The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (28 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

 

[Lazybones]

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

It should be open and shut then. Why the wait on the vote if your analysts is correct?

 

[Taurus]

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?

Because every day the mountain of evidence grows higher. Every day the polls get worse for Trump.
The hope is that eventually Moscow Mitch will see the writing on the wall and there'll actually be a chance that a jury of his drinking buddies and co-dependent money addicts will actually vote to convict Trump in the Senate.

 

[V Chip]

It should be open and shut then. Why the wait on the vote if your analysts is correct?

Because that's not all there is to the process. Why rush the process with incomplete information? Since the transcript release, much more information has come out and with more witnesses and more testimony, it's getting worse for Trump every day. Maybe that's why Trump and his supporters want to rush the vote, so even more damning evidence/charges won't be found.

There will be a vote. It will pass, and Trump will be impeached. The Senate won't ever vote to remove him (they stated as such before being presented with any evidence whatsoever) but it will happen.

 

[Beach Friends]

Because every day the mountain of evidence grows higher. Every day the polls get worse for Trump.
The hope is that eventually Moscow Mitch will see the writing on the wall and there'll actually be a chance that a jury of his drinking buddies and co-dependent money addicts will actually vote to convict Trump in the Senate.

I don't think the shenanigans of the House Democrats is the way to get bipartisan support in the Senate.

 

[wardorican]

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?

Get the main facts. Rudy is a key figure. There are others. And there are texts, emails, but conversations will be key.

Remember, the house was already asking for information about why the Ukraine aid was held up a long while back. The whistle blower showed the. The lightening rod. But, they still have to put the story together.

Ken Starr took what... 4 years? And he was about to stop after finding nothing... then was told about Clinton's infidelity with the intern, and boom, an entrapment opportunity, yadda yadda yadda, impeachment.

 

[Ayo]

I don't think the shenanigans of the House Democrats is the way to get bipartisan support in the Senate.

"bipartisan support" and "Senate" are absolutely mutually exclusive and, as a result, shouldn't be a criterion in the pursuit because if it were, we are firmly in fait accompli territory

 

[Ayo]

Get the main facts. Rudy is a key figure. There are others. And there are texts, emails, but conversations will be key.

Remember, the house was already asking for information about why the Ukraine aid was held up a long while back. The whistle blower showed the. The lightening rod. But, they still have to put the story together.

Ken Starr took what... 4 years? And he was about to stop after finding nothing... then was told about Clinton's infidelity with the intern, and boom, an entrapment opportunity, yadda yadda yadda, impeachment.

Just this week, we're talking about evidence/testimony/subpeonas from/about key figures. Hill. Yovanovich. Kent. Volker. Sundland. Giuliani. Bolton. Maguire.

 

[Beach Friends]

"bipartisan support" and "Senate" are absolutely mutually exclusive and, as a result, shouldn't be a criterion in the pursuit because if it were, we are firmly in fait accompli territory

It's Tauras that has his hopes set.

 

[MT15]

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

Now I know we’ve been over this. The ask is a crime. It was mentioned in this very thread. You’re not stupid, why are you feigning ignorance?

 

[Ayo]

It's Tauras that has his hopes set.

and I was responding to you saying this was not 'the way' - because I don't think there's 'a way' period, much less a 'the way'

 

[Taurus]

and I was responding to you saying this was not 'the way' - because I don't think there's 'a way' period, much less a 'the way'

To be clear, eff the Senate Republicans.
I just think that as public sentiment for removal grows, as Trump's crimes are laid bare, those Senators will perform the calculus and do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

 

[Beach Friends]

To be clear, eff the Senate Republicans.
I just think that as public sentiment for removal grows, as Trump's crimes are laid bare, those Senators will perform the calculus and do the right thing for the wrong reasons.

Tonighg I heard Senator Lindsey Graham state emphatically that if the House sends an impeachment based on the phone call that it would be DOA upon arrival at the Senate.


That's fine, they can dismiss it outright so long as the DOJ does it's job and we see some members of the IC indicted.

 

[Dragon]

Tonighg I heard Senator Lindsey Graham state emphatically that if the House sends an impeachment based on the phone call that it would be DOA upon arrival at the Senate.


That's fine, they can dismiss it outright so long as the DOJ does it's job and we see some members of the IC indicted.

Indicted for what - performing their duties? Those people who have taken an oath to protect the United States and its constitution NOT whoever is the president at the time. When you call for indictment because they do their jobs, you are basically talking about destroying the democratic process that is the founding principles of you country!!

 

[Beach Friends]

Indicted for what - performing their duties? Those people who have taken an oath to protect the United States and its constitution NOT whoever is the president at the time. When you call for indictment because they do their jobs, you are basically talking about destroying the democratic process that is the founding principles of you country!!

Relax, no one is getting indicted for simply lawfully performing their duties.

Just wait a little longer, the IG's report on FISA abuse will be out in a few weeks and that will start the unraveling of this mess.

 

[Dragon]

Relax, no one is getting indicted for simply lawfully performing their duties.

Just wait a little longer, the IG's report on FISA abuse will be out in a few weeks and that will start the unraveling of this mess.

The FISA is a legal procedure which was signed by a judge. You still attack the process and totally disregard the morally corrupt actions taken by Trump and his family. So far I haven't seen you answer these two questions even once:

Do you think that is is an acceptable behaviour to ask a foreign (enemy!) nations leader to get dirt on a political opponent which can only be achieved by a criminal act?

Do you think that is is an acceptable behaviour to ask the leader of a foreign nation which is desperately depending on getting US aid (which was temporarily blocked by the president without any explanation, even though it was approved by congress) to combat an enemy invasion, to help get dirt on a political opponent ?

 

[Beach Friends]

The FISA is a legal procedure which was signed by a judge.

So, you think that means that the process can't be abused?
What do you think the IG is doing?

Let's not change the subject, I am interested in your thought process here given your response of, "it's signed by a judge."

 

[Dragon]

So, you think that means that the process can't be abused?
What do you think the IG is doing?

Let's not change the subject, I am interested in your thought process here given your response of, "it's signed by a judge."

And you still wont answer my questions which by the way IS a part of the topic of this thread - which the FISA report isn't

 

[Lazybones]

The FISA is a legal procedure which was signed by a judge. You still attack the process and totally disregard the morally corrupt actions taken by Trump and his family. So far I haven't seen you answer these two questions even once:

Do you think that is is an acceptable behaviour to ask a foreign (enemy!) nations leader to get dirt on a political opponent which can only be achieved by a criminal act?

Do you think that is is an acceptable behaviour to ask the leader of a foreign nation which is desperately depending on getting US aid (which was temporarily blocked by the president without any explanation, even though it was approved by congress) to combat an enemy invasion, to help get dirt on a political opponent ?

I will answer

1. loaded question. It has not been established that there was a criminal act.
2. Refer to nbr 1.


If you want to get honest answers to your question, maybe not throw gas through out the questioning. I mean if they are the enemy, why are we giving them funding?