the country's interests not his. I get what they are saying, but listening to them cracked me up because I kept thinking "are these guys just trying to trick Trump into a confession."

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I found this hypothetical discussion interesting. It's suggested that one defense Trump could offer is to admit the he did withhold aid to the Ukraine, because getting Ukraine to investigate possible corruption was in the country's interests not his. I get what they are saying, but listening to them cracked me up because I kept thinking "are these guys just trying to trick Trump into a confession."

The problem with that defense now is that it was just revealed that Rudy and his criminal pals were trying to usurp and maneuver around official channels to solicit this investigation. On top of undermining and ultimately pushing out the strongest anti-corruption advocate they had in Marie L. Yovanovitch. On top of having buried the transcripts of a call that had no justifiable national security concerns above the litany of calls apparently not classified as such. Implying motive other than legitimate purpose.

As grotesque and constitutionally problematic as it is, had Trump done all this through Barr, and only implicitly, and there was a credible ongoing investigation in place regarding corporate corruption in Ukraine. That defense would probably be a more valid one....Still requiring mental blindspots or leaps to not see the obvious problems of a sitting president directing the justice department to investigate his chief political rival and his son, and the wholesale hypocrisy given the administration conducting it, but that defense could maybe work better politically.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

This also makes the "good-faith" argument more difficult.

Since essentially Rudy's defense for why he is innocent and why he took the information gathered in Ukraine and disseminated it on US network TV, I.E. taking dirt from a Ukrainian prosecutor and injecting it into our political process via TV news, is that he was doing so at the direction of the president.

Which sort of chills the idea that this is all an above the board good-faith concern about corporate corruption in Ukraine, or political corruption at home.

See more

Seperately it's also a it maddening that the guy who carried water for those smears, Vogel, is reporting this without any sense of personal responsibility in helping spread it.

 

[Sledge Hammer]

You won't because the partisans will claim the substance really is there, as they did with the Mueller report.

Aren't you a "partisan" as well? It's an odd insult, as it is so easily applied to many.

Perhaps we just shouldn't use those terms as a pejorative.