The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (4 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]

“Old“ is not a race. I cannot believe I had to point this out. So a statement that is defaming old people cannot be a racist statement. Some arguments are just stupid.

 

[JimEverett]

It doesn’t undercut the arguement for impeachment at all.

Sure it does. If congressional leaders were worried that Nixon talking points would stick with people the way you are describing the present situation then there would have been little to no pressure on Nixon and he would have finished out his term.
There were a lot of hard fights - as there should be when you want to remove a President. There has been virtually no battle in the current impeachment. It has been a complete partisan affair and seemingly the Democrats are fine with that.

 

[samiam5211]

What exactly are the Russian talking points?

Ukraine having anything to do with election interference.

Crowdstrike is an American based company owned by a US citizen born in Russia.

A couple of opEd’s by Ukrainian officials isn’t unusual at all. Foreign officials comment US politics constantly. How often have European or Israeli politicians commented about our politics?

The conspiracy theory only exists as a Russian propaganda operation intended to frame Ukraine for their crimes.

 

[Beach Friends]

“Old“ is not a race. I cannot believe I had to point this out. So a statement that is defaming old people cannot be a racist statement. Some arguments are just stupid.

Did you miss the "white" part?

 

[samiam5211]

Sure it does. If congressional leaders were worried that Nixon talking points would stick with people the way you are describing the present situation then there would have been little to no pressure on Nixon and he would have finished out his term.
There were a lot of hard fights - as there should be when you want to remove a President. There has been virtually no battle in the current impeachment. It has been a complete partisan affair and seemingly the Democrats are fine with that.

It’s not the 1970s.

 

[coldseat]

The Democrats don't want the witnesses to testify because they know it would not help their case. This way they can use the charge of Obstruction which is ridiculous because the democrats did not use all the means available to them to get what they ask for. They knew the WH was not going to open the door and just invite them in because that would be bad for the Oval Office for future presidents.

That's preposterous. They issued subpoenas, that's means they wanted to question them.

If the Trump administration knows that they would be cleared by the testimony of these people and by turning over documents, they would have testified months ago and the documents would have been turned over. They didn't because they want to keep information hidden. They know they have your support and that of other Trump supporters no matter what.

Trump doesn't give two flying forks about any future presidents and what they might have to deal with. Lolololol. Come on.

 

[JimEverett]

It’s not the 1970s.

Meaning what?
In the 1970s Republicans were just itching for a reason to unload on Nixon?

That there were not deep ideological divisions within the country?

That Nixon had been re-elected in one of the largest landslides in history?

 

[Joe Okc]

Did you miss the "white" part?

Amazing how that happened isn't it?

 

[samiam5211]

Meaning what?
In the 1970s Republicans were just itching for a reason to unload on Nixon?

That there were not deep ideological divisions within the country?

That Nixon had been re-elected in one of the largest landslides in history?

The public wasn’t constantly bombarded with misinformation the way they are now. It wasn’t even possible back then.

During watergate the public generally all had the same set of facts to work from. That isn’t the case right now.

 

[coldseat]

Sure it does. If congressional leaders were worried that Nixon talking points would stick with people the way you are describing the present situation then there would have been little to no pressure on Nixon and he would have finished out his term.
There were a lot of hard fights - as there should be when you want to remove a President. There has been virtually no battle in the current impeachment. It has been a complete partisan affair and seemingly the Democrats are fine with that.

Welcome to 2019. There's a big difference between 1974 and now. Among those, the effectiveness of misinformation campaigns and the speed of the news cycle. Not to mention how news is consumed and the attention span of the American public. It's basically two completely different societies.

It makes little sense to use how things played out in the Nixon Impeachment and compare them to what would be most effective today in convincing the American public.

 

[J-DONK]

Did you miss the "white" part?

Silent Generation, and Boomers are older, whiter, and more conservative then younger generations. They are the GOP base. This is backed up by 2016-18 exit polls. That was an accurate statement.

You guys are trying to hard to be outraged.

P.S. I'm a 40ish white guy.

 

[JimEverett]

The public wasn’t constantly bombarded with misinformation the way they are now. It wasn’t even possible back then.

During watergate the public generally all had the same set of facts to work from. That isn’t the case right now.

I don't think there is really that big of a difference.
Certainly not as it relates to the point I am making.

The mechanisms might be different, but misinformation has always been around and has also led to very dire consequences on many occasions.
And if what you are saying is, in fact, true then it would seem incumbent on those tasked with oversight to be even more thorough.

 

[MT15]

Amazing how that happened isn't it?

What is really amazing is how utterly sensitive you two are. Fragile, really.

 

[samiam5211]

I don't think there is really that big of a difference.
Certainly not as it relates to the point I am making.

The mechanisms might be different, but misinformation has always been around and has also led to very dire consequences on many occasions.
And if what you are saying is, in fact, true then it would seem incumbent on those tasked with oversight to be even more thorough.

To me it’s not even debatable that the difference is so great it is impossible to compare the two situations, at least with regard to public sentiment.

 

[brandon]

What is really amazing is how utterly sensitive you two are. Fragile, really.

Like flakes of pillowy-white frozen precipitation.

 

[JimEverett]

To me it’s not even debatable that the difference is so great it is impossible to compare the two situations, at least with regard to public sentiment.

Fine - we disagree on that. But as I said in my last point - how does the rise of misinformation equal a shirking of the Constitutional duty of oversight?
I mean I do not understand how that is an argument for rushing impeachment through without overturning at least some of the major rocks. At this point Democrats have to know removal is highly unlikely. The only reason not to keep investigating, it seems to me, is that the goal has never been actual removal - it is more to use the process as a political sword.

 

[samiam5211]

Fine - we disagree on that. But as I said in my last point - how does the rise of misinformation equal a shirking of the Constitutional duty of oversight?
I mean I do not understand how that is an argument for rushing impeachment through without overturning at least some of the major rocks. At this point Democrats have to know removal is highly unlikely. The only reason not to keep investigating, it seems to me, is that the goal has never been actual removal - it is more to use the process as a political sword.

I think eternal investigation would be a much better weapon.

A failed impeachment only lets Trump to claim he keeps winning for the next 11 months.

I hope the dems know something we don’t and that by the time the Senate votes we will find it out and it will sway the public enough to leave the Senate no choice.

Hope is not expectation.

 

[JimEverett]

The Committee should be congratulated for shunning the Obstruction of Justice charges as well as bribery.

It is also interesting that zero Articles deal with the claims of the Mueller Investigation.