The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (2 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

 

[BobE]

I love 90210 reruns. You're my spirit animal, BobE.

POP channel M-F 12-4. BTW re watching some of these episodes man I'm amazed at the story lines.

 

[JimEverett]

Yes.

Today the photo of Emmitt Till’s body wouldn’t have moved public sentiment because there would have been theories it wasn’t real and people can go online and find validation for those theories. People can find enough support for what they want to believe to avoid seeing a reality that might have forced them to give up that belief.

To me this isn’t debatable, and it’s got nothing to do with political orientation. The left is just as susceptible, but I do believe that it happens to be bigger problem on the right at the moment.

I don't think photos of Emmitt Till's body moved the nation in a different way than something similar would today. Which is that it did/would move people to act and bring a focus on an issue but it wasn't like there was or would be some huge change of political/social views across the population. There was still a relatively long battle after his death - evidence that there wasn't some marked shift. Consider that after many of the most horrific acts of the civil rights movement, including the state-sanctioned beating of the Freedom Riders, Selma, the Birmingham Church bombing, etc. someone like Wallace could run as an independent and carry 5 states and a small but relatively significant (to a 3rd party candidate) percentage of the vote.

Although, I could see an argument being made that the post WW2 years up to some point in the last decade or so were sort of an anomaly in the sense that there was a great deal of shared cultural identity that we find lacking now and probably was lacking prior to WW2 or some point before that. But I don't think that necessarily speaks to some relativity on facts.

But it is an interesting area.

 

[FullMonte]

I saw something today that I thought made a good point.

Trump could put an end to this hoax impeachment in a matter of seconds. He is charged with two impeachable offenses, abuse of power and obstruction of justice.

If he decided to allow Mulvaney, Pompeo, Giuliani, and Bolton to testify and ordered his administration to produce all of the documents that the House asked for, the obstruction of congress charge disappears.

Then, when those individuals testify and the documents are reviewed, the House would see that Trump is 100% innocent, and the abuse of power charge also disappears.

You have to wonder why he won't do that.

 

[V Chip]

That's my idiot Representative.

 

[Archies Ghost]

It’s not a contempt of Congress charge. It’s obstruction of Congress. That means the alleged crime has already been committed. You cannot undo it by suddenly complying.

 

[Archies Ghost]

If they actually wanted him to comply they would’ve charged him with contempt of Congress.

 

[samiam5211]

I don't think photos of Emmitt Till's body moved the nation in a different way than something similar would today. Which is that it did/would move people to act and bring a focus on an issue but it wasn't like there was or would be some huge change of political/social views across the population. There was still a relatively long battle after his death - evidence that there wasn't some marked shift. Consider that after many of the most horrific acts of the civil rights movement, including the state-sanctioned beating of the Freedom Riders, Selma, the Birmingham Church bombing, etc. someone like Wallace could run as an independent and carry 5 states and a small but relatively significant (to a 3rd party candidate) percentage of the vote.

Although, I could see an argument being made that the post WW2 years up to some point in the last decade or so were sort of an anomaly in the sense that there was a great deal of shared cultural identity that we find lacking now and probably was lacking prior to WW2 or some point before that. But I don't think that necessarily speaks to some relativity on facts.

But it is an interesting area.

Through the 1950s there were many white folks who were in denial about other white folks.

They did not understand the extent of white racism in the south. Rumors or stories of lynchings and other violent acts were so terrible that many whites, especially northern whites, were able to write much of it off to exaggeration or a notion that the victim may have did something to deserve punishment.

Once TV came along and we had videos of people abusing marchers and things like Emitt Tills body, change started to happen more quickly than it had before.

Back then people trusted the media, and for the most part their sources were all reporting the same thing.

That is not the case today.

 

[samiam5211]

It’s not a contempt of Congress charge. It’s obstruction of Congress. That means the alleged crime has already been committed. You cannot undo it by suddenly complying.

Regardless, if we are to give the claim that first had witnesses would exonerate the president, he has to stop preventing the testimony of those same first hand witnesses.

There is not an acceptable rationalization for this.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Regardless, if we are to give the claim that first had witnesses would exonerate the president, he has to stop preventing the testimony of those same first hand witnesses.

There is not an acceptable rationalization for this.

I think this board proves daily that nothing short of God appearing on Earth in the form of Ruth Bader Ginsberg and declaring DJT as pure as the wind driven snow would cause anyone on the left to consider the possibility that nothing impeachable has occurred.

And I have my doubts that even that would be sufficient.

It is amusing to watch though since I am old enough to probably not have to suffer the coming reckoning for this three year charade.

 

[samiam5211]

I think this board proves daily that nothing short of God appearing on Earth in the form of Ruth Bader Ginsberg and declaring DJT as pure as the wind driven snow would cause anyone on the left to consider the possibility that nothing impeachable has occurred.

And I have my doubts that even that would be sufficient.

It is amusing to watch though since I am old enough to probably not have to suffer the coming reckoning for this three year charade.

That doesn’t answer the question as to why Trump won’t allow first hand witnesses testify.

Me thinking Trump was the devil from the start doesn’t prove he’s not the devil.

 

[Optimus Prime]

If the NFL suspends a player for drugs or PEDs or domestic violence they are not overturning the will of the team that signed him to play football for them

A question for those insisting that impeachment is reversing the will of the people

Would you support making that official and getting rid of the option of impeachment altogether?

No president can ever be removed from office at anytime no matter the deed, act, crime

Because that removal would “overturn the results of the election or will of the people” after all

Would you be down for that?

 

[JimEverett]

If the NFL suspends a player for drugs or PEDs or domestic violence they are not overturning the will of the team that signed him to play football for them

A question for those insisting that impeachment is reversing the will of the people

Would you support making that official and getting rid of the option of impeachment altogether?

No president can ever be removed from office at anytime no matter what the deed, act, crime

Because that removal would “overturn the results of the election or will of the people” after all

Would you be down for that?

I haven't heard or read anyone saying that Congress cannot overturn the results of the election via impeachment - its a Constitutional power Congress has. It is just to point out the seriousness of impeachment and that a party should not use it as a political sword, at a minimum.

 

[Lapaz]

I haven't heard or read anyone saying that Congress cannot overturn the results of the election via impeachment - its a Constitutional power Congress has. It is just to point out the seriousness of impeachment and that a party should not use it as a political sword, at a minimum.

Many Republican congressmen have repeatedly said that Democrats are attempting to overturn the will of the people. They haven't gone as far as saying that congress CANNOT overturn the results, but the inference is that they CANNOT, because Republicans haven't explained why this act isn't serious. If it is serious, and yet they say it is outrageous to overturn the will of the people, then the obvious conclusion is that they don't believe congress SHOULD overturn the results. If they SHOULD not regardless of the seriousness of the act, that's essentially saying they CANNOT.

 

[FullMonte]

I think this board proves daily that nothing short of God appearing on Earth in the form of Ruth Bader Ginsberg and declaring DJT as pure as the wind driven snow would cause anyone on the left to consider the possibility that nothing impeachable has occurred.

And I have my doubts that even that would be sufficient.

It is amusing to watch though since I am old enough to probably not have to suffer the coming reckoning for this three year charade.

your post implies that you believe it is true that everyone on the left believes that Trump is 100% guilty and nothing will change their mind. That statement is false.

it also implies that it is only members on the left who are convinced and nothing will change their mind.

 

[JimEverett]

Many Republican congressmen have repeatedly said that Democrats are attempting to overturn the will of the people. They haven't gone as far as saying that congress CANNOT overturn the results, but the inference is that they CANNOT, because Republicans haven't explained why this act isn't serious.

Who is inferring THAT? Link?
Plenty of people, Republicans included, have explained why they don't think this is impeachable. There is no way there is a lack of explanation on that.

 

[V Chip]

I think this board proves daily that nothing short of God appearing on Earth in the form of Ruth Bader Ginsberg and declaring DJT as pure as the wind driven snow would cause anyone on the left to consider the possibility that nothing impeachable has occurred.

God would be a liar if God said DJT is as pure as the wind-driven snow. Even many of his supporters know he isn't anywhere near "pure."

As to the second part ("nothing impeachable has occurred") -- Trump admitted himself he asked for the investigation and withheld the aid. We all know it wasn't just for generic "corruption."

If God appeared and said Trump was guilty of impeachable offenses, the amount of atheists in America would explode with all the Republicans denying God.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

I just want to point out for the record that Jim Jordan is wearing a sports coat and a tie...

 

[Beach Friends]

God would be a liar if God said DJT is as pure as the wind-driven snow. Even many of his supporters know he isn't anywhere near "pure."

As to the second part ("nothing impeachable has occurred") -- Trump admitted himself he asked for the investigation and withheld the aid. We all know it wasn't just for generic "corruption."

If God appeared and said Trump was guilty of impeachable offenses, the amount of atheists in America would explode with all the Republicans denying God.

I like the imagination, but sometimes truth is stranger than fiction.

I remember when 58 US Congressmen voted to advance impeachment proceedings for the high crime of criticizing Colin Kaepernick.