The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (2 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

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Article 1 Section 3 of the Constitution:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.


That means they can do what they want.

Its the same with Impeachment - the House can do what they want. Surely Schiff knew that. If he didn't, that is his fault.

So by sandbagging, we’re left with few other conclusions than the House has Trump dead to rights, and the Senate can’t risk any sort of public hearing the ads can’t control
Everyone on this board knows Trump did what he is accused of - and some are choosing to play along to endorse corruption

Those posters cede every ethical and moral prouncement they could ever make from now into the future

 

[BobE]

Is this going to be 48 hours of just............talking?

 

[dtc]

Lady Justice was all laughed out after watching the ridiculous spectacle of an impeachment.

Clearly a bunch of us simply don't care when our POTUS lies, steals, and disgraces the country as long as he's enacting tax cuts for the rich, whining about abortion and gays while touching all the relevant racist tones required to win the votes of modern "conservatives", right?

 

[Beach Friends]

It is about perception. Most people aren't that knowledgeable and will believe this is like a trial. In some ways it is, but like you said the rules are set by the Senate. Chief Roberts is basically a WWE ref with no real power unlike a normal judge.

What people will hear is the GOP won't allow witnesses or evidence introduced. That will not sound good no matter how much they spin it, especially when most polls show a large majority want the evidence submitted even if they don't think Trump should be removed from office. Unlike other trials, public opinion is the crux of an impeachment. Senators will vote what keeps them in office so if the polls go south for competitive races, you will see some give and take. Unless something huge happens that can't be explained away, Trump will not be removed but will there be enough evidence presented that makes him look bad enough to keep some people home on election day or push independents to the Dems. Also, this will happen with some of the Senators.

IDK, but I think that by the time people hear what is already on the schedule play out nobody is going to be screaming "more!" Well, except for those people who for some odd reason are going into this with the hope that the POTUS is going to actually be removed (or damaged to the extent it alters the election).

 

[JimEverett]

So by sandbagging, we’re left with few other conclusions than the House has Trump dead to rights, and the Senate can’t risk any sort of public hearing the ads can’t control
Everyone on this board knows Trump did what he is accused of - and some are choosing to play along to endorse corruption

Those posters cede every ethical and moral prouncement they could ever make from now into the future

The self-righteousness is somewhat tiring.

 

[samiam5211]

The self-righteousness is somewhat tiring.

The only thing holding up any sort of ethical standards are the self-righteous.

Moral relativism leads to nihilism pretty fast when enough people stop pretending things we made up matter.

 

[JimEverett]

The only thing holding up any sort of ethical standards are the self-righteous.

Depends. Plenty of tge self-righteous have an "ends justify the means" sort of attitude. Not aware of a moral relativist mivement that slaughtered thousands or millions for example. Its always those certain of their beliefs as being true that do stuff like that.

Moral relativism leads to nihilism pretty fast when enough people stop pretending things we made up matter.

I think its just tge opposite, but that is for another thread I think

 

[samiam5211]

I’m not sure we disagree.

I would say that there has to be a balance and anytime it becomes too one sided we see conflict.

We have to stay somewhere between, “nothing really matters” and “only my thing really matters”.

I think we just have different interpretations of the current situation.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

The self-righteousness is somewhat tiring.

Don’t i know

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So, everyone on the Trump defense side of things are ok with the President using the power of the office to hurt their political enemies without any check on their power?

 

[Dadsdream]

People have been using criminal/court proceedings, rules, and expectations since this began. Arguments about due process were used for the House investigation. Why is it so wild to use similarities to a court of law for the Senate?

Because it's the Senate. Literally.
Each year when it convenes, the Senate adopts its rules all over again, with changes, additions and deletions. They are not constrained by criminal case law.

I'd recommend looking at how and why the Senate was created, starting with the Senate's own website.

Looking back on more than two centuries of Senate history, the Constitution's framers would appreciate the Senate's passion for deliberation, its untidiness, its aloofness from the House of Representatives and its suspicion of the presidency. Neither they nor most of the more than 1,800 persons who served as senators during that time would be greatly surprised at the continuing calls for reform. Viewed over the broad sweep of its history, the Senate has balanced faithfulness to the Constitution's principles with requirements for measured change in response to the complex demands of a diverse society.

U.S. Senate: Origins and Development

Origins and Development

www.senate.gov

 

[MT15]

The House already voted to impeach without waiting on the Court's ruling.

Schiff's argument is weak. The Senate's job should not be to cure deficiencies in the House's impeachment.

good lord, this argument is horrible. The Senate’s job is to put on a fair trial. If that involves new information, so be it, they need to put on their big boy pants and do what they swore an oath to do.

If new information comes out, or witnesses that were not available for the indictment are suddenly available do you even remotely think that any court in the land would say “sorry, should have covered that during the indictment”?

This argument right here is beyond ridiculous and hopelessly partisan. Especially since I saw a clip of McConnell this morning arguing FOR witnesses in the last impeachment trial.

Maybe your goal is to be completely partisan, but I didn’t used to think so.

 

[Dadsdream]

The self-righteousness is somewhat tiring.

I concur. We can talk about this without the personal attacks and condemnations, y'all.

 

[Archies Ghost]

I concur. We can talk about this without the personal attacks and condemnations, y'all.

There isn’t anything else left.

This is an exercise in political silliness taken to its extreme example.

Monkeys flinging feces is more intellectually stimulating.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

There isn’t anything else left.

This is an exercise in political silliness taken to its extreme example.

Monkeys flinging feces is more intellectually stimulating.

So, is it your contention that the President can use their office to damage their political enemies in any way they see fit? After all, neither Trump, nor anyone on this board believes that Biden did anything corrupt, so therefore the only purpose of Trump using his personal lawyer in coordination with funds provided by Congress to pressure the President of Ukraine to announce an investigation into Joe Biden was to hurt a political enemy. That's it. Nothing more.

 

[Dadsdream]

So, is it your contention that the President can use their office to damage their political enemies in any way they see fit? After all, neither Trump, nor anyone on this board believes that Biden did anything corrupt, so therefore the only purpose of Trump using his personal lawyer in coordination with funds provided by Congress to pressure the President of Ukraine to announce an investigation into Joe Biden was to hurt a political enemy. That's it. Nothing more.

Well, Jim, I believe all politicians are crooks and liars, so I will respectfully say that it's far-fetched to say Biden didn't do anything corrupt.
International influence peddling by a former VP to the benefit of his relatives is corrupt? Yes, yes it is.

 

[MT15]

That’s a very ugly assertion, DD. One without a scintilla of proof.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Well, Jim, I believe all politicians are crooks and liars, so I will respectfully say that it's far-fetched to say Biden didn't do anything corrupt.
International influence peddling by a former VP to the benefit of his relatives is corrupt? Yes, yes it is.

But you don't actually believe he did that, or you don't believe it's worth investigating. I mean if all you have is Biden's son was on the board of directors of a company in Ukraine, and Biden was part of pressuring the president of Ukraine to fire their top prosecutor, that doesn't seem to meet the standard of evidence you seem to be holding up as necessary to even suspect someone of wrong doing, right?