The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (6 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

 

[Maxp]

It is going to get really hard for people to keep rationalizing this stuff...,I hope.

No it's not. They will just cry fake news. This won't move the needle a bit.

 

[superchuck500]

It is going to get really hard for people to keep rationalizing this stuff...,I hope.

Nope. It’s all just junk to them.

There’s literally no such thing as lawlessness to them. Doesn’t forking matter. This is just a witch hunt and nothing will ever change their mind. It doesn’t matter what any of it says and it never will.

And Trump, Rudy, Nunes, etc- none of them will testify. Hillary testified under oath for eight hours.

forking cowards.

 

[FullMonte]

• The Trump administration cannot provide a legitimate explanation as to why the aid was withheld; Nor should he have to. He's the Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief. The Supreme Court has long held that presidents have latitude in international military affairs.

That's fine, as an opinion. But, as a matter of legality, you are wrong. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 clearly states that if the president decides to to, in any way, change a funding authorization by congress, he must "transmit to both Houses of Congress a special message specifying-- 1) The amount of the budget authority proposed to be deferred; (2) any account, department, or establishment of the Government to which such budget authority is available for obligation, and the specific project or governmental functions involve; (3) the period of time during with the budget authority is proposed to be deferred; (4) the reasons for the proposed deferral, including any legal authority invoked to justify the proposed deferral; (5) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect of the proposed deferral; and (6) all facts, circumstances, and considerations relating to or bearing upon the proposed deferral and the decision to effect the proposed deferral, including an analysis of such facts, circumstances, and considerations in terms of their application to any legal authority, including specific elements of legal authority, invoked to justify such proposed deferral, and to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated effect of the proposed deferral upon the objects, purposes, and programs for which the budget authority is provided. "

So, even though he is the Chief Executive, he is required, by law, to provide an explanation of why the aid was withheld, the legal justification for such, the amount of time it was going to be withheld, and what effect it would have on the budget and economy.

 

[TaylorB]

That's fine, as an opinion. But, as a matter of legality, you are wrong. The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 clearly states that if the president decides to to, in any way, change a funding authorization by congress, he must "transmit to both Houses of Congress a special message specifying-- 1) The amount of the budget authority proposed to be deferred; (2) any account, department, or establishment of the Government to which such budget authority is available for obligation, and the specific project or governmental functions involve; (3) the period of time during with the budget authority is proposed to be deferred; (4) the reasons for the proposed deferral, including any legal authority invoked to justify the proposed deferral; (5) to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated fiscal, economic, and budgetary effect of the proposed deferral; and (6) all facts, circumstances, and considerations relating to or bearing upon the proposed deferral and the decision to effect the proposed deferral, including an analysis of such facts, circumstances, and considerations in terms of their application to any legal authority, including specific elements of legal authority, invoked to justify such proposed deferral, and to the maximum extent practicable, the estimated effect of the proposed deferral upon the objects, purposes, and programs for which the budget authority is provided. "

So, even though he is the Chief Executive, he is required, by law, to provide an explanation of why the aid was withheld, the legal justification for such, the amount of time it was going to be withheld, and what effect it would have on the budget and economy.

Adding to this, the revelation that Giuliani specified to Zelensky that he was acting as the president’s *personal* attorney mercifully lays to rest any lingering argument about whether any of this behavior was within the scope of Executive authority, as none of it was in his capacity as POTUS or on behalf of the US. Which was already obvious, but now we have it in writing. Dadsdream, the premise of your argument struck an iceberg tonight.

 

[MT15]

If Republican elected officials and/or Trump supporters keep saying there’s nothing wrong with any of this, at what point can we legitimately talk about a cult of personality?

I mean this seriously. This is some crazy stuff. Like really crazy, certifiable. And Trump was right in the middle of all of this.

 

[FullMonte]

More is coming out regarding the messages To/From Hyde regarding Ambassador Yavonovitch being under surveillance....these are positively frightening....

"She's under heavy protection outside Kiev." (3/23/2019 8:42:45 PM UTC+0)
"They are moving her tomorrow." (3/25/2019 9:58:41 PM UTC+0)
"The guys over there asked me what I would like to do and what is in it for them" (3/25/2019 9:59:03 PM UTC+0)
"She's talked to three people. Her phone is off. Computer is off." (3/25/2019 11:39:42 PM UTC+0)
"She's next to the embassy." (3/25/2019 11:39:55 PM UTC+0)
"Not in the embassy." (3/25/2019 11:40:01 PM UTC+0)
"Private security. Been there since Thursday." (3/25/2019 11:40:15 PM UTC+0)
"They're willing to help if we/you would like a price." (3/25/2019 11:46:53 PM UTC+0)
"Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money...what I was told." (3/25/2019 11:47:19 PM UTC+0)
"If you want her out they need to make contact with security forces." (3/26/2019 10:05:11 PM UTC+0)
"It's confirmed we have a person inside." (3/29/2019 1:01:32 AM UTC+0)

This is beyond disturbing. This reads (to me at least) as if there were individuals in Ukraine who were surveilling ambassador Yovanovitch and, at one point offering to have her killed. That's the only way I can interpret "If you want her out they need to make contact with security forces."

 

[insidejob]

More is coming out regarding the messages To/From Hyde regarding Ambassador Yavonovitch being under surveillance....these are positively frightening....

"She's under heavy protection outside Kiev." (3/23/2019 8:42:45 PM UTC+0)
"They are moving her tomorrow." (3/25/2019 9:58:41 PM UTC+0)
"The guys over there asked me what I would like to do and what is in it for them" (3/25/2019 9:59:03 PM UTC+0)
"She's talked to three people. Her phone is off. Computer is off." (3/25/2019 11:39:42 PM UTC+0)
"She's next to the embassy." (3/25/2019 11:39:55 PM UTC+0)
"Not in the embassy." (3/25/2019 11:40:01 PM UTC+0)
"Private security. Been there since Thursday." (3/25/2019 11:40:15 PM UTC+0)
"They're willing to help if we/you would like a price." (3/25/2019 11:46:53 PM UTC+0)
"Guess you can do anything in the Ukraine with money...what I was told." (3/25/2019 11:47:19 PM UTC+0)
"If you want her out they need to make contact with security forces." (3/26/2019 10:05:11 PM UTC+0)
"It's confirmed we have a person inside." (3/29/2019 1:01:32 AM UTC+0)

This is beyond disturbing. This reads (to me at least) as if there were individuals in Ukraine who were surveilling ambassador Yovanovitch and, at one point offering to have her killed. That's the only way I can interpret "If you want her out they need to make contact with security forces."

"Willing to help if you/we would like a price" also sounds like finding out how much the hit would cost. I can't really see it any other way with how they're talking about tracking her movements.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

"Willing to help if you/we would like a price" also sounds like finding out how much the hit would cost. I can't really see it any other way with how they're talking about tracking her movements.

That’s the obvious interpretation. I would love to hear how the more conservative members interpret these exchanges.

 

[FullMonte]

and...here's another one....Remember the president standing on the White House lawn, completely stunned when he was asked about Lev Parnas...since he didn't know who that was....

The players:
Jay Sekulow-US attorney who is part of President Trump's legal team, and part of the team that will represent the president in his impeachment Trial
John Dowd-US attorney who represent(s)(ed) Lev Parnas and former attorney for the President.


Email dated 2 October 2019 11:14 AM
=============================================
From: Jay Sekulow
To: John Dowd

John,

I have discussed the issue of representation with the President. The President consents to allowing your representation of Mr. Parnas and Mr. Furman.

Jay Sekulow
Counsel to the President
=============================================

 

[BobE]

Lets party

 

[BobE]

 

[Farb]

Lets party

Solemn and Somber....

 

[MT15]

That’s done all the time when something historical is signed. By everyone in Washington.

you guys are so tender!

 

[Beach Friends]

That’s done all the time when something historical is signed. By everyone in Washington.

you guys are so tender!

I hear she passed out those party favors only after praying over each one. A very somber occasion.

Look at Maxine, so sad on this very serious day.

 

[Optimus Prime]

That’s done all the time when something historical is signed. By everyone in Washington.

you guys are so tender!

Side question: when did that start, signing something with 20 pens and giving them away?

Does it go back a century or is it relatively recent?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Side question: when did that start, signing something with 20 pens and giving them away?

Does it go back a century or is it relatively recent?

It seems to go back a bit.

Why Presidents Use All Those Pens to Sign Bills Into Law

An explanation for why presidents use so many bill signing pens: certain presidents used the most pens. Trump, in particular, used excessive amounts.

www.thoughtco.com

The first president to use more than one pen to sign a bill into law was Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who served in the White House from March 1933 until April 1945.

According to Bradley H. Patterson's To Serve the President: Continuity and Innovation in the White House Staff, the president used several pens to sign bills of "high public interest" during signing ceremonies in the Oval Office. Most presidents now use multiple pens to sign those bills into law.

So what did the president do with all those pens? He gave them away, most of the time.

Presidents "gave the pens as commemorative souvenirs to members of Congress or other dignitaries who had been active in getting the legislation passed. Each pen was presented in a special box bearing the presidential seal and the name of the president who did the signing," Patterson writes.

 

[andrew76021]

How embarrassing the Democratic voters must be. The time and money wasted on this sham. The fact that some of you believe this garbage is mind boggling. Only hurting your party in November.

It really is a joke of a process, and they let main stream media fill your heads with hope because your candidate was beat in the biggest upset in US political history. Keep grabbing onto the hoax.........one day you will realize you've been had.

 

[wardorican]

I hear she passed out those party favors only after praying over each one. A very somber occasion.

Look at Maxine, so sad on this very serious day.

What publication did that come from?