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

 

[Nebaghead]

Trump is still doing his job.... as well as dealing with a political clown show on the side.... call it extra duty...

Have you seen his schedule? He has more "pr

You know what I find interesting from this timeframe.

A timeline of key events in the Trump-Ukraine story

With a cast of colorful characters, fast moving parts and new information coming out every day, it is easy to get lost trying to follow the story about President Donald Trump and Ukraine. Catch up with our timeline.

www.pbs.org

In Feburary 2019 Funds are allocated in the US Federal Budget at Midnight of Feb 15, 2019. At this time the Ukrainian President is Petro Poroshenko

Ukraine has an election 2 months after the money is allocated to Ukraine to the then Petro Poroshenko. Ukraine gets a new president who did not and has not had any dealing with the USA yet. Volodymyr Zelinsky.

July 25 is the phone call.. Trump says "I would like you to do US a favor, because our country has been through a lot ..." It's interesting he doesn't ask for Zelenski to do HIM a favor, but US.

Now this is a brand new president who was NOT in office when the 2019 Budget was approved by Congress.

Aug 12 the whistleblower Complaint is filed.

Sept 1 - Two weeks later The Vice President Pence meets with Zelenski for the first time... This is the first meeting between any of our heads of state since the Ukrainian elections...

Sept 11 - Aid to Ukraine is released.


This is interesting... You know.. To me.. Just looking at this and my first thoughts...

Aid was promised to Ukraine and Another President... But dues to the election in Ukraine and a new president came into office... No Aid was promised him.. and the aid was not released until after one of our heads of state met with the new President ..

I tell ya... That is exactly what I would expect of The President of the USA to do. To not release any aid from this country until we knew exactly who and what the new president is...

So in light of this new evidence... Way to go Trump... Thanks more making sure that we didn't give 400 million to an unknown foreign leader. Plus one for Trump.

The Department of Defense provide certifications on May 23 and July 13. So this is completely false. This was repeated multiple times during the inquiry by multiple witnesses. Plus you can read it from the GOP lead Foreign Relations Committee in case you think it is a partisan issue.

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/pres...tified-that-ukraine-met-corruption-benchmarks

 

[Beach Friends]

According to sworn testimony from the IG, Durham’s famous “objection” to the predication of the investigation is that it should have been classified as “preliminary” rather than a full investigation. The fact is that the FBI didn’t do anything under the full investigation that wouldn’t have been permitted under the “preliminary“ label. Nothing.

Did you have an opportunity to watch the hearing yesterday?

 

[MT15]

I did not. I had a full day at work.

 

[Beach Friends]

Man, I wish I could promote a pay per view match between Jim Jordan and Swalwell.

Connor McGregor vs. ANYONE couldn't be a bigger draw.

 

[JimEverett]

In your hypothetical, does Roosevelt condition aid to Germany based on Germany's new leader, Hitler, helping Roosevelt politically?

Sure -
Is it your position that we should make it illegal for our Presidents to make deals with foreign countries where those deals will help the President politically?

 

[Joe Okc]

Sure -
Is it your position that we should make it illegal for our Presidents to make deals with foreign countries where those deals will help the President politically?

Thank You Jim Everett @JimEverett

Have you seen his schedule? He has more "pr

The Department of Defense provide certifications on May 23 and July 13. So this is completely false. This was repeated multiple times during the inquiry by multiple witnesses. Plus you can read it from the GOP lead Foreign Relations Committee in case you think it is a partisan issue.

https://www.foreign.senate.gov/pres...tified-that-ukraine-met-corruption-benchmarks

Interesting. Thanks for the link. While it is interesting, It is not enough to cause me concern or worry.

Honestly, after watching all this go on for three years and the Democrats actions and reactions... There is very little that will sway me from my personal views that this is exactly what it is.
I have maintained this is all because the Dems are so bent out of shape that they cannot think straight...

You take a guy with absolutely NO, ZERO, NADDA political experience and he defeats Hillary who has a lifetime of Political experience... The Dems can;t take it... and now.. If Trump defeats another Democrat in the national election with a lifetime of experience again.. Oh MY... IF their top candidates who have spent a lifetime in public service continue to be defeated by someone with no experience.. What a slap in the face.. For TWO democratic candidates to lose to someone with ZERO experience.

Just take a look here from one of our own members. He says it all right here.

Pretty much every Democratic candidate is more qualified to be president than trump. Clinton was a far better qualified candidate

If The Democratic candidates are better Qualified and yet Trump defeats them in the Elections, and does it again a second time... Oh My... Maybe the Dems need to take a look at themselves and make some changes...

 

[Beach Friends]

I did not. I had a full day at work.

If you get a chance, I think you should probably watch as much of that as you have time for.

At the very least, watch Senator Cruz's questioning of the IG. I will put a link over on the FBI Did Bad Stuff thread (or whatever it is called).

 

[Saintamaniac]

Honestly, after watching all this go on for three years and the Democrats actions and reactions... There is very little that will sway me from my personal views that this is exactly what it is. I have maintained this is all because the Dems are so bent out of shape that they cannot think straight...

Of course you have maintained that just as trump has maintained that he didn't sleep with or pay off a porn star. You and trump can maintain whatever you like. It still won't change the fact that what you are maintaining is a provable lie.

If The Democratic candidates are better Qualified and yet Trump defeats them in the Elections, and does it again a second time... Oh My... Maybe the Dems need to take a look at themselves and make some changes...

Or maybe if trump didn't get help or solicit help from foreign governments to interfere in our elections to aid him, the results would be considerably different. Of course, no one counted on 40% of the country willfully embracing outright lies and crapping on the constitution to support a wanna-be dictator. I never thought I'd see the day that in America, one party would embrace Russia over fellow Americans but that day has come. Hopefully, republicans will take a look at themselves and make some changes.....

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Thank You Jim Everett @JimEverett




Interesting. Thanks for the link. While it is interesting, It is not enough to cause me concern or worry.

Honestly, after watching all this go on for three years and the Democrats actions and reactions... There is very little that will sway me from my personal views that this is exactly what it is.
I have maintained this is all because the Dems are so bent out of shape that they cannot think straight...

You take a guy with absolutely NO, ZERO, NADDA political experience and he defeats Hillary who has a lifetime of Political experience... The Dems can;t take it... and now.. If Trump defeats another Democrat in the national election with a lifetime of experience again.. Oh MY... IF their top candidates who have spent a lifetime in public service continue to be defeated by someone with no experience.. What a slap in the face.. For TWO democratic candidates to lose to someone with ZERO experience.

Just take a look here from one of our own members. He says it all right here.



If The Democratic candidates are better Qualified and yet Trump defeats them in the Elections, and does it again a second time... Oh My... Maybe the Dems need to take a look at themselves and make some changes...

I would like to explore this, Joe.

You posted a page or two ago that you find it perfectly reasonable that Trump would put the aid package on hold after the Ukrainian election in which the incumbent lost, until such time that a high ranking member of the administration could personally meet with the new president.

NEBaghead showed you a letter from the Department of Defense outlining the major steps Ukraine has to curb corruption. It is also known that Trump's administration informed congress on multiple occasions, including a late May notification (after the Ukrainian election) that the aid package was going to be released.

If someone high ranking in the administration meeting Zelensky was a legitimate reason to delay the release of the aid package, why did Trump sign off on releasing it after the new president was elected but before meeting with him?

 

[FullMonte]

Sure -
Is it your position that we should make it illegal for our Presidents to make deals with foreign countries where those deals will help the President politically?

I'm fairly certain that the president soliciting aid with his political campaign from a foreign national is already illegal.

Now, making a deal with a foreign country that benefits the US, which the president can point to as a positive during his campaign is something entirely different.

 

[JimEverett]

I'm fairly certain that the president soliciting aid with his political campaign from a foreign national is already illegal.

Now, making a deal with a foreign country that benefits the US, which the president can point to as a positive during his campaign is something entirely different.

How are they different? What test do you use to determine the difference? As far as I can tell the test is simply a political disagreement: "we think what the President says he is concerned about is a sham, therefore it is corrupt."

 

[Lapaz]

Sure -
Is it your position that we should make it illegal for our Presidents to make deals with foreign countries where those deals will help the President politically?

Yes it should be and is illegal for a president to put his interests ahead of the country’s. Whatever shady thing Hunter or Joe Biden may have done to help get on a board is insignificant in comparison to withholding aid to fight the Russians. Also announcing an investigation ornament specific people is in no one’s interest. That undermines investigations. That act only serves to tarnish Biden and therefore help Trump politically. That purely self serving action should be illegal. The deals Ivanka has with China are probably more dangerous. There are many other corrupt countries, like Russia. and people in the Trump administration that are more dangerous.

 

[CoolBrees]

Let’s try this. I will show you where the line is.

You can draw the line at:

If aid had been released almost 50 times to the same country prior and then the president is on tape asking for an announcements of a non-existing investigation into his perceived largest political threat. Then takes the transcript of said call and illegally moves it to a more classified server and releases a heavily redacted recount of the call. All while having his personal attorney run a shadow campaign instead of using the DOJ like protocol and national security require.

is that a fair line to draw?

 

[FullMonte]

How are they different? What test do you use to determine the difference? As far as I can tell the test is simply a political disagreement: "we think what the President says he is concerned about is a sham, therefore it is corrupt."

That's like saying "how can it be ok to kill someone who is rushing at you with a knife, and not ok to kill someone who is walking down the street? What test do you use to determine the difference?"

It's simple. If the action in question is done to benefit the president, personally, and not the country, then it's questionable and possibly illegal.

Example: Hey, would you announce an investigation into my politcal rival to make him look bad so he has less of a chance against me in the election?

If he does something that benefits the country, and he touts that achievement, then it's probably ok.

Example: In my first term, I negotiated a trade deal that created 2,000 jobs. This is the kind of leadership and action I will continue to bring if you re-elect me.

Here is the simple test: Is the action that the president is requesting solely (or even overwhelmingly primarily) something that is valuable to his campaign over valuable to the country?

 

[V Chip]

Probably just serve to give Trump a bump in the election the same way it did for Clinton.

Clinton was impeached in Dec 1998. He wasn't able to run in 2000. Democrats picked up a handful of seats in the Nov 1998 elections, but not a "bump" to him or the Democrats as a result.

(I see @FullMonte beat me to it -- I hadn't read that far yet.)

 

[FullMonte]

Clinton was impeached in Dec 1998. He wasn't able to run in 2000. Democrats picked up a handful of seats in the Nov 1998 elections, but not a "bump" to him or the Democrats as a result.

Exactly. They picked up those seats a month before articles of impeachment were announced, and two months prior to the trial.

 

[not2rich]

Sure -
Is it your position that we should make it illegal for our Presidents to make deals with foreign countries where those deals will help the President politically?

No.

FullMonte's posts above fairly represent my position.

 

[Taurus]

How are they different? What test do you use to determine the difference? As far as I can tell the test is simply a political disagreement: "we think what the President says he is concerned about is a sham, therefore it is corrupt."

The big, fat public announcement. Plus Trump's complete lack of forks to give about the investigations themselves.