The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (1 Viewer)

[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

 

[samiam5211]

Um, the DOJ that used the Steele dossier to spy on a person with connections to the Trump campaign was part of a Democratic Administration.

Do you believe that the fraudulently gotten FISA on Page substantively contributed to the findings of the investigation?

 

[coldseat]

What's hilarious is... You are making my point completely.... I know what I believe, I don't need help being told how I feel... LOL

This is exactly what every ardent Trump Supporter I come in contact with says also... just have to replace "this is the exact reaction that Republicans want you to have to all of this"... with "this is the exact reaction that Democrats want you to have to all of this"... and replace "this is the reaction that Russian interference in the 2016 election was intended illicit"..... with "this is the reaction that the Russian Hoax in the 2016 election was intended illicit".

It's almost verbatim.... thanks, I'm going to show this to my brother-in-law for a good laugh over the holidays.

And you're incapable of differentiating between the two.

I'm going to have a good laugh too now, have a good holidays.

 

[JimEverett]

Do you believe that the fraudulently gotten FISA on Page substantively contributed to the findings of the investigation?

At this point, I do not know. I will wait for the criminal investigation to conclude.

 

[Lapaz]

Um, the DOJ that used the Steele dossier to spy on a person with connections to the Trump campaign was part of a Democratic Administration.

The FBI and FISA courts operate autonomously. Do you have proof that Obama influenced the FISA decision? I know Obama didn’t publicize it to keep it apolitical, because McConnell didn’t support announcing it. Also Horowitz, who is part of the Trump administration, concluded that FISA made the correct decision to approve the surveillance. Also, you can’t ignore the results which have shown vast corruption, so the suspicion was warranted.

 

[Lapaz]

What's hilarious is... You are making my point completely.... I know what I believe, I don't need help being told how I feel... LOL

This is exactly what every ardent Trump Supporter I come in contact with says also... just have to replace "this is the exact reaction that Republicans want you to have to all of this"... with "this is the exact reaction that Democrats want you to have to all of this"... and replace "this is the reaction that Russian interference in the 2016 election was intended illicit"..... with "this is the reaction that the Russian Hoax in the 2016 election was intended illicit".

It's almost verbatim.... thanks, I'm going to show this to my brother-in-law for a good laugh over the holidays.

Fine, we’re partisan Democrats, but we ask you for the basis of your opinions, rather than rants. You simply laughing LOL has no substance. How about discussing the merits of your position instead of saying a pox on all of your houses?

 

[Infoman]

Di you believe Horowitz when he says that bias did not impact the findings of the Russia investigation?

LOL... That's not what he said in interviews... I watched them... I know you watched them... He "tip-toed" around it... and stopped short of saying it's bias... because "we couldn't reach a conclusion"... which is BS... LOL

 

[samiam5211]

LOL... That's not what he said in interviews... I watched them... I know you watched them... He "tip-toed" around it... and stopped short of saying it's bias... because "we couldn't reach a conclusion"... which is BS... LOL

Sounds exactly like Mueller about collusion.

Do you think “no collusion” is BS?

 

[Infoman]

And you're incapable of differentiating between the two.

I'm going to have a good laugh too now, have a good holidays.

That's because there is no difference... The reality right now is... Truth in politics has now become what side you want to believe... and Both sides are a bunch of damn liars... LOL

Same to you...

 

[Infoman]

Fine, we’re partisan Democrats, but we ask you for the basis of your opinions, rather than rants. You simply laughing LOL has no substance. How about discussing the merits of your position instead of saying a pox on all of your houses?

My position has been stated... screw both sides... I want a new one... The merit behind it is... No more partisan do nothing high stakes games of charades... More government for the people, and by the people... and Less government for Power, and vote farming of the people.... Less grandstanding, slight of hand, and distracting, polarizing, and divisive drama... and more doing your job.... How's that?

 

[RobF]

This is what she said about it:

"The Hawaii Democrat said in a statement that she wanted to "make a stand for the center." She said her conscience wouldn't let her vote against impeachment, because she believes Trump "is guilty of wrongdoing," but she "also could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting president must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country." "

The part I bolded is a really bad take on her part.

A President who is guilty of wrongdoing must be impeached. But by her reasoning, a President whose own party acts in a partisan and tribal manner, cannot be impeached no matter what they do; if one party refuses to take part in the process in good faith, the process will inherently be one-sided no matter what the other party do. But this reasoning then makes it impossible to impeach a President guilty of wrongdoing in those circumstances. And that's not OK.

If she thinks Trump is guilty of wrongdoing, as she says, she should, objectively, be voting for impeachment. That's her duty. That other people will wrongly misrepresent this as partisan is not a reason for her to do the wrong thing and refuse to do her duty. The blame for the situation lies on the President who committed the wrongdoing in the first place; those performing their duty in holding him to account should be supported in doing so.

 

[Infoman]

Do you think “no collusion” is BS?

I think I have made it very clear that every aspect of this has been BS since 1 day... Every aspect.

 

[JimEverett]

The part I bolded is a really bad take on her part.

A President who is guilty of wrongdoing must be impeached. But by her reasoning, a President whose own party acts in a partisan and tribal manner, cannot be impeached no matter what they do; if one party refuses to take part in the process in good faith, the process will inherently be one-sided no matter what the other party do. But this reasoning then makes it impossible to impeach a President guilty of wrongdoing in those circumstances. And that's not OK.

If she thinks Trump is guilty of wrongdoing, as she says, she should, objectively, be voting for impeachment. That's her duty. That other people will wrongly misrepresent this as partisan is not a reason for her to do the wrong thing and refuse to do her duty. The blame for the situation lies on the President who committed the wrongdoing in the first place; those performing their duty in holding him to account should be supported in doing so.

I don't know Tulsi Gabbard very well, but I really doubt your take on the meaning of her words is actually what she means. A more fair reading would be that the entire process smells of a pure political play: it was rushed through (for what, who knows, and now it is apparently in delay????); its weak - having no actual criminal charges; and the intelligence committee hearings lacked any semblance of a bi-partisan nature. And I imagine she would have criticisms of the way Republicans have behaved as well.
Whether you agree with that or not, I think that is probably more in the realm of what she meant as opposed to something like you can never impeach a President of a party that does not operate in good faith.

 

[JimEverett]

I think I have made it very clear that every aspect of this has been BS since 1 day...

Bob Mueller agrees with you.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Di you believe Horowitz when he says that bias did not impact the findings of the Russia investigation?

Horowitz Pushes Back on Claim that He Exonerated FBI of Political Bias: ‘We Did Not Reach that Conclusion’ | National Review

Michael Horowitz clarified that his investigation into the FBI’s FISA abuses ‘did not reach’ the conclusion that the bureau was unaffected by bias.

www.nationalreview.com

But under questioning from Senator Josh Hawley (R., Mo.), Horowitz explained his investigation did leave the door open to possible political bias because his team could not accept the explanations FBI members gave on why there were “so many errors” in their investigation.

“We have been very careful in the connection with the FISA’s for the reasons you mentioned to not reach that conclusion,” Horowitz told Hawley. “As we’ve talked about earlier — the alteration of the email, the text messages associated with the individual who did that, and our inability to explain or understand, to get good explanations so that we could understand why this all happened.”

 

[Archies Ghost]

Sounds exactly like Mueller about collusion.

Do you think “no collusion” is BS?

Actually one found no evidence of the crime being investigated and the other found 50+ "crimes" but could not reach a conclusion on the motivation for the violations due to lack of documentary or testimonial evidence.

Important difference to anyone objective.

 

[samiam5211]

Actually one found no evidence of the crime being investigated and the other found 50+ "crimes" but could not reach a conclusion on the motivation for the violations due to lack of documentary or testimonial evidence.

Important difference to anyone objective.

Mueller did not say he found no evidence of collusion.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Mueller did not say he found no evidence of collusion.

No, He said "We did not address ‘collusion,’ which is not a legal term. Rather, we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy. It was not. "

Insufficient to charge is a pretty low bar, basically no evidence of the crime exists, much less trying to get a conviction.

Of course, you will (have) twisted that in your own mind into "we found plenty of evidence of an incredible range of crimes but we were just a few millimeters short of absolute proof so we gave up"

 

[coldseat]

How do you attain this:

the intelligence committee hearings lacked any semblance of a bi-partisan nature.

If this is occurring:

a President of a party that does not operate in good faith.

That's the flaw in the rational. Yes, we'd all like a bi-partisan approach. It was never going to happen. Do you just give up at that point and let whatever happened go? As if it means nothing or that because there isn't bi-partisanship, Trump can't be held accountable?