The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (5 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

 

[JimEverett]

So where the hell were all of the “person being investigated needs to have the opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses” people during the Benghazi hearings, or the “her emails” hearings, or during the Clinton impeachment?

Right. Right.

Wait - logical fallacy, right?
Or am I supposed to say where were all the people talking about ignoring subpoenas, investigating political rivals, getting political benefits from pressuring foreign leaders during: Fast and Furious, the 2016 spying on people close to the Trump campaign, and Obama's pressuring countries to drop investigations into U.S. torture?

 

[V Chip]

Wait - logical fallacy, right?
Or am I supposed to say where were all the people talking about ignoring subpoenas, investigating political rivals, getting political benefits from pressuring foreign leaders during: Fast and Furious, the 2016 spying on people close to the Trump campaign, and Obama's pressuring countries to drop investigations into U.S. torture?

Funny, there were people who claimed those were politically motivated. There were people who talked about obstruction and ignoring subpoenas (even on both sides). Believe it or not, left wing people were not happy with Obama’s pressuring regarding torture. There were liberals who (gasp!) thought although the Ken Starr investigation was entirely political, that Clinton’s impeachment was justified based in what he actually did. Some liberals were even upset with the idea that he had sex with a subordinate and think he is a dirtbag sexual predator. But nice try at being snarky yet again instead of actually addressing the point.

Yet I don’t recall this particular line of defense used at any time prior regarding investigations. I don’t remember Clinton defenders demanding he be allowed to cross-examine the witnesses personally. I don’t recall investigations being called witch hunt because Hillary wasn’t allowed to face her accusers directly or cross examine the people at Wikileaks for the hack of the server. Feel free to correct me (or ignore the point as you are wont to do) but I can’t find that defense being used and definitely not by the same people who are using it now.

 

[JimEverett]

Funny, there were people who claimed those were politically motivated. There were people who talked about obstruction and ignoring subpoenas (even on both sides). Believe it or not, left wing people were not happy with Obama’s pressuring regarding torture. There were liberals who (gasp!) thought although the Ken Starr investigation was entirely political, that Clinton’s impeachment was justified based in what he actually did. Some liberals were even upset with the idea that he had sex with a subordinate and think he is a dirtbag sexual predator. But nice try at being snarky yet again instead of actually addressing the point.

Really - what Democrat or liberal was calling for impeaching Obama over those things?

 

[Beach Friends]

So where the hell were all of the “person being investigated needs to have the opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses” ... during the Clinton impeachment?

Right. Right.

Which witnesses were examined by the House during the Clinton impeachment that this issue could have been raised, but it was not?

 

[dtc]

Correct. I get opposition to whataboutism, but in the legal world precedence matters. Can you imagine citing caselaw to a judge and the court telling you "stop your whataboutism?"

Anyone who has paid attention to the debates over impeachment knows that history is especially important when it comes to impeachment That's one of the biggest concerns with setting a bar so low. We don't want to end up having in effect a vote of no condfidence.

I find it amusing that your argument is that the bar for impeachment with regard to Trump is "Set so low"

I just can't fathom the notion that you don't find his actions, words and behavior unacceptable. Lying on his twitter feed which is an official communication of the POTUS would be enough in my mind. His blatant incitements to violence at rallies is criminal. Offering to reward someone financially for violence against a protestor would get a mobster locked up. And then there's the campaign finance, scam universities, charitable organization's crimes and on and on and on.

Removal is too good for him. He should never have been elected. Given that the side that elected him is the same that impeached Clinton for lying and denigrating the office of POTUS, it's flat out impossible for me to reconcile how far Republicans have moved.

 

[dtc]

Really - what Democrat or liberal was calling for impeaching Obama over those things?

Me.

 

[Beach Friends]

I find it amusing that your argument is that the bar for impeachment with regard to Trump is "Set so low"

I just can't fathom the notion that you don't find his actions, words and behavior unacceptable. Lying on his twitter feed which is an official communication of the POTUS would be enough in my mind. His blatant incitements to violence at rallies is criminal. Offering to reward someone financially for violence against a protestor would get a mobster locked up. And then there's the campaign finance, scam universities, charitable organization's crimes and on and on and on.

Removal is too good for him. He should never have been elected. Given that the side that elected him is the same that impeached Clinton for lying and denigrating the office of POTUS, it's flat out impossible for me to reconcile how far Republicans have moved.

He was also mean to Colin Kaepernick. Don't forget that.

:trump:

 

[cuddlemonkey]

He was also mean to Colin Kaepernick. Don't forget that.

:trump:

If I may interject- I believe that was left out because this is a serious discussion, not a childish attempt to score points for one side.

 

[Beach Friends]

If I may interject- I believe that was left out because this is a serious discussion, not a childish attempt to score points for one side.

58 Democratic House members literally voted to advance impeachment proceedings on those grounds. I agree it was childish of them, but just because it's embarrassing to the Democratic party doesn't mean I should not bring it up, or point and laugh for that matter.

 

[Joe Okc]

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.

He was also mean to Colin Kaepernick. Don't forget that.

:trump:

If I may interject- I believe that was left out because this is a serious discussion, not a childish attempt to score points for one side.

Doesn't look like it was left out to me... Nor the childish attempts to score points...

 

[dtc]

Doesn't look like it was left out to me... Nor the childish attempts to score points...

It is not a childish point to consider a person's criticism of another for disrespect to the flag as that same person takes the side of an authoritarian dictator and enemy of the country that flag represents.

I can't reconcile one with the other.

The flag is a symbol for all that we aspire to be and all that we have achieved. Vladimir Putin is the dictator of our historic foe. He has directly contributed to discord in this country and he cheers our internal disagreements. He uses them to his advantage as he does everything he can to damage our great nation.

He is our enemy and you are supporting him and his candidate. It makes no sense to me.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

58 Democratic House members literally voted to advance impeachment proceedings on those grounds. I agree it was childish of them, but just because it's embarrassing to the Democratic party doesn't mean I should not bring it up, or point and laugh for that matter.

Are any of those 58 posting here? Highly unlikely.

Someone offered a list of legitimate reasons to impeach Trump and you replied with a gross oversimplification in order to get a few high fives.

If you think it is worth discussing, bring it up like an adult. If you just want internet points, take it to the partisan boards.

 

[Beach Friends]

Are any of those 58 posting here? Highly unlikely.

Someone offered a list of legitimate reasons to impeach Trump and you replied with a gross oversimplification in order to get a few high fives.

If you think it is worth discussing, bring it up like an adult. If you just want internet points, take it to the partisan boards.

So, now politicians must post here before they can be criticized? That's going to limit discussion.

The point is that Democrats have been obsessed with impeachment since before the man even took office. They put themsleves in a position for us to use that to show their lack of credibility, and, like it or not, I am.

"Shut up" is not an effective argument.

 

[Joe Okc]

It is not a childish point to consider a person's criticism of another for disrespect to the flag as that same person takes the side of an authoritarian dictator and enemy of the country that flag represents.

I can't reconcile one with the other.

The flag is a symbol for all that we aspire to be and all that we have achieved. Vladimir Putin is the dictator of our historic foe. He has directly contributed to discord in this country and he cheers our internal disagreements. He uses them to his advantage as he does everything he can to damage our great nation.

He is our enemy and you are supporting him and his candidate. It makes no sense to me.

Where in all this am I siding with Putin??? Putin merely expressed what I have said all along. I am sure other world leaders are seeing the same way too... Half of America does.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

So, now politicians must post here before they can be criticized? That's going to limit discussion.

The point is that Democrats have been obsessed with impeachment since before the man even took office. They put themsleves in a position for us to use that to show their lack of credibility, and, like it or not, I am.

"Shut up" is not an effective argument.

You responded to someone's legitimate criticisms and reasons for supporting impeachment by dragging in comments made by other people who are not here. You chose to attack random politicians in Washington instead of engaging with the person to whom you replied. It's ridiculous trolling and we should all be above that sort of behavior.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Where in all this am I siding with Putin??? Putin merely expressed what I have said all along. I am sure other world leaders are seeing the same way too... Half of America does.

Americans siding with Putin's talking points doesn't make them valid. It simply means that those Americans are so tribal that they would rather listen to Vladimir Putin than an American Democrat.

 

[Joe Okc]

Americans siding with Putin's talking points doesn't make them valid. It simply means that those Americans are so tribal that they would rather listen to Vladimir Putin than an American Democrat.

What your not getting is this... Americans were saying this long before Putin uttered a word... So the bottom line Putin has no need for anything Republicans are saying it doesn't make any difference to him. Just calling out the Clear bullshirt.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Americans siding with Putin's talking points doesn't make them valid. It simply means that those Americans are so tribal that they would rather listen to Vladimir Putin than an American Democrat.

Even Putin, who wants division and discord in the US, realizes how dangerous a purely political US impeachment is to world stability.





Or he thought long and hard about what to say that would trigger the American Left the most.


One or the other. I can’t decide.