The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (3 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]

What is the point of this?
I don't see a point given Trump has not been impeached for perjury or obstruction of justice.

 

[Optimus Prime]

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.

I do

And on the surface they appear to be the same

If you feel that getting a BJ, lying about it and trying to cover it up are on the same level as what trump is accused of then you’d be right that it’s pure hypocrisy

 

[Lapaz]

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 have no idea why you think quoting Putin helps justify anything? Generally if Putin says something, that justifies suspicion of ulterior motives. With that said, since it is also your opinion that impeachment is an effort to “make up for their loss”, please explain how? Also, who do you think would become president?

 

[Joe Okc]

What is the point of this?
I don't see a point given Trump has not been impeached for perjury or obstruction of justice.

Something about posting memes is a conservatives form of trolling. Something something, trolling, something, something, how your supposed to post around here, something, something...

 

[Lapaz]

I do

And on the surface they appear to be the same

If you feel that getting a BJ, lying about it and trying to cover it up are on the same level as what trump is accused of then you’d be right that it’s pure hypocrisy

It is hypocrisy to compare Trump’s impeachment to Clinton’s. I wonder what percentage of conservatives have had extra marital affairs and lied about it? Now I wonder how many conservatives have extorted ANYONE, let alone a foreign country, and then tried to cover it up? My guess in the affairs is more than 50% and my guess on the extortion is less than 5%, and it is only that high because I know a lot of rich Republicans may have tried it. However, add in extortion with someone else’s money and the percentage is far less than 1%. Clinton’s was like lying about speeding compared to Trump lying about a bank robbery.

 

[Lapaz]

What is the point of this?
I don't see a point given Trump has not been impeached for perjury or obstruction of justice.

Obstruction of Congress is damn near the same as obstruction of justice.

 

[JimEverett]

Obstruction of Congress is damn near the same as obstruction of justice.

But not really.

 

[Joe Okc]

I have no idea why you think quoting Putin helps justify anything? Generally if Putin says something, that justifies suspicion of ulterior motives. With that said, since it is also your opinion that impeachment is an effort to “make up for their loss”, please explain how? Also, who do you think would become president?

I have stated it 100 times.... Hillary had a lifetime of political experience. Even secretary of state under Obama.... Their best ans prime candidate,,, and to loose to a loudmouth with absolutely zero political has the democrats so twisted that they cannot think straight...

And for the record... if Trump actually got impeached, Biden stands a good chance to beat Pence.

But honestly... The dems are gonna ride this free media bad mouth Trump train... I will lay $20 bet that somehow impeachment becomes a huge topic again in Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov right before the election...

Right now the DNC is saving billions with all this free anti Trump media advertising for them. Even if they don't go through with it the amount of free advertising by smearing Trump was worth more than any campaigning for their lame duck candidates could ever hope for.

 

[Beach Friends]

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

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."

Yeah, it's pretty embarrassing for the Democrats. No wonder you want to parse words over that. Of course, that same group also wanted persue impeachment because POTUS was mean to "the squad."

 

[V Chip]

Yeah, it's pretty embarrassing for the Democrats. No wonder you want to parse words over that.

When you can't actually back up what you said, just pass it off as someone else "parsing words" now. Got it.

 

[reubenray]

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.

It is called Politics- they will always think their way is the only way.

 

[Taurus]

I have stated it 100 times.... Hillary had a lifetime of political experience. Even secretary of state under Obama.... Their best ans prime candidate,,, and to loose to a loudmouth with absolutely zero political has the democrats so twisted that they cannot think straight...

And for the record... if Trump actually got impeached, Biden stands a good chance to beat Pence.

But honestly... The dems are gonna ride this free media bad mouth Trump train... I will lay $20 bet that somehow impeachment becomes a huge topic again in Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov right before the election...

Right now the DNC is saving billions with all this free anti Trump media advertising for them. Even if they don't go through with it the amount of free advertising by smearing Trump was worth more than any campaigning for their lame duck candidates could ever hope for.

Sounds a lot like Trump's plan back in '16.

Sauce for the goose...

 

[Lapaz]

I have stated it 100 times.... Hillary had a lifetime of political experience. Even secretary of state under Obama.... Their best ans prime candidate,,, and to loose to a loudmouth with absolutely zero political has the democrats so twisted that they cannot think straight...

And for the record... if Trump actually got impeached, Biden stands a good chance to beat Pence.

But honestly... The dems are gonna ride this free media bad mouth Trump train... I will lay $20 bet that somehow impeachment becomes a huge topic again in Aug, Sept, Oct, Nov right before the election...

Right now the DNC is saving billions with all this free anti Trump media advertising for them. Even if they don't go through with it the amount of free advertising by smearing Trump was worth more than any campaigning for their lame duck candidates could ever hope for.

You're right that this impeachment is going to be used against Trump, and he deserves every bit of the bad press, and more. He has done many things that deserve impeachment, but Democrats haven't acted on them, because they didn't think the public would support them, and given that only 50% are supporting this, they probably were correct; however the Mueller report provided plenty of justification, as well as the emoluments abuses. Nevertheless, unless more evidence is revealed, Republicans are going to continue to aid and abet Trump, so he won't be removed by the Senate. Given that, is it your position that Democrats are ONLY impeaching to "make up for the loss" in 2016, since it gives them some free media, even though only 50% of the public supports it? So then is it also your position that Democrats don't care whether a president pressures a foreign country to interfere our elections, particularly a future election? I assume that would mean you don't think that justifies impeachment, and therefore future Democratic presidents can do it at will.

 

[Lapaz]

But not really.

Definitely close enough for impeachment purposes, since this isn't a criminal proceeding. Regardless of the technicalities of the law, he has been obstructing justice by obstructing congress, and the only people that can argue otherwise are using legalese, not common sense.

 

[JimEverett]

Definitely close enough for impeachment purposes, since this isn't a criminal proceeding. Regardless of the technicalities of the law, he has been obstructing justice by obstructing congress, and the only people that can argue otherwise are using legalese, not common sense.

One is an actual crime, codified in federal law and many other jurisdictions, tried and tested over thousands of cases, specific and well defined.
The other is something up to the whimsy of whatever Congress wants to say it is that day.

There is a reason this Congress chose the latter and not the former.

 

[Beach Friends]

You're right that this impeachment is going to be used against Trump, and he deserves every bit of the bad press, and more.

It seems that a growing number of people don't take this "bad press" seriously and in fact our POTUS is arguably benefiting from it. His base is energized - I saw where his campaign raised 10 million the day of and the day after the House voted. I have seen polls where his approval rating increases by, I think it was 6 points. More people now oppose impeachment than support it.

Granted, polls are always suspect. But the man is amazingly resilient- no doubt you admire him for that.

So far at least, the House's big adventure just hasn't panned out for them. Republicans are in a great mood.

 

[Lapaz]

One is an actual crime, codified in federal law and many other jurisdictions, tried and tested over thousands of cases, specific and well defined.
The other is something up to the whimsy of whatever Congress wants to say it is that day.

There is a reason this Congress chose the latter and not the former.

Whether the articles called it a "whimsical" obstruction of congress, or the codified criminal offense of obstruction of justice, all honest brokers know that Trump is obstructing justice.

 

[JimEverett]

Whether the articles called it a "whimsical" obstruction of congress, or the codified criminal offense of obstruction of justice, all honest brokers know that Trump is obstructing justice.

Really, it is just the opposite. Glaringly obvious to anyone who actually reads words. Obstruction of Justice does not equal Obstruction of Congress. In fact, I imagine part of the reason such language was chosen was in order to fool some people into thinking they were the same thing, or "similar enough" - whatever that means.