The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (3 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

 

[wardorican]

So it's not good to know if the public would rather Congress be doing something else than impeachment? What if the majority said they would rather them focus on impeachment? Would it still be a bad poll?

I would be honestly shocked if the poll could ever flip like that. It is meant to create a bias towards "yes, they should do something else".

It is also a suckers choice. They literally were having a house vote in the middle of this inquiry. They can and do work on multiple things all the time. Trying to frame it as a "this or that" choice is mind numbingly stupid.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Floor charts have been a thing for a long time..

Floor charts are called floor charts, because they are charts used as visual aids to support or illustrate what someone who is saying on the House or Senate floor.

What the Republicans are posting in the background in this hearing and the previous one are not floor charts.

They are messaging posters and are being used in a way that mirrors the way people re-post messaging images on the internet.

They are being used solely to promote a message and provide a messaging image for people to spread on the internet. They are not being used to support or illustrate points raised in a speech.

Where are the images of static and constants posters sitting behind the members of a committee for the entire duration of a committee hearing prior to the age of social media?

The Republicans are using propaganda images, not floor charts.

 

[MT15]

I have the opinion that those clips tend to show that those witnesses are biased.

Just because someone holds an opinion counter to your opinion doesn’t mean they are “biased”. They were there to give their professional opinions relating to this situation and the constitution. I think bias refers to someone who sees the facts and even though they know the facts don’t support their conclusion, they go with their bias anyway. If their opinions are sincerely held, that’s not bias.

Now, if they had one sort of opinion during the Clinton impeachment and are now holding the opposite opinion, that could be evidence of bias. I read that about Turley, but I don’t know if that’s true or not.

 

[JimEverett]

So, don't you think it would be a bit more productive if you spent some time determining what you think is the proper way for the House to go about reigning in the President, since you clearly don't think they're doing it correctly?

I am not sure if you mean in this particular (Ukraine) incident or more in general. But I do think the House should investigate more. Go through the courts to get the information they need, investigate what Giuliani is doing, and anything else they may find.
I have read some suggestions that they vote to "censure" the President. Not sure how effective that would be.

And also, wouldn't you say that impeachment is not about legality in the sense of Trump is not in immediate jeopardy of going to jail over these accusations. The question is, should he still continue to be President given what he has done, and appears willing to continue to do.

Yes, but I do think that impeachment should be based on violation of existing laws. Without such a grounding it becomes far too easy to use impeachment as a simple political weapon. But we may already be crossing into that territory.

 

[dtc]

For the same reasons I have mentioned in this thread: what is being alleged does not meet the elements required for statutory bribery; that the appeal to "constitutional bribery" is problematic and seems like an ad hoc response for political purposes, that there is little to no basis for obstruction . . . .

Tell me what you think about all of this from the vantage point of someone who has no idea why Devin Nunes has acted like he has. Remember that Trump's policies towards Russia have been bizarrely un-Republican and that we now have dozens of individuals and entities from Nunes and half the cabinet to the NRA taking money and visiting with dirty folks tied to Putin.

Aside from the political debate, aren't you the least the tiniest bit concerned that there is some large corruption within the Republican party and right wing politicos as pertains to Russia?

Jerry Falwell, Jr. Don Jr. Ivanka, Perry, Pompeo, Nunes, Rudy, Manafort........

A year ago, I would have never considered the notion that there is a wide ranging influence scandal brewing in the Republican party, but today I have to close my eyes and deny that it seems possible.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Well, I guess the only question that has to be answered is how many of those Dems looking out for re-election will vote for the articles. Everything else has always been a foregone conclusion.

Pelosi: "I am asking our chairmen to proceed with articles of impeachment"

Lawmakers are contemplating the next steps in the probe following testimony from four constitutional scholars on Wednesday.

www.cbsnews.com

 

[Beach Friends]

Just because someone holds an opinion counter to your opinion doesn’t mean they are “biased”.

That's really, really, far from what I was suggesting.

The question is not whether they are biased in favor of their legal opinions on impeachment, if they were not there would be no reason for them to testify in the first place.

The question is whether they are so biased in some way that is not directly related to those opinons that their credibility is called into question.

Kaplan is so filled with hate for Trump that she said she crossed the street when walking on front of Trump Towers. That's not rational. That sort of thinking is the result of [Mod Edit-No disparaging terms meant to stir the pot.]

You have Feldman who testified under oath that he was, until very recently, an impeachment skeptic. And yet he has made public statements in favor of impeachment going back to the time of Trump's inauguration. He was trying to make himself look more credible.

The other guy has spoken engaging in therapy sessions with a law class. That's pretty damn crazy.

It's possible that someone can be completely biased and also telling the truth. Nonetheless, bias affects one's perceptions and views to such an extent that bias is always a consideration in evaluating testimony.

The issue is that the Democrats screwed up by calling witnesses that are so obviously biased that their ability to persuade is negligible.

 

[JimEverett]

That's really, really, far from what I was suggesting.

The question is not whether they are biased in favor of their legal opinions on impeachment, if they were not there would be no reason for them to testify in the first place.

The question is whether they are so biased in some way that is not directly related to those opinons that their credibility is called into question.

Kaplan is so filled with hate for Trump that she said she crossed the street when walking on front of Trump Towers. That's not rational. That sort of thinking is the result of TDS.

You have Feldman who testified under oath that he was, until very recently, an impeachment skeptic. And yet he has made public statements in favor of impeachment going back to the time of Trump's inauguration. He was trying to make himself look more credible.

The other guy has spoken engaging in therapy sessions with a law class. That's pretty damn crazy.

It's possible that someone can be completely biased and also telling the truth. Nonetheless, bias affects one's perceptions and views to such an extent that bias is always a consideration in evaluating testimony.

The issue is that the Democrats screwed up by calling witnesses that are so obviously biased that their ability to persuade is negligible.

Kaplan is clearly a very intelligent scholar and yet she couldn't help making a snide remark about a 13-year-old child while on the biggest stage she has been on. I think its a sign of not thinking clearly and rationally.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Kaplan is clearly a very intelligent scholar and yet she couldn't help making a snide remark about a 13-year-old child while on the biggest stage she has been on. I think its a sign of not thinking clearly and rationally.

If snide remarks on a big stage indicate that someone is not thinking clearly and rationally, then what does that say about the current president of the United States?

By the way, the snide remark was actually about Donald, not Barron. Donald chose Barron's name, not Barron.

 

[coldseat]

The issue is that the Democrats screwed up by calling witnesses that are so obviously biased that their ability to persuade is negligible.

There is NOBODY who is going to be called to testify in any of these hearings that isn't going to be accused of bias. NOBODY! Every witness called by Democrats will be accused of bias, as will those who are called by Republicans. I mean, Fiona "freaking" Hill was called a Never Trumper and accused of bias (and yes, she earned that "freaking" with her testimony).

Acting like there are these magically pure witnesses that will unite us all in agreement is a farce. The are literally millions of people who hate, dislike and/or disagree with Trump and this administration that nonetheless would be capable of providing honest, factual and relevant testimony in this impeachment if they had that testimony to give.

You don't have to like or agree with their testimony, just like I have disagreements with Turley's positions yesterday, yet I nonetheless believe he gave an honest interpretation of how he views the current situation as it concerns the impeachment case against Trump. Just as I believe the other witnesses did.

If your main objection to witnesses is their perceived bias, it's obvious you don't want to deal with the substance of the issues at hand. You can keep trying to destroy them on bias by bringing to light every perceived instance of bias in their past, but it has very limited range. It also becomes very clear that you aren't able to address the more serious issues this impeachment is uncovering that this administration has undertaken.

 

[xpuma20x]

I think its a sign of not thinking clearly and rationally.

When I heard her make the statement, I thought it was an attempt at a joke by someone who is most likely not very funny and has no comedic delivery ability. It was in poor taste in my opinion and I was glad to see her apologize publicly over it as quickly as she did. That's a huge difference for many people. This goes back to media as well. Do they make mistakes? Yes, of course, we're human. Are they willing to publicly correct their mistakes and offer apologies when needed? Some do, some don't. Those that do, are viewed in a higher light in my opinion.

 

[coldseat]

Kaplan is clearly a very intelligent scholar and yet she couldn't help making a snide remark about a 13-year-old child while on the biggest stage she has been on. I think its a sign of not thinking clearly and rationally.

Republicans have made so much of that line. It wasn't even remotely and attack on the kid. It was a play on words using his name, that's it.

I mean, it's better not to bring his name up at all and appropriate that she apologized for it, just for general decorum purposes, but talk about ridiculous overreaction.

 

[xpuma20x]

You don't have to like or agree with their testimony, just like I have disagreements with Turley's positions yesterday, yet I nonetheless believe he gave an honest interpretation of how he views the current situation as it concerns the impeachment case against Trump. Just as I believe the other witnesses did.

I actually found myself agreeing with a lot of what Turley stated. I thought some of his testimony was a stretch, but many things he said I could see the logic and wisdom behind it. I especially took note of the section of his testimony that discussed letting things play out in the courts. He gave a historical example and then a very recent example with someone there in the room with him. I thought he did a good job of putting together that line of thought and why he thought they should wait out the courts. The logical side of me agrees with him. The cynical side that knows the average American has the attention span of a gnat, disagrees that they should wait longer.

 

[JimEverett]

When I heard her make the statement, I thought it was an attempt at a joke by someone who is most likely not very funny and has no comedic delivery ability. It was in poor taste in my opinion and I was glad to see her apologize publicly over it as quickly as she did. That's a huge difference for many people. This goes back to media as well. Do they make mistakes? Yes, of course, we're human. Are they willing to publicly correct their mistakes and offer apologies when needed? Some do, some don't. Those that do, are viewed in a higher light in my opinion.

I agree. I don't think she is a hateful person looking to make fun of a child. And her apology should be greatly appreciated. But I still stand by the point that is evidence that her hatred for this President clouds her views. How else to explain her making that joke on THAT stage. Her apology shows she clearly knows better.

 

[coldseat]

I actually found myself agreeing with a lot of what Turley stated. I thought some of his testimony was a stretch, but many things he said I could see the logic and wisdom behind it. I especially took note of the section of his testimony that discussed letting things play out in the courts. He gave a historical example and then a very recent example with someone there in the room with him. I thought he did a good job of putting together that line of thought and why he thought they should wait out the courts. The logical side of me agrees with him. The cynical side that knows the average American has the attention span of a gnat, disagrees that they should wait longer.

I agree. I pointed out a few post back that I thought that was the strongest part of his testimony and generally agreed with him there. But as you note, American's attention spans today don't allow for a slow process.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I agree. I don't think she is a hateful person looking to make fun of a child. And her apology should be greatly appreciated. But I still stand by the point that is evidence that her hatred for this President clouds her views. How else to explain her making that joke on THAT stage. Her apology shows she clearly knows better.

It's a moot point now. Trump is going to be impeached by the House.

 

[FullMonte]

For the same reasons I have mentioned in this thread: what is being alleged does not meet the elements required for statutory bribery; that the appeal to "constitutional bribery" is problematic and seems like an ad hoc response for political purposes, that there is little to no basis for obstruction . . . .

Just to make sure I understand. Are you saying that if the president told Ukraine (indirectly or directly), if you want this aid money, you must first announce these two investigations, that doesn't rise to the elements required for statutory bribery?

 

[FullMonte]

I agree. I pointed out a few post back that I thought that was the strongest part of his testimony and generally agreed with him there. But as you note, American's attention spans today don't allow for a slow process.

I agree...but unless I'm getting my witnesses confused, he also stated (or heavily implied) that the crime of bribery required a cash payment, and any other type of remuneration would not be considered as bribery.