The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (26 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 27 (members: 0, guests: 27)
    Andrus

    Andrus

    Admin
    Staff member
    Joined
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages
    2,298
    Reaction score
    952
    Age
    65
    Location
    Sunset, Louisiana
    Offline
    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
     
    JimEverett said:
    So only democrats voted for removing a duly elected Republican President? And they aren't making impeachment a political weapon????
    Click to expand...
    Technically, not a single one of them voted to remove anyone. You know this, but impeachment is just "formal charges" of a civil officer.

    Regarding the politics, they can't control that the Republicans were all whipped into one side.
     
    wardorican said:
    Technically, not a single one of them voted to remove anyone. You know this, but impeachment is just "formal charges" of a civil officer.

    Regarding the politics, they can't control that the Republicans were all whipped into one side.
    Click to expand...
    They can control turning impeachment into a political tool or not. Its clear which way they went.
     
    Here is the timeline of Ukrainian events, with my comments in italics, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...raine-impeachment-scandal-timeline-key-events:
    2019
    7 April Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer and former New York mayor, voices unsubstantiated allegations on Fox News that Joe Biden pressed for the dismissal of Viktor Shokin, a top Ukrainian prosecutor, in order to block a corruption investigation into Burisma. (The investigation into Burisma was dormant by the time the US, along with other western powers, called for Shokin to resign.)

    22 April Volodymyr Zelenskiy, an actor and comedian with no political experience except for playing the president in a TV series, is elected Ukraine’s leader. Trump congratulates him in a phone call.
    25 April Joe Biden announces his 2020 presidential campaign. (I think by this time Biden had been beating Trump in polls for a long time, so you know Trump wanted to take Biden down.)
    1 May The New York Times reports that Giuliani has been urging Ukraine to conduct a new investigation into the activities of Joe and Hunter Biden. “Giuliani called Mr Trump excitedly to brief him on his findings,” the paper says. (These urgings by Guiliani probably started on 25 April.)
    18 July Trump issues instructions to withhold $392m in military aid from Ukraine, citing concerns over whether the money needed to be spent, according to reports. (I believe this is illegal impoundment because such withholding requires notification of congress.)
    25 July Trump and Zelenskiy speak on the phone.
    12 August A whistleblower complaint is filed. (I'm sure Trump was told almost immediately about this whistleblower, so his advisors probably started urging him to release the funds, since they had been caught attempting to extort the Ukrainians to get a sham investigation to hurt Biden.)
    13 September Adam Schiff, Democratic congressman and chairman of the House intelligence committee, issues a subpoena for the complaint after Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, a Trump appointee, refuses to hand it over.
    Days later, reports emerge that Trump asked Zelenskiy during the 25 July phone call to investigate Joe Biden and the candidate’s son, Hunter. Trump admits that he did, but denies wrongdoing. He denies that withholding aid had amounted to a quid pro quo. The aid funds were released on 11 September. (The aid was released 1 month after the whistleblower complaint, and right before the subpeona which the whitehouse knew was coming. The whitehouse knew the jig was up, and aids must've convinced Trump that the best defense left was to release the funds so it can be claimed that there was no quid pro quo. It's like a burglar returning the money right before being arrested after he realizes that he's been caught. )

    19 September Giuliani is interviewed on CNN and in a heated exchange at first denies that he asked Ukraine to investigate Biden. About 30 seconds later, he reverses himself. “Of course I did,” he says.
    24 September The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, announces a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump’s actions.
    25 September White House releases a partial “transcript” of the 25 July call, hours before Trump’s first face-to-face meeting with Zelenskiy at the United Nations. “I don’t want to be involved in democratic elections of the USA,” Zelenskiy said. “Nobody pushed me.”
    26 September The whistleblower complaint is released. It alleges the White House tried to cover up the Trump-Ukraine call. (Took almost 2 weeks to release the whistleblower complaint, which should've taken 1 day.)
    27 September Kurt Volker, Trump’s former special envoy to Ukraine, resigns.
    4 October The House congressional committees holding impeachment hearings release Whatsapp messages from US diplomats, handed over by Volker, which show a prestigious invitation for Zelenskiy to visit the White House was dependent on him stating publicly that Ukraine would investigate the Bidens and a supposed Ukrainian role in the 2016 US election, a theory advanced in far-right conspiracy circles. (This is evidence that has been glossed over.)
    6 October Lawyers for the first whistleblower say they are now representing a second.
    8 October The state department prevents Gordon Sondland, US ambassador to the EU and a Trump donor, from testifying to a congressional impeachment hearing.
    The White House releases a letter refusing to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry, and accusing Democrats of trying to reverse the result of the 2016 election. (This is the basis of obstruction article of impeachment.)
     
    Another theory I just heard was that after getting the impeachment, Democrats can now wait for the judicial system to rule on whether Trump can withhold witnesses. If the Senate refuses to call witnesses, the House can reopen the testimony so that it can be presented during the Senate trial. It's like getting the best of both worlds, since Trump is now impeached, and that is a deterence in itself, so the urgency is lessened. I wanted to get more witnesses, so I like this strategy.
     
    JimEverett said:
    They can control turning impeachment into a political tool or not. Its clear which way they went.
    Click to expand...
    Is it?

    Seems more clear that a whistleblower exposed a lot of concerns about a phone call, that was a fairly accurate description of the call and the events around it. Many people in government thought that is how it was playing out. Can we all "from a certain point of view" it around? Sure. But, on its face, it looks like an improper act. The public sentiment immediately agreed, and it has stayed at around that level ever since.

    Do you feel the same way about Clinton's impeachment? Or was a lawyer parsing words to be a bit dishonest (vs outright lying) under oath, such an egregious offense to the fabric of the Union?

    Republicans really don't get to claim the high ground on this.
     
    wardorican said:
    Is it?

    Seems more clear that a whistleblower exposed a lot of concerns about a phone call, that was a fairly accurate description of the call and the events around it. Many people in government thought that is how it was playing out. Can we all "from a certain point of view" it around? Sure. But, on its face, it looks like an improper act. The public sentiment immediately agreed, and it has stayed at around that level ever since.

    Do you feel the same way about Clinton's impeachment? Or was a lawyer parsing words to be a bit dishonest (vs outright lying) under oath, such an egregious offense to the fabric of the Union?

    Republicans really don't get to claim the high ground on this.
    Click to expand...
    No, Clinton's impeachment wasn't much better. Lacked the bi-parisanship necessary for oveturning the will of the people. Although at least he was charged with an actual crime, unlike this one.
     
    JimEverett said:
    No, Clinton's impeachment wasn't much better. Lacked the bi-parisanship necessary for oveturning the will of the people. Although at least he was charged with an actual crime, unlike this one.
    Click to expand...
    Glad we agree there. But I don't think of it as over turning the will of the people. That's sort of an odd argument to make. It implies that no one can change their mind with new circumstances.

    And you didn't really dig into the "clearly partisan" argument.
     
    JimEverett said:
    No, Clinton's impeachment wasn't much better. Lacked the bi-parisanship necessary for oveturning the will of the people. Although at least he was charged with an actual crime, unlike this one.
    Click to expand...


    Well to be fair he did talk to people that is what got Clinton impeached. He lied under oath.

    I get the game that the guy that lies constantly not to speak under oath. If you don't see that as a game I don't know what to tell ya.

    It is not like old tricky dick and Clinton did not answer questions, release documents, and white house aids did speak in front of Congress.

    That is why he got impeached for it.
     
    JimEverett said:
    So only democrats voted for removing a duly elected Republican President? And they aren't making impeachment a political weapon????
    Click to expand...

    I've never understood how we decide which party to blame for a lack of bipartisanship.

    The Republicans were the only party yesterday to vote completely down party lines.

    Does a couple of democrats voting the other way mean that the democrats were the ones toeing the party line?

    But the Republicans who voted 100% the same way are somehow not toeing the party line?
     
    Lapaz said:
    Here is the timeline of Ukrainian events, with my comments in italics, from https://www.theguardian.com/us-news...raine-impeachment-scandal-timeline-key-events:
    2019
    7 April Rudy Giuliani, Trump’s personal lawyer and former New York mayor, voices unsubstantiated allegations on Fox News that Joe Biden pressed for the dismissal of Viktor Shokin, a top Ukrainian prosecutor, in order to block a corruption investigation into Burisma. (The investigation into Burisma was dormant by the time the US, along with other western powers, called for Shokin to resign.)

    22 April Volodymyr Zelenskiy, an actor and comedian with no political experience except for playing the president in a TV series, is elected Ukraine’s leader. Trump congratulates him in a phone call.
    25 April Joe Biden announces his 2020 presidential campaign. (I think by this time Biden had been beating Trump in polls for a long time, so you know Trump wanted to take Biden down.)
    1 May The New York Times reports that Giuliani has been urging Ukraine to conduct a new investigation into the activities of Joe and Hunter Biden. “Giuliani called Mr Trump excitedly to brief him on his findings,” the paper says. (These urgings by Guiliani probably started on 25 April.)
    18 July Trump issues instructions to withhold $392m in military aid from Ukraine, citing concerns over whether the money needed to be spent, according to reports. (I believe this is illegal impoundment because such withholding requires notification of congress.)
    25 July Trump and Zelenskiy speak on the phone.
    12 August A whistleblower complaint is filed. (I'm sure Trump was told almost immediately about this whistleblower, so his advisors probably started urging him to release the funds, since they had been caught attempting to extort the Ukrainians to get a sham investigation to hurt Biden.)
    13 September Adam Schiff, Democratic congressman and chairman of the House intelligence committee, issues a subpoena for the complaint after Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, a Trump appointee, refuses to hand it over.
    Days later, reports emerge that Trump asked Zelenskiy during the 25 July phone call to investigate Joe Biden and the candidate’s son, Hunter. Trump admits that he did, but denies wrongdoing. He denies that withholding aid had amounted to a quid pro quo. The aid funds were released on 11 September. (The aid was released 1 month after the whistleblower complaint, and right before the subpeona which the whitehouse knew was coming. The whitehouse knew the jig was up, and aids must've convinced Trump that the best defense left was to release the funds so it can be claimed that there was no quid pro quo. It's like a burglar returning the money right before being arrested after he realizes that he's been caught. )

    19 September Giuliani is interviewed on CNN and in a heated exchange at first denies that he asked Ukraine to investigate Biden. About 30 seconds later, he reverses himself. “Of course I did,” he says.
    24 September The House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, announces a formal impeachment inquiry into Trump’s actions.
    25 September White House releases a partial “transcript” of the 25 July call, hours before Trump’s first face-to-face meeting with Zelenskiy at the United Nations. “I don’t want to be involved in democratic elections of the USA,” Zelenskiy said. “Nobody pushed me.”
    26 September The whistleblower complaint is released. It alleges the White House tried to cover up the Trump-Ukraine call. (Took almost 2 weeks to release the whistleblower complaint, which should've taken 1 day.)
    27 September Kurt Volker, Trump’s former special envoy to Ukraine, resigns.
    4 October The House congressional committees holding impeachment hearings release Whatsapp messages from US diplomats, handed over by Volker, which show a prestigious invitation for Zelenskiy to visit the White House was dependent on him stating publicly that Ukraine would investigate the Bidens and a supposed Ukrainian role in the 2016 US election, a theory advanced in far-right conspiracy circles. (This is evidence that has been glossed over.)
    6 October Lawyers for the first whistleblower say they are now representing a second.
    8 October The state department prevents Gordon Sondland, US ambassador to the EU and a Trump donor, from testifying to a congressional impeachment hearing.
    The White House releases a letter refusing to cooperate with the impeachment inquiry, and accusing Democrats of trying to reverse the result of the 2016 election. (This is the basis of obstruction article of impeachment.)
    Click to expand...

    That's a very complete timeline, but it misses two very important (in my opinion) events.

    Sometime in May DOD completes an investigation and certifies that Ukraine has taken the required steps to address corruption in their country.
    May-July On at least 50 different occasions, the White House signed off on releasing the aid to Ukraine

    I think those two events are critical, because they show that the White House (if they bothered to read the reports) was aware that Ukraine had taken the required steps to address corruption, and that the White House (from May - July) was willing to release the aid. The idea that the White House was only concerned with corruption in Ukraine falls apart with these two events included.
     
    The moose said:
    Really why?

    They don't like happy women?

    Or is it they don't like women of color?

    Come on try just a bit to not look so racist.
    Click to expand...

    The threshold for you labeling someone a racist needs to be raised significantly.

    The significance of the video of Rashida Tlaib gleefully going to vote on impeachment is that it highlights the hypocrisy of the Democratic leadership, who have repeatedly claimed that this is a "somber" occasion.

    BTW, at the same time I posted the Tlaib video I posted in the media literacy thread a picture of a group of white journalists from the WaPo celebrating impeachment. I will post it here for easy reference.

    IKCui3B.jpg
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom