The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (27 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]

Are you sure about your position on the No and the No?

Who paid for the Steele dossier?

The President: ...I will say that we do ·a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are.

...I think it's.something you want to look at but the United States has been very ·very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.

President Zelenskyy: Yes you are·absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000%...I'm very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union specially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russia Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.

The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it...

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6429025-Unclassified09-2019.html#document/p1

Decoding the explosive Ukraine text messages

Messages between a pair of U.S. diplomats show just how deeply officials were engaged in Rudy Giuliani’s efforts to get Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden.

www.politico.com

Everything after that is just bs obfuscation in an effort to deflect from the criminal activity the POTUS led.

 

[V Chip]

So if there is no quid pro quo this was all nonsense?

What?

 

[Lazybones]

What?

If there is no quid pro quo, there is no crime.

 

[wardorican]

If there is no quid pro quo, there is no crime.

There is still abuse of power.

Also, for quid pro quo, I'm not up on the exact legal definition, but a person doesn't have to directly state "if you do this, you'll get this". It is almost never that direct. It is almost always implied.

 

[V Chip]

If there is no quid pro quo, there is no crime.

That's like saying if there was no sun, there is no life on Earth. There *is* a sun.

Plus, it's a false premise. QPQ isn't the only way it could be a crime (or an impeachable offense).

 

[Lazybones]

That's like saying if there was no sun, there is no life on Earth. There *is* a sun.

Plus, it's a false premise. QPQ isn't the only way it could be a crime (or an impeachable offense).

You are assuming there is a qpq. What other way did trump commit an impeachable offense?

 

[Lazybones]

There is still abuse of power.

Also, for quid pro quo, I'm not up on the exact legal definition, but a person doesn't have to directly state "if you do this, you'll get this". It is almost never that direct. It is almost always implied.

If it is an abuse of power, wouldn’t it also be an abuse of power by the DNC?

I’m Italian, I fully understand how one is legally squeezed. But with an unlimited budget, if Congress doesn’t prove a qpq, this will be a massive boost to the 2020 election.

 

[Taurus]

If it is an abuse of power, wouldn’t it also be an abuse of power by the DNC?

I’m Italian, I fully understand how one is legally squeezed. But with an unlimited budget, if Congress doesn’t prove a qpq, this will be a massive boost to the 2020 election.

The ASK is the impeachable offense.

Let me ask you, when the Constitution and the Impeachment Clause were written, was there even such a thing as a Federal crime yet?

No, there was not. But Impeachment was still a thing.

How can this be?

Because a statutory crime is NOT NECESSARY to impeach. One of the offenses specifically called out in the Constitution is bribery. This is what Trump did the moment he asked another nation, in his capacity as President, for something of value to HIS OWN CAMPAIGN. Done. Guilty by his own admission. Toss the worthless walking skidmark to the curb.

 

[Lazybones]

The ASK is the impeachable offense.

Let me ask you, when the Constitution and the Impeachment Clause were written, was there even such a thing as a Federal crime yet?

No, there was not. But Impeachment was still a thing.

How can this be?

Because a statutory crime is NOT NECESSARY to impeach. One of the offenses specifically called out in the Constitution is bribery. This is what Trump did the moment he asked another nation, in his capacity as President, for something of value to HIS OWN CAMPAIGN. Done. Guilty by his own admission. Toss the worthless walking skidmark to the curb.

I’m not a constitutional lawyer and I slept in my own bed, so I can’t answer all of your questioning.

If what you say is what has taken place, this should be a slam dunk case. Why no vote?

And if this isn’t the case, will you rethink your position on the media and the Democrats in Washington for selling you bag of rocks?

 

[wardorican]

I’m not a constitutional lawyer and I slept in my own bed, so I can’t answer all of your questioning.

If what you say is what has taken place, this should be a slam dunk case. Why no vote?

And if this isn’t the case, will you rethink your position on the media and the Democrats in Washington for selling you bag of rocks?

Why rush a rare political process?

 

[Dadsdream]

The use of executive powers sometimes requires a certain disregard for the law and a willingness to act unilaterally without regard to precedent.
Jefferson had no legislative authority to go ahead with the Louisiana Purchase. He did it anyway.
Jackson had no legislative authority to remove the Cherokee Tribe from Georgia. He just did it and told the Supreme Court to enforce their ruling against him.
Lincoln had no legislative authority to suspend habeas corpus. He just did it and dared the Congress to act against him.
Kennedy had no legal authority to blockade Cuba. He just did it.
Does the end really justify the means?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

The use of executive powers sometimes requires a certain disregard for the law and a willingness to act unilaterally without regard to precedent.
Jefferson had no legislative authority to go ahead with the Louisiana Purchase. He did it anyway.
Jackson had no legislative authority to remove the Cherokee Tribe from Georgia. He just did it and told the Supreme Court to enforce their ruling against him.
Lincoln had no legislative authority to suspend habeas corpus. He just did it and dared the Congress to act against him.
Kennedy had no legal authority to blockade Cuba. He just did it.
Does the end really justify the means?

If those actions were taken to benefit the nation, so be it. trump's actions are solely for personal gain and his actions are doing actual harm to nation and its reputation.

 

[Taurus]

The use of executive powers sometimes requires a certain disregard for the law and a willingness to act unilaterally without regard to precedent.
Jefferson had no legislative authority to go ahead with the Louisiana Purchase. He did it anyway.
Jackson had no legislative authority to remove the Cherokee Tribe from Georgia. He just did it and told the Supreme Court to enforce their ruling against him.
Lincoln had no legislative authority to suspend habeas corpus. He just did it and dared the Congress to act against him.
Kennedy had no legal authority to blockade Cuba. He just did it.
Does the end really justify the means?

 

[Dadsdream]

If those actions were taken to benefit the nation, so be it. trump's actions are solely for personal gain and his actions are doing actual harm to nation and its reputation.

At the time when they occurred, there were some rather outspoken objections that it was not in the best interest of the nation to buy Louisiana, or forcibly relocate the Cherokee, or suspend habeas corpus or blockade Cuba.

In the case of the Cherokee in particular, there were some rather strong objections that the personal profit of powerful people may have come into play. It was nothing short of a gigantic land grab. Something which would be repeated again and again in the settling of the West.

Color me cynical, but the rich and powerful have always taken actions for personal gain that have done actual harm to the nation and its reputation in one way or another.

We let the North Vietnamese set up a full-blown underground military fortress/garrison under the Michelin Rubber Plantation because the powers that be had stock in the company. Want to have some fun? Look up the fines that were imposed on soldiers for damaging a rubber tree in Vietnam. Amazing.

 

[JRad]

Fine, ya'll, let's impeach President Hillary Clinton for using the Steele Dossier.

We all good now?

 

[V Chip]

You are assuming there is a qpq. What other way did trump commit an impeachable offense?

Not assuming at all. Just good reading comprehension from the "transcript" of the call.

 

[Lazybones]

Why rush a rare political process?

So this is like savoring a good glass of scotch? I would think for the betterment is the country it should be clean and simple. Why wait?

 

[Lazybones]

If you don’t like his historical reference, try refuting it or ignoring it. I found it thought provoking.