The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (9 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

 

[Saintamaniac]

"Right wing talking point"

Presented by . . . . .

Jerry Nadler

The Steele Dossier says hi.

 

[coldseat]

Tell that to Nadler:

The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters,” Nadler said on the House floor during the Clinton impeachment hearings, in footage unearthed by Grabien. "We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office except to defend our system of government or constitutional liberties against a dire threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people.”

Nadler then and now: 1998 video shows Dem saying impeachment would ‘overturn’ will of voters

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., will on Wednesday pick up the baton from his Intelligence Committee counterpart Adam Schiff., D-Calif., as the House’s impeachment inquiry moves to the next step -- but it is a far cry from 1998 for Nadler, where he warned that an...

www.foxnews.com

So you're providing an example of it being used the last time impeachment was relevant by a member of the party in power who's president is being impeached. Basically bolstering my point that it's a phrase that's used to elicit an emotional response from supporters of said president.

Thanks for the assist.

 

[samiam5211]

Tell that to Nadler:

The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters,” Nadler said on the House floor during the Clinton impeachment hearings, in footage unearthed by Grabien. "We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office except to defend our system of government or constitutional liberties against a dire threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people.”

Nadler then and now: 1998 video shows Dem saying impeachment would ‘overturn’ will of voters

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., will on Wednesday pick up the baton from his Intelligence Committee counterpart Adam Schiff., D-Calif., as the House’s impeachment inquiry moves to the next step -- but it is a far cry from 1998 for Nadler, where he warned that an...

www.foxnews.com

I’ve said it before...

Fat Jerry isn’t the sharpest tool in the shed.

 

[coldseat]

Wow! Republicans, come get your president. He's had a few to many.

READ: Trump letter to House Dems protests impeachment in ‘strongest’ terms | CNN Politics

www.cnn.com

In that manifesto of grievances, he repeats over and over about "overturning the results of the election". In particular this paragraph. You can see why it's so important for them to drive home this emotional reaction from their followers of impeachment meaning that their votes don't count and aren't respected. Thus making anybody that supports impeachment the enemy of democracy. It's extremely effective.

 

[JRad]

"Overturned" is factually inaccurate no matter who says it.

If Donald Trump gets removed from office an hour after he is sworn in, the winner of the 2016 election is still Donald Trump. There is no overturning happening. Everything from word of mouth to Wikipedia to history books will list Donald Trump as the winner of the 2016 election. Overturning would mean the result literally changed, and history books now say (in this case) Mike Pence won the 2016 election.

 

[JimEverett]

"Overturned" is factually inaccurate no matter who says it.

If Donald Trump gets removed from office an hour after he is sworn in, the winner of the 2016 election is still Donald Trump. There is no overturning happening. Everything from word of mouth to Wikipedia to history books will list Donald Trump as the winner of the 2016 election. Overturning would mean the result literally changed, and history books now say (in this case) Mike Pence won the 2016 election.

Only when using "results" as meaning strictly the votes counted.

If "results" mean the effects of the election, then using a quasi-political means like impeachment to overturn those effects then the phrase makes perfect sense.

Only those so emotionally charged in their feelings towards Trump can fail to see how this is a perfectly fine use of language and an accurate description of impeachment.

 

[MT15]

You can keep saying that, but I did make the point.

it’s not a valid point. It’s one of the R talking points because they really cannot defend the behavior. Nothing more than a political ploy. Sort of a sleight if hand because they really, really don’t want the actual behavior of the president to be the focus. Nobody using this phrase should be taken seriously.

It’s a silly phrase used to elicit strong emotions in partisans no matter who is using it.

 

[coldseat]

Only when using "results" as meaning strictly the votes counted.

So if we use the actual meaning of the word "results" (i.e. the winner of the election), then it doesn't apply. This is like fighting over what the meaning of the word "is", is.

If "results" mean the effects of the election, then using a quasi-political means like impeachment to overturn those effects then the phrase makes perfect sense.

Sure, if you change the meaning of "results" then you can use "overturn the results" in describing impeachment. Otherwise, it doesn't work.

Only those so emotionally charged in their feelings towards Trump can fail to see how this is a perfectly fine use of language and an accurate description of impeachment.

Very Trumpian of you.

Nothing in Impeachment is being "overturned", lets be clear about that. This process is not related directly to the election nor does it depend on the results of the election, therefore the results of the election can not be overturned. Impeachment is a removal process, not an election process.

Let me help you out here (since we've gotten nowhere). If you used a more figurative and qualified alliteration, you'd have more ground to stand on. Something like:

"In essence, Impeachment is like overturning the results of the elections for many people, even if that's not what's actually happening."

The problem you keep running into is insisting that the literal translation fits, when it clearly doesn't.

 

[JimEverett]

No, you are wrong coldseat.

There is absolutely no problem with this:

"The result of this is election is that Trump will be in office for four more years."
Or
"The result of this election probably means Trump gets to pick at least one more Supreme Court nominee."

Or
"The result of this election means we get 4 more years of ridiculous tweets."

"Results" is not limited to meaning "x number of votes to y number of votes" or any thing so limiting.

Do you really think that when people say "this will overturn the results of the election" they think it means the vote totals will change? Or that Hillary will be put in as President?
Of course not. They mean the word "results" in the way I am describing.

 

[samiam5211]

Mike Pence is a result of the 2016 election. People voted for him.

It is ridiculous to say the election would be overturned.

 

[Beach Friends]

You can't overturn the election on these facts, there is a transcript of the call that shows nothing wrong. The Democrats have no room to complain about an absence of witnesses in the Senate when they would not even produce Eric Ciaremella.

 

[samiam5211]

You can't overturn the election on these facts, there is a transcript of the call that shows nothing wrong. The Democrats have no room to complain about an absence of witnesses in the Senate when they would not even produce Eric Ciaremella.

The phone call shows plenty wrong when it is put in context with the testimony people gave.

Even if the whistleblower were a deep state operative put there by George Soros, it wouldn’t change any of the facts we already have about what Trump did.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You can't overturn the election on these facts, there is a transcript of the call that shows nothing wrong. The Democrats have no room to complain about an absence of witnesses in the Senate when they would not even produce Eric Ciaremella.

Just to make sure we are on the same page:

You understand that the written record of the call provided by the White House is incomplete, right?

 

[coldseat]

No, you are wrong coldseat.

There is absolutely no problem with this:

"The result of this is election is that Trump will be in office for four more years."
Or
"The result of this election probably means Trump gets to pick at least one more Supreme Court nominee."

Or
"The result of this election means we get 4 more years of ridiculous tweets."

"Results" is not limited to meaning "x number of votes to y number of votes" or any thing so limiting.

Do you really think that when people say "this will overturn the results of the election" they think it means the vote totals will change? Or that Hillary will be put in as President?
Of course not. They mean the word "results" in the way I am describing.

Those are other actual results of the election. Nobody ever claimed there was only one result of the election (well, you have because it's what you're resting your point on).

Still doesn't make impeachment the same as "overturning the results of the election." Impeachment is removing an elected official (or appointed in references to judges) from office for misconduct. It has not about changing the results of an election.

 

[xpuma20x]

Who released the "overturn the election" talking point recently? I spent the whole day hearing it from conservative friends, now on here all the conservative posters are banging that drum as well.

 

[FullMonte]

Only when using "results" as meaning strictly the votes counted.

If "results" mean the effects of the election, then using a quasi-political means like impeachment to overturn those effects then the phrase makes perfect sense.

Only those so emotionally charged in their feelings towards Trump can fail to see how this is a perfectly fine use of language and an accurate description of impeachment.

Ok...then let's look at it a different way. The team of Trump/Pence was elected. If Trump is removed from office, the team of Trump/Pence is still president, they have simply lost one of their members.

 

[FullMonte]

You can't overturn the election on these facts, there is a transcript of the call that shows nothing wrong. The Democrats have no room to complain about an absence of witnesses in the Senate when they would not even produce Eric Ciaremella.

People keep saying this. I've asked over and over and no one can answer me. Can you tell us where we can read this transcript so we can decide for ourselves? The last I heard, the transcript was locked away on a code-word server to keep it away from everyone (including people who should have access to it). I know that a Memorandum of Telephone Call was released, but that document clearly says that it is not a transcript, and is based on notes and recollections.

 

[JimEverett]

Those are other actual results of the election. Nobody ever claimed there was only one result of the election (well, you have because it's what you're resting your point on).

Again, you just keep making obviously wrong points. I never claimed there was only one way to use the term "result"
That is your doing. As in you are reading the word "result" in a way that makes the statement have no sense. It clearly makes sense when used in the way I have pointed out and is the way people mean it when they use the phrase.

Once again:
There is nothing wrong with - "The result of this election is that Donald Trump will serve 4 years as President."
Perfectly fine use of the word "result" in ordinary language.
Now, if a process comes a long where the House votes to remove Trump before he can serve 4 years then it seems perfectly reasonable to say, "The House is voting to overturn the result of the election."

Who released the "overturn the election" talking point recently? I spent the whole day hearing it from conservative friends, now on here all the conservative posters are banging that drum as well.

Um, I think you should probably check DailyKos or sites like that. Coldseat started the discussion.