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

 

[Beach Friends]

FFS, welcome, good to see you!

You can always find someone who disagrees with any legal opinion.

I‘d be more interested in why you think Dershowitz‘s opinion is more valid than the one I quoted?

I thought the blog was pretty even handed, and you have to admit that Dershowitz has been very partisan the last few years.

For one thing, the administration didn’t say “we just want the courts to rule on this”. They said to Congress, you have no right to subpoena anything. We aren’t going to give you one document, nor send even one witness. That‘s an unprecedented assertion, one that’s not supported by the Constitution. They made up a new definition of executive privilege and are trying to use it to completely nullify the checks on the Executive that the founders intended for Congress.

The blog states that if there were a valid reason to deny the subpoenas, then the article of impeachment would be an overreach. The crux of the matter is the intent of the denial. Bad intent, meaning to cover up wrongdoing, makes the impeachment article valid. That’s what I remember, anyway. Been a while since I read it.

I don't know about partisan, he opposed Clinton's impeachment. He has also said he would not vote for Trump in 2020.

I think he has remained pretty consistent, it's the rest of his ACLU friends who have changed.

 

[Saintamaniac]

So, if he did withhold the aid, contrary to national interest, and did it to try to influence our election with a phony cooked up scandal, you’re just A-OK with that, correct?

I'm not understanding the "If he did withhold the aid" part. We KNOW he did.

 

[Beach Friends]

I wish I had a nickle for every "explosive" and "bombshell" report by the NYT that "unnamed senor officials" said they told DJT to do one thing in the interest of the nation, but he did something else, so THAT is proof that he only looks out for his own interests and THAT warrants removing him from office.

Good grief, Charlie Brown.

The credibility of the New York Times has taken a self induced beating over that last couple of years. It really is a shame.

 

[MT15]

I don't know about partisan, he opposed Clinton's impeachment. He has also said he would not vote for Trump in 2020.

I think he has remained pretty consistent, it's the rest of his ACLU friends who have changed.

Yeah, partisan isn’t the right word.

What I meant was that he is sounding a single POV in his TV appearances. He knows this, he has been hired by Fox to defend Trump. He has said he enjoys the challenge and it’s harder than his work defending OJ.

He knows what he has to do on his appearances, so I pay just about as much attention as I do to the talking heads on sports shows who have to promote a certain angle.

 

[MT15]

I'm not understanding the "If he did withhold the aid" part. We KNOW he did.

Of course we do. I’m trying to talk with people who won’t admit that, though.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

The credibility of the New York Times has taken a self induced beating over that last couple of years. It really is a shame.

This is one of those things conservatives like to say but don’t ever seem capable of actually proving.

 

[Beach Friends]

ETA: I didn’t say that Dershowitz was pro-Trump, I said he was being paid to put out a pro-Trump POV. But thanks for implying I‘m being irrational.

Do you think he would be appearing on Fox as often as he has been had he not been very vocal in his defense of Trump and equally vocal in his criticism of Mueller? It’s not “irrational“ to recognize that his appearances on Fox depend on him pushing the POV they want to hear. He knows that. It’s all part of the game. It goes the somewhat the same on other networks as well, but on Fox they are pretty strict about allowing any dissenting opinions. Ask Shep Smith about that.

IDK, but I suspect your opinion of Fox's bias relative to the bias of other networks is affected by your own bias.

The more traditional news has lots of people with different views. Hannity - meh, he does offer to have people on but apparently people are not quick to accept (can't say I blame them, he's unbearable IMO).

Tucker has folks he doesn't agree with on all the time. And, Tucker will absolutely blast away at Republicans he disagrees with.

That's it - you should watch Tucker every night for say... six months.

 

[Beach Friends]

This is one of those things conservatives like to say but don’t ever seem capable of actually proving.

You find that people don't take time to try to prove something to you that they know you have no intention of ever believing?

I can see that.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

You find that people don't take time to try to prove something to you that they know you have no intention of ever believing?

I can see that.

About what I expected.

Instead of actually providing supporting evidence you are projecting personal attacks as the justification for why you will not be able to qualify your statement.

If you truly believe that qualifying your assertions is pointless because it will be unable to convince others, why are you even posting here?

 

[Beach Friends]

About what I expected.

Instead of actually providing supporting evidence you are projecting personal attacks as the justification for why you will not be able to qualify your statement.

If you truly believe that qualifying your assertions is pointless because it will be unable to convince others, why are you even posting here?

Nah, I am not going to play go fetch with you on a matter that you could easily research yourself if you are really interested.

I made an observation, if you don't care to accept it I am fine with that.

But, if you really want to satisfy your curiosity about the NYT, maybe we could have contest of sorts. We can take turns providing news articles from the NYT that were misleading, discredited or otherwise BS.

I will make it easy for you - you can go first and then I will post one.

 

[BobE]

ETA: I didn’t say that Dershowitz was pro-Trump, I said he was being paid to put out a pro-Trump POV. But thanks for implying I‘m being irrational.

Do you think he would be appearing on Fox as often as he has been had he not been very vocal in his defense of Trump and equally vocal in his criticism of Mueller? It’s not “irrational“ to recognize that his appearances on Fox depend on him pushing the POV they want to hear. He knows that. It’s all part of the game. It goes the somewhat the same on other networks as well, but on Fox they are pretty strict about allowing any dissenting opinions. Ask Shep Smith about that.

It's also the same opinion he spouted on CNN long before Fox and the reason CNN gave him the boot. Also Judge Nap agrees.

 

[farfromsilent]

It's also the same opinion he spouted on CNN long before Fox and the reason CNN gave him the boot. Also Judge Nap agrees.

Are you saying CNN kicked someone off their channel for having a dissenting opinion? No way!

 

[Nebaghead]

Nah, I am not going to play go fetch with you on a matter that you could easily research yourself if you are really interested.

I made an observation, if you don't care to accept it I am fine with that.

But, if you really want to satisfy your curiosity about the NYT, maybe we could have contest of sorts. We can take turns providing news articles from the NYT that were misleading, discredited or otherwise BS.

I will make it easy for you - you can go first and then I will post one.

How about we do that with what Trump says versus the NYT? Discredited trump statement versus the NYT discredited article or statement? I wonder who will win.
I’m still waiting for what his lawyers found about Obama’s birth certificate in Hawaii. I heard it is unbelievable.

 

[Beach Friends]

How about we do that with what Trump says versus the NYT? Discredited trump statement versus the NYT discredited article or statement? I wonder who will win.
I’m still waiting for what his lawyers found about Obama’s birth certificate in Hawaii. I heard it is unbelievable.

Oh, a whole game centered around whatabout Trump. Apparently you're not the first to come up with that idea. You're just the first to announce that is what you want to play.

 

[Nebaghead]

Oh, a whole game centered around whatabout Trump. Apparently you're not the first to come up with that idea. You're just the first to announce that is what you want to play.

I just gave you a comparison of what you hold as true and what others hold as true. Even better let’s do Fox versus NYT if you want to compare media source to media source.

 

[Beach Friends]

I just gave you a comparison of what you hold as true and what others hold as true. Even better let’s do Fox versus NYT if you want to compare media source to media source.

Yeah, that sounds like crazy fun.

 

[coldseat]

ETA: I didn’t say that Dershowitz was pro-Trump, I said he was being paid to put out a pro-Trump POV. But thanks for implying I‘m being irrational.

Do you think he would be appearing on Fox as often as he has been had he not been very vocal in his defense of Trump and equally vocal in his criticism of Mueller? It’s not “irrational“ to recognize that his appearances on Fox depend on him pushing the POV they want to hear. He knows that. It’s all part of the game. It goes the somewhat the same on other networks as well, but on Fox they are pretty strict about allowing any dissenting opinions. Ask Shep Smith about that.

Dershowitz has spent what, 20 years on TV now as an legal analyst? He knows exactly what he's doing and who's paying him. It's funny that we're just supposed to accept his opinion as the rule of law and completely unbiased.

 

[superchuck500]

Evidence