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

 

[Saintamaniac]

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?

This is simply a lie that is being repeated by trump supporters. I don't care how many times you say it, trump says it or Barr says it. It is a lie.

 

[Intensesaint]

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.

That made me laugh, probably more accurate lol

 

[Intensesaint]

This is simply a lie that is being repeated by trump supporters. I don't care how many times you say it, trump says it or Barr says it. It is a lie.

Just because you say it's a lie doesn't make it a lie, you are lying yourself.

 

[Beach Friends]

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.

Hah, he was ranting about all kinds of crap that doesn't have anything to do with the articles of impeachment. I just pointed out he missed one, which was so important that members of Congress wanted to pursue it.

If you don't see the connection, I am sorry but that doesn't mean there isn't one.

 

[wardorican]

The investigations

Grand jury testimony isn't aired publicly.
I don;t know the answer to your second question. But I would note that when you set the rules with little or no input from the minority then claiming that the President's refusal to partake in the process amounts to proof of his guilty. because "he could prove his innocence" is a big problem imo. Really, even without the partisan nature of rules making the argument would be a terrible argument to make

weren't public either until Republicans kept complaining about it being a secret... a secret like 25% were invited to.

 

[dtc]

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.

40% of the country agrees with you. Not half. Nowhere hear half.

Putin and you are expressing the same views. Other world leaders absolutely do not share those views.

Putin interfered with our elections and is our enemy. You agree with him about Trump when nobody else does except other Trump fans.

Does that not make you consider whether you're taking the right side?

 

[JimEverett]

The investigations

weren't public either until Republicans kept complaining about it being a secret... a secret like 25% were invited to.

But wasn't testimony, or at least part of testimony, being sent/leaked to the press during the "secret" proceedings?

 

[wardorican]

But wasn't testimony, or at least part of testimony, being sent/leaked to the press during the "secret" proceedings?

I didn't classify them as secret. Just stating what Republicans said. Anyway, public or private doesnt change the nature of I investigative phases usually not involving cross examination. Can you name me an instance?

Due process always exists to some level, but it is usually not in full force until deprived of something or the threat of it. Investigations don't allow confrontation of witnesses, cross examination, etc. Trial does.

Please, correct me where I am wrong vs trying to hang on to side arguments.

 

[Joe Okc]

You agree with him about Trump when nobody else does except other Trump fans.

No Sir.. We are agreeing that the Democrats are doing this to overturn the election.. and because the chances are very good that he'd get re-elected.

You don't have to like Trump or Hate him just to see clearly the Democrats game plan here...

You also said this: Other world leaders absolutely do not share those views.

got any links to where any other world leaders have spoken up on their thoughts on the Impeachment and The democrats.. Cause I should would like to see them.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

No Sir.. We are agreeing that the Democrats are doing this to overturn the election

Republicans and Putin are using the same talking points. Is there any part of this that causes you to stop and reevaluate?

 

[Lapaz]

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?

First of all, V Chip asked about why you are complaining about lack of cross examination, when Hillary didn't get that in Benghazi investigations, etc.
With respect to your response, Fast and Furious was a screw up, but Trump and his administration have been defending it. I don't know what you're talking about in the rest. What investigation of political rivals? Trump wasn't Obama's rival, and the investigation remained secret. The spying was justified. It would've been malpractice not to wiretap the criminals surrounding Trump. What pressuring of other countries to drop investigations of torture? I believe Obama stopped some of Bush's torture practices.

 

[Optimus Prime]

From Jeff Flake
===============

To my former Senate Republican colleagues,

I don’t envy you.

It might not be fair, but none of the successes, achievements and triumphs you’ve had in public office — whatever bills you’ve passed, hearings you’ve chaired, constituents you have had the privilege of helping — will matter more than your actions in the coming months.

President Trump is on trial. But in a very real sense, so are you. And so is the political party to which we belong.........

Nearly all of you condemned the president’s behavior during the 2016 campaign. Nearly all of you refused to campaign with him.

You knew then that doing so would be wrong — would be a stain on your reputation and the standing of the Republican Party, and would do lasting damage to the conservative cause.

Ask yourself today: Has the president changed his behavior? Has he grown in office? Has the mantle of the presidency altered his conduct?

The answer is obvious. In fact, if the president’s political rally in Michigan on Wednesday is any measure, his language has only become more vulgar, his performance cruder, his behavior more boorish and unstable.

Next, ask yourself: If the president’s conduct hasn’t changed, has mine? Before President Trump came on the scene, would I have stood at a rally and cheered while supporters shouted “lock her up” or “send them back”?

Would I have laughed along while the president demeaned and ridiculed my colleagues? Would I have ever thought to warm up the crowd for the president by saying of the House speaker: “It must suck to be that dumb”?...........

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/jeff-flake-the-president-is-on-trial-so-are-my-senate-republican-colleagues/2019/12/20/5446c930-236b-11ea-86f3-3b5019d451db_story.html

 

[dtc]

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.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do not realize you are saying what Putin wants you to say and growing lines of attack against the very fabric of our nation the seeds of which were planted by Putin.

 

[Joe Okc]

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you do not realize you are saying what Putin wants you to say and growing lines of attack against the very fabric of our nation the seeds of which were planted by Putin.

For crying out loud. Are you guys gonna continue to blame everything on Russia. You need to just own up to the fact that it's just simply the Democrats didn't field a decent candidate in 2016, and it's not looking much better in 2020.

 

[Slackermod]

Can we cool it on calling each other liars? If you say something is a lie, provide proof. Likewise if you employ the snappy comeback, “I know you are, but what am I?” provide proof.

Also, lying requires knowledge of something being false. So, be extremely careful when using this term about a fellow poster on this board. We should assume good intent and assume that everyone is discussing in good faith. If you suspect someone is NOT operating in good faith please refer it to moderation. Don’t respond in kind.

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[Intensesaint]

It's a silly game but you realize many of the Democrats who are pursuing impeachment now, castigated republicans during the Clinton impeachment as well? Saying republicans were attempting to overturn the will of the people and the election.

 

[V Chip]

58 Democratic House members literally voted to advance impeachment proceedings on those grounds.

Oh dear.

"Literally voted to advance impeachment proceedings on those grounds [being mean to Colin Kaepernick]" is complete hogwash.

First off, the vote wasn't for advancing impeachment proceedings, it was *against* tabling the resolution. Tabling the measure would stop all discussions on any parts of it, and 58 people voted for the discussions to remain open. It's not the same as voting to advance impeachment.

Second, "on those grounds" is incorrect, as the language of the resolution never once mentioned Kaepernick nor made any reference to him or his situation at all. The closest would be that one of the articles had a paragraph that read

"On September 23, 2017, Donald John Trump made a public statement substantially as follows: “Wouldn’t you love to see one of these NFL owners, when somebody disrespects our flag, to say, ‘Get that son of a b-i-t-c-h off the field right now, out, he’s fired? He's fired!’” thereby casting contempt on professional football players who engaged in constitutionally protected protests pertaining to allegations of police misconduct with regard to racial minorities, as well as casting contempt on the professional players’ mothers by calling the mothers “b-i-t-c-h-e-s”, effectively calling these mothers dogs, thereby inciting hate and hostility, and sowing discord among the people of the United States on the basis of race and gender.

The whole resolution mentions many more items than just this one, so casting the whole resolution as "literally ... on those grounds" regarding Kaepernick shows an ignorance of what the resolution actually contained, of the definition of "literally," of the parliamentary procedure of voting on tabling a resolution, and of what constitutes "impeachment proceedings."