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

 

[cuddlemonkey]

There really is no right answer to be expected because it's just my opinion... and also my niece just got here and she's gonna stay a day or so... So I may not have time to give this my full attention.

I just find it funny what of all people Putin said:,
Putin said during an annual press conference that US Democrats were seeking to make up for their loss in the 2016 presidential elections “by other means”, ascribing the impeachment proceedings to political infighting.
“The Democratic party, which lost the elections, is achieving results through other means, by accusing Trump at first of conspiracy with Russia, then it turns out, there was no conspiracy at all,” Putin said during the marathon Q&A session in Moscow. “It then turned out that there was no collusion and it could not form the basis for an impeachment, and now there is this made-up pressure on Ukraine.”

I mean really.. When the leader of a foreign country sees it exactly the same way that I do... I am sure that other world leaders do it.. It could not be any more clear whats going on...

I don’t think you realize just how close you are, Joe.

 

[Beach Friends]

Trump was invited to testify before the fact witnesses by Pelosi:

Democrats invite Trump to testify in impeachment inquiry

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited President Donald Trump to testify in front of investigators in the House impeachment inquiry ahead of a week that will see several key witnesses appear publicly.

www.pbs.org

And then later by the Judiciary Committee:

Democrats invite Trump to testify in December impeachment inquiry

The US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee on Tuesday (26 November) invited President Donald Trump to its first impeachment hearing, scheduled for 4 December, starting a new phase of the inquiry that could lead to formal charges against the president within weeks.

www.euractiv.com

So he had ample opportunity, but didn't take the opportunity, even via council, because it would've led him to perjury.

How gracious of them, lol.

What "defendant" would agree to a process where he doesn't get to participate in the questioning of witnesses but he is put under oath?

I can't believe you went to the effort to link articles to prove that they offered that insultingly dumb proposition. All you have done is demonstrated their bad faith.

 

[dtc]

There really is no right answer to be expected because it's just my opinion... and also my niece just got here and she's gonna stay a day or so... So I may not have time to give this my full attention.

I just find it funny what of all people Putin said:,
Putin said during an annual press conference that US Democrats were seeking to make up for their loss in the 2016 presidential elections “by other means”, ascribing the impeachment proceedings to political infighting.
“The Democratic party, which lost the elections, is achieving results through other means, by accusing Trump at first of conspiracy with Russia, then it turns out, there was no conspiracy at all,” Putin said during the marathon Q&A session in Moscow. “It then turned out that there was no collusion and it could not form the basis for an impeachment, and now there is this made-up pressure on Ukraine.”

I mean really.. When the leader of a foreign country sees it exactly the same way that I do... I am sure that other world leaders do it.. It could not be any more clear whats going on...

When that leader is your enemy and you agree with him, you might want to rethink your loyalty. Furthermore, one who chastised Kapernick for disrespecting the flag ought to consider what siding with your enemy means for your patriotism.

 

[dtc]

It was the judgement of the body that there was not sufficient evidence to charge him with anything.
Your last sentence is a pipe dream. Hope it's legal where you are.

This is simply not true.

 

[LonghornSaint]

How gracious of them, lol.

What "defendant" would agree to a process where he doesn't get to participate in the questioning of witnesses but he is put under oath?

I can't believe you went to the effort to link articles to prove that they offered that insultingly dumb proposition. All you have done is demonstrated their bad faith.

In what court is a defendant ever allowed to cross examine a witness? If he was actually innocent, this was a golden opportunity for Trump to clear things up once and for all, but he declined. Why?

 

[MT15]

Okay - so it was on the question of obstruction of justice not on the question of collusion, which is what I thought the topic was. I think the impeachment speaks to that. No obstruction of justice articles filed at all - whether with respect to the Mueller investigation or to the Ukraine phone call investigation. So the President is clearly innocent on both.

this is not true and as a lawyer you should know better. Why do all people attempting to defend Trump end up untethered from the truth or at least the facts? It’s fascinating actually.

Archie claims that the Mueller report shows there was zero evidence against Trump, when it clearly shows that there wasn’t enough to prove guilt, which isn’t the same thing as zero evidence at all. Mueller was also careful to make the point that there were witnesses who lied and refused to cooperate, and that evidence was destroyed, and that these actions impeded his ability to investigate.

and now you are trying to say that just because charges weren’t brought it means the person investigated was innocent. honestly, I hope that statement was a troll.

 

[SaintForLife]

Sorry I missed this earlier. Running errands and responding from my phone led me to mentally bookmark this comment, then promptly forget said bookmark.

My answer is that it doesn't matter. This is a thread about Trump and the current impeachment proceedings, not about the guy that left office 3 years ago. Whataboutism has no place in this discussion. If you want to discuss Obama and his administration's dealings with Congress, feel free to start a thread about it.

Translation: Don't examine whether I apply my principles consistently.

Since many around here like to throw out Russia, it's ironic that you are using a Russian propaganda technique.

 

[MT15]

I hate to break it to you, he’s not using whataboutism, he’s saying you are.

 

[SaintForLife]

I hate to break it to you, he’s not using whataboutism, he’s saying you are.

Accusing someone of whataboutism is a Russian propaganda technique. It's very popular among the left nowadays to cover up their hypocrisy and distract from the issue at hand. I would think you of all people would smell the Russian on him from a mile away.

 

[Beach Friends]

In what court is a defendant ever allowed to cross examine a witness? If he was actually innocent, this was a golden opportunity for Trump to clear things up once and for all, but he declined. Why?

What the actual .....?

Do you even Sixth Amendment, bro? Seriously, the confrontation clause ... is any of this ringing a bell?

 

[samiam5211]

Accusing someone of whataboutism is a Russian propaganda technique. It's very popular among the left nowadays to cover up their hypocrisy and distract from the issue at hand. I would think you of all people would smell the Russian on him from a mile away.

It feels like everyone has been taking crazy pills.

Whataboutism is the Russian propaganda technique. You really are down the rabbit hole.

 

[MT15]

Lol, he removed his citation that said that whataboutism is a Russian propaganda technique so that he could say that no, accusing someone of whataboutism is a Russian propaganda technique.

dear lord, do they even hear themselves any longer? It’s patently ridiculous at this point.

he uses whataboutism, gets politely reminded that he is using whataboutism, and then he goes all indignant, accuses someone of being a Russian agent, and cites a source that says the opposite of what he thinks it says.

I read a term, I’ll have to go look it up now, about what happens to people who follow a malignant narcissist.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

There really is no right answer to be expected because it's just my opinion... and also my niece just got here and she's gonna stay a day or so... So I may not have time to give this my full attention.

That's fine, but it makes it hard to engage with you because you seem to regularly disappear from threads when asked questions. What I had in mind was a couple of short back and forth questions over the course of an hour.

I just find it funny what of all people Putin said:,
Putin said during an annual press conference that US Democrats were seeking to make up for their loss in the 2016 presidential elections “by other means”, ascribing the impeachment proceedings to political infighting.
“The Democratic party, which lost the elections, is achieving results through other means, by accusing Trump at first of conspiracy with Russia, then it turns out, there was no conspiracy at all,” Putin said during the marathon Q&A session in Moscow. “It then turned out that there was no collusion and it could not form the basis for an impeachment, and now there is this made-up pressure on Ukraine.”

I mean really.. When the leader of a foreign country sees it exactly the same way that I do... I am sure that other world leaders do it.. It could not be any more clear whats going on...

Joe, Putin is the guy accused of orchestrating the campaign against the US election cycle. Why do you think he's a trustworthy source to listen to?

 

[wardorican]

There really is no right answer to be expected because it's just my opinion... and also my niece just got here and she's gonna stay a day or so... So I may not have time to give this my full attention.

I just find it funny what of all people Putin said:,
Putin said during an annual press conference that US Democrats were seeking to make up for their loss in the 2016 presidential elections “by other means”, ascribing the impeachment proceedings to political infighting.
“The Democratic party, which lost the elections, is achieving results through other means, by accusing Trump at first of conspiracy with Russia, then it turns out, there was no conspiracy at all,” Putin said during the marathon Q&A session in Moscow. “It then turned out that there was no collusion and it could not form the basis for an impeachment, and now there is this made-up pressure on Ukraine.”

I mean really.. When the leader of a foreign country sees it exactly the same way that I do... I am sure that other world leaders do it.. It could not be any more clear whats going on...

That could also mean his propaganda campaign is working well.

 

[wardorican]

In what court is a defendant ever allowed to cross examine a witness? If he was actually innocent, this was a golden opportunity for Trump to clear things up once and for all, but he declined. Why?

Umm... all courts. The defendant or their lawyer.

However, he's not a defendant yet at the impeachment phase (we are past that now, but we are talking about the past). However, he could have laid the foundation to his case directly or via the house republicans by offering folks in his inner circle to confirm the small defense they had.

It seems overwhelmingly that those folks would have had to perjure themselves to do that. Not sure there is any evidence stating they needed to reevaluate Ukraine due to their election before sending aid. One department memo/e-mail would have shut this down.

Wouldn't you send that as evidence early?

 

[Lapaz]

How gracious of them, lol.

What "defendant" would agree to a process where he doesn't get to participate in the questioning of witnesses but he is put under oath?

I can't believe you went to the effort to link articles to prove that they offered that insultingly dumb proposition. All you have done is demonstrated their bad faith.

What on earth are you talking about? His council WAS invited to question witnesses. TRUMP could've testified himself, just like Clinton did. TRUMP has never testified, because he only knows how to lie. Some of you complain about lack of links, and then can't believe that a link is provided. Speaking of bad faith, nothing anyone says or proves matters to some of you.

 

[Beach Friends]

What on earth are you talking about? His council WAS invited to question witnesses. TRUMP could've testified himself, just like Clinton did. TRUMP has never testified, because he only knows how to lie. Some of you complain about lack of links, and then can't believe that a link is provided. Speaking of bad faith, nothing anyone says or proves matters to some of you.

If you read my posts you will know exactly what I am talking about. I specifically said that my recollection was that the first time the POTUS was invited to participate in the examination of witnesses was when the Democrtats had their day of having law professors testify. This was AFTER the fact witnesses testified.

I also mocked the suggestion that a defendant should play along with a proceeding where he was placed under oath, but did not afford him the opportunity to cross examine witnesses.

It's not that I had a problem with you linking articles, but rather that you apparently did not read them.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Accusing someone of whataboutism is a Russian propaganda technique. It's very popular among the left nowadays to cover up their hypocrisy and distract from the issue at hand. I would think you of all people would smell the Russian on him from a mile away.

Actually, engaging in whataboutism is a popular Russian technique.

Russia Complained About Western Double Standards During the Last Crimean War Too

I like to imagine that British historian Orlando Figes is having a good time this month remembering all the people back in 2012 who questioned why he...

slate.com

Trump Embraces One Of Russia's Favorite Propaganda Tactics — Whataboutism

What's the easiest way to swing back at critics? For Trump (as well as Putin), it's to cry "hypocrite."

www.npr.org

Joe admitted to siding with Putin's viewpoint. You are engaging in Russian propaganda techniques. If there was any level of self awareness, you guys would realize this, but you don't.