The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (34 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]

I do. I agree whole heartedly and I hope that the Ukrainian investigation is thorough, transparent and complete.

I have zero problem with Trump giving the Ukraine the green light. And just in case they don't already have it, I hope we forward to them a copy of the video where Biden bragged about having a Ukrainian prosecutor fired under threat of withholding aid. I think it would be great place to start.

What should happen if the investigation is not complete because the subject of the investigation (and their associates) obstruct the investigation?

 

[Lazybones]

How do you think the Mueller investigation turned out, exactly?

Mueller report: Read AG William Barr's summary of the Russia investigation

Congress got its first look at what special counsel Robert Mueller found after years investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and any possible collusion with President Donald Trump's campaign.

www.usatoday.com

“Special counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump and Russia, according to attorney general William Barr.
WOCHIT, USA TODAY”

 

[Lazybones]

What should happen if the investigation is not complete because the subject of the investigation (and their associates) obstruct the investigation?

The Ukrainian investigation? What is there to investigate? Many posters in the thread have detailed and open and shut case. How would it be possible, with all the weight of congress to no properly investigate something?

 

[V Chip]

Mueller report: Read AG William Barr's summary of the Russia investigation

Congress got its first look at what special counsel Robert Mueller found after years investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and any possible collusion with President Donald Trump's campaign.

www.usatoday.com

“Special counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump and Russia, according to attorney general William Barr.
WOCHIT, USA TODAY”

Emphasis mine.

 

[Lazybones]

Emphasis mine.

Please show me one credible source that says trump colluded with Russia

 

[Beach Friends]

What should happen if the investigation is not complete because the subject of the investigation (and their associates) obstruct the investigation?

I guess people will then act like there was nothing to it, like they do when they say, 'butter emails." But, let's hope that doesn't occur this time.

 

[V Chip]

Please show me one credible source that says trump colluded with Russia

First off, you just cited William Barr and then demand credible sources?

Second, "collusion" is not a legal term, as mentioned many times by Mueller in his testimony to Congress. He did not find sufficient evidence to charge Trump with criminal conspiracy.

That's a big difference from "no evidence of collusion" as Barr stated.

AP FACT CHECK: Trump, Barr distort Mueller report findings

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump and his team are still twisting the findings of the special counsel's report on the Russia investigation.

www.apnews.com

These 11 Mueller Report Myths Just Won’t Die

Here's why they're wrong

time.com

Myth: Mueller found “no collusion.”

Response: Mueller spent almost 200 pages describing “numerous links between the Russian government and the Trump Campaign.” He found that “a Russian entity carried out a social media campaign that favored presidential candidate Donald J. Trump and disparaged presidential candidate Hillary Clinton.” He also found that “a Russian intelligence service conducted computer-intrusion operations” against the Clinton campaign and then released stolen documents.

While Mueller was unable to establish a conspiracy between members of the Trump campaign and the Russians involved in this activity, he made it clear that “[a] statement that the investigation did not establish particular facts does not mean there was no evidence of those facts.” In fact, Mueller also wrote that the “investigation established that the Russian government perceived it would benefit from a Trump presidency and worked to secure that outcome, and that the Campaign expected it would benefit electorally from information stolen and released through Russian efforts.”

 

[Lazybones]

I don’t know what to say. Russia interfered with the election. Let’s say that is 100%true.

Please point to me where Donald trump and his campaign paid for or worked in conjunction with Russia to influence the election. If there was evidence, he would have been charged.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Mueller report: Read AG William Barr's summary of the Russia investigation

Congress got its first look at what special counsel Robert Mueller found after years investigating Russian interference in the 2016 election and any possible collusion with President Donald Trump's campaign.

www.usatoday.com

“Special counsel Robert Mueller found no evidence of collusion between President Donald Trump and Russia, according to attorney general William Barr.
WOCHIT, USA TODAY”

And what of the evidence Mueller and his team found of repeated instances of obstruction, a crime which Mueller said Trump could be charged if he were not the sitting president?

theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/24/robert-mueller-hearing-special-counsel-testifies-trump-russia

Mueller also acknowledged that a president could be prosecuted after he left office. The Republican congressman Ken Buck asked: “You believe that he committed … you could charge the president of the United States with obstruction of justice after he left office?”

Mueller replied: “Yes.”

These are the 10 episodes Mueller investigated for obstruction of justice

The list includes James Comey’s firing and Trump’s changing behavior toward Michael Cohen.

www.vox.com

Perhaps most explosively, Mueller said in the report that Trump’s “efforts to influence the investigation were mostly unsuccessful, but that is largely because the persons who surrounded the President declined to carry out orders or accede to his requests.”

Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map

The Mueller report describes numerous instances in which President Trump may have obstructed justice. A few days ago, I threw together a quick spreadsheet on Twitter to assess how Special Counsel Robert Mueller seemed to assess the evidence.

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[Beach Friends]

I do wonder how this will play out. Will the Democratic senators who are running for president choose to sit for weeks in a trial that we all know has no hopes in getting the 2/3 vote necessary?

Or will they admit it is futile and hit the campaign trail?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

The Ukrainian investigation? What is there to investigate? Many posters in the thread have detailed and open and shut case. How would it be possible, with all the weight of congress to no properly investigate something?

That's a cop out. If you can't answer the question, just say that.

 

[Dragon]

I will say again, if everything was as cut and dry, we should have seen a conviction. Or in this case an impeachment.

Do I agree with Trumps actions pertaining to the mueller investigation and the impeachment bs. In the scheme of politics I think this stuff has always happened. I don’t see a difference in hiring a US company with a British National heading the case vs what trump said about Hillary’s email. I think the DNC is worse. However neither one of them really move my needle.

Now your turn. If this turns out the same way mueller did, will you have a different opinion of the left in Washington and the media?

You don't see the difference between hiring af fully legal company to do fully legal research and getting a foreign (enemy) nation to commit a crime on your behalf after you asked for it ? and yes - HACKING is a crime

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I guess people will then act like there was nothing to it, like they do when they say, 'butter emails." But, let's hope that doesn't occur this time.

I agree, but the WH is already refusing to cooperate, just as they did in the Mueller investigation. This is why an investigation is necessary and should go as long as needed to bring all of the facts to light.

Edit: I agree that certain people will act like there is nothing to it. This is vastly different than the email server and anything else for which Hillary was investigated.

 

[V Chip]

I don’t know what to say. Russia interfered with the election. Let’s say that is 100%true.

Please point to me where Donald trump and his campaign paid for or worked in conjunction with Russia to influence the election. If there was evidence, he would have been charged.

Read the Time piece quoted above in its entirety. Maybe that will help.

 

[Lazybones]

And what of the evidence Mueller and his team found of repeated instances of obstruction, a crime which Mueller said Trump could be charged if he were not the sitting president?

theguardian.com/us-news/2019/jul/24/robert-mueller-hearing-special-counsel-testifies-trump-russia

These are the 10 episodes Mueller investigated for obstruction of justice

The list includes James Comey’s firing and Trump’s changing behavior toward Michael Cohen.

www.vox.com

Obstruction of Justice in the Mueller Report: A Heat Map

The Mueller report describes numerous instances in which President Trump may have obstructed justice. A few days ago, I threw together a quick spreadsheet on Twitter to assess how Special Counsel Robert Mueller seemed to assess the evidence.

www.lawfareblog.com

I made the argument against this pages ago.

You don't see the difference between hiring af fully legal company to do fully legal research and getting a foreign (enemy) nation to commit a crime on your behalf after you asked for it ? and yes - HACKING is a crime

It’s funny that you refer to Russia as the enemy. If I remember Obama referred to them as third world nation. (I don’t remember the exact verbiage)

Yes I see a big difference.

1. The DNC paid a company run by a British National to dig up dirt (much of it lies) on a political candidate.

2. Hillary has a private email server. When served without a warrant, she deleted 30k emails. In a speech when asked about them, he made a very funny rhetorical comment of “ yeah, while your digging, see if you can find Hillary’s 30k lost emails.”

1 is targeted with a very specific nasty plan, the other was an off the cuff jab by a blowhard.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I made the argument against this pages ago.

Link me to the correct post and I will read it.

 

[Lazybones]

Link me to the correct post and I will read it.

Lol

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Lol

For real? I'm trying to genuinely engage you on this topic.