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

 

[wardorican]

Oh well, that changes everything.

You're the one that brought up their whitness... for whatever reason.

 

[wardorican]

Not going lock step with group think is now considered unprincipled? Wow

She could have just voted against it, then.

 

[wardorican]

I agree in part, but this is just a cop out. She, like many politicians, doesnt want to be tied to a decision. Classic having cake and eating it to. You can either possess it or eat/use it.

 

[JimEverett]

How do you attain this:



If this is occurring:



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?

Isn't that what the Democrats did - just gave up and in actual fact - letting it go?
I mean they haven't put forth much effort at all in getting first-hand accounts of the issue in question. And for months it was "we have to hurry for . . . ." and now they are putting it in delay? None of that makes sense if the impeachment is being done on good faith.
Even if they "know" the Republicans are not going to act in good faith - it makes no sense to do what they are doing unless you view it as a partisan political play.

I

 

[JimEverett]

I agree in part, but this is just a cop out. She, like many politicians, doesnt want to be tied to a decision. Classic having cake and eating it to. You can either possess it or eat/use it.

I think that is a more fair criticism. You either think what is on the record is worthy of impeachment or you don't

 

[BobE]

 

[JimEverett]

And the circus continues. LOL

 

[Beach Friends]

You're the one that brought up their whitness... for whatever reason.

The relevance was clear.

 

[Lapaz]

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?

Obviously you’re not interested in discussion.

Isn't that what the Democrats did - just gave up and in actual fact - letting it go?
I mean they haven't put forth much effort at all in getting first-hand accounts of the issue in question. And for months it was "we have to hurry for . . . ." and now they are putting it in delay? None of that makes sense if the impeachment is being done on good faith.
Even if they "know" the Republicans are not going to act in good faith - it makes no sense to do what they are doing unless you view it as a partisan political play.

I

I think the urgency to impeach was warranted to at least put it on the record that the behavior was wrong and force a vote on that behavior. It would be good for the Republic to vote him out, but since the senate refuses to pursue a fair trial, and thus that won’t happen, then it is more valuable to wait for the courts to rule. The impeachment is now on record, which is stronger than a censure, and it gives the House a basis to continue to pursue more evidence and even issue more articles. The House knows that that would be impractical politically once it is out of their hands.

 

[MT15]

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"

Mueller specifically did not say that no evidence of crime existed. That’s a pretty big leap there. He did say if he could say the president didn’t commit a crime, he would. You may remember that statement....

 

[JimEverett]

Mueller specifically did not say that no evidence of crime existed. That’s a pretty big leap there. He did say if he could say the president didn’t commit a crime, he would. You may remember that statement....

That is a weird way of looking at it.

It sounds like Pelosi saying they gave the President a chance to prove his innocence.

 

[coldseat]

Isn't that what the Democrats did - just gave up and in actual fact - letting it go?
I mean they haven't put forth much effort at all in getting first-hand accounts of the issue in question. And for months it was "we have to hurry for . . . ." and now they are putting it in delay? None of that makes sense if the impeachment is being done on good faith.
Even if they "know" the Republicans are not going to act in good faith - it makes no sense to do what they are doing unless you view it as a partisan political play.

That doesn't answer the question I asked, it evades the question. I think because you know there is no good answer

I don't think passing Impeachment, even on a partisan vote, qualifies as "letting it go." They've said they took this course because they were not going to play the WH game of obstruction. You don't need to accept that answer and can think what you want, but they certainly didn't let it go.

 

[JimEverett]

That doesn't answer the question I asked, it evades the question. I think because you know there is no good answer

I don't think passing Impeachment, even on a partisan vote, qualifies as "letting it go." They've said they took this course because they were not going to play the WH game of obstruction. You don't need to accept that answer and can think what you want, but they certainly didn't let it go.

There you go again, telling me what it is I am thinking.
I really don't know what you are talking about. I don't think I evaded the question


If the Democrats are acting on good faith then:
Regardless of whether the Republicans are acting in good faith or not, and regardless if the Democrats think they can get Republican votes or not - you prove your case. You subpoena anyone and everyone that might have had first hand information on the issue. You fight privilege claims in Court. You do what any good investigation does when it is trying to prove guilt - you follow the evidence and prove your case.
That is not what has been done.

 

[coldseat]

There you go again, telling me what it is I am thinking.
I really don't know what you are talking about. I don't think I evaded the question


If the Democrats are acting on good faith then:
Regardless of whether the Republicans are acting in good faith or not, and regardless if the Democrats think they can get Republican votes or not - you prove your case. You subpoena anyone and everyone that might have had first hand information on the issue. You fight privilege claims in Court. You do what any good investigation does when it is trying to prove guilt - you follow the evidence and prove your case.
That is not what has been done.

That's not what I asked you. Go back and reread the exchange.

I get that you have a preferred path that you very strongly feel that Democrats had to follow to make this a legitimate impeachment. You typed the same paragraph 50 times in this tread. But that's not was I was asking.

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.

 

[JimEverett]

That's not what I asked you. Go back and reread the exchange.

I get that you have a preferred path that you very strongly feel that Democrats had to follow to make this a legitimate impeachment. You typed the same paragraph 50 times in this tread. But that's not was I was asking.

Plenty of ways: set the rules of the intelligence hearing with input from minority, treat the process with the respect it deserves and not rush throught it, focus on the investigation - not soundbites that play well in the media, fight for witness testimony from people with potential first-hand knowledge and otherwise gather evidence that might put pressure on segments of Republican voters and theteby put pressure on Congressional members representing "purple" areas, stop saying you are giving the President an opportunity to prove his innocence, etc., etc., etc.

 

[Beach Friends]

Someone here said that Nancy owned the news cycle. Yep, I am sure the American public can rest easy with her plan:

 

[dtc]

There you go again, telling me what it is I am thinking.
I really don't know what you are talking about. I don't think I evaded the question


If the Democrats are acting on good faith then:
Regardless of whether the Republicans are acting in good faith or not, and regardless if the Democrats think they can get Republican votes or not - you prove your case. You subpoena anyone and everyone that might have had first hand information on the issue. You fight privilege claims in Court. You do what any good investigation does when it is trying to prove guilt - you follow the evidence and prove your case.
That is not what has been done.

Aren't you a lawyer?

I ask because they're not proving guilt. They were handed proof of obstruction by the POTUS and his refusal to testify or to allow anyone with whom he'd ever shared a square mile of airspace to testify.

They could have fought this for a year through the courts or used the direct evidence of obstruction provided during the process. Short and sweet. Air freaking tight.

 

[Lapaz]

There you go again, telling me what it is I am thinking.
I really don't know what you are talking about. I don't think I evaded the question


If the Democrats are acting on good faith then:
Regardless of whether the Republicans are acting in good faith or not, and regardless if the Democrats think they can get Republican votes or not - you prove your case. You subpoena anyone and everyone that might have had first hand information on the issue. You fight privilege claims in Court. You do what any good investigation does when it is trying to prove guilt - you follow the evidence and prove your case.
That is not what has been done.

It wasn't realistic nor practical to wait, while Trump feels there is nothing wrong with continuing to seek other countries to undermine our elections. How long do you think it would've taken to get through the appeals and then supreme court rulings? If the democrats had waited, then no one would've taken a vote on the record about whether he's doing the wrong or right thing until it was almost election time. The impeachment in the House alone isn't the ideal justice, but it is a measure of justice. If the democrats had not done this first step towards justice, then Trump would've drawn this out in the courts until the election or very close to it. What if the impeachment and removal actually occurred before and near the election, then Republicans wouldn't have time to put forth a candidate. That would also be bad for the republic.