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

 

[bdb13]

These articles are referring to the 2016 elections. Just saying.

I know.

 

[Lazybones]

I know.

It wasn’t really a response to you. Sorry, I was just making the obvious connection to the investigation that can’t be mentioned.

 

[Dadsdream]

It’s not true, but they don’t have a lot of other arguments to defend this president’s conduct. So I definitely get why you would rather talk about made up stuff rather than discuss the behavior and abuses of this administration.

"Made up stuff . . ."

The Democratic Party in 2000:
"Stolen election."
"We won the popular vote."
"Not my president."
"Bush is Hitler."

The Democratic Party 2016
"Stolen election."
"We won the popular vote."
"Not my president."
"Trump is Hitler."

This is what the the Democratic Party does when it doesn't get its way. No doubt, Democrats were severely traumatized when the "too large to fail" Clinton campaign suffered the greatest upset since Truman beat Dewey.

"There are people here who are scared, afraid for their lives!" one relative told me. "You don't get it. We cannot have this man as our president! We simply can't!"

There were open calls for impeachment the moment that the 2016 election results came out.

It's my opinion that the whole Russia Collusion thing and impeachment push are an attempt to overturn the election results, and I am not alone in that opinion.

The news feed for our MadAboutPolitics includes Real Clear Politics articles, which link to other articles . . . like this one:

Impeachment: The Democrats’ chosen recourse to overturn 2016 election

The prospect of President Trump being impeached by the House of Representatives should not be surprising to people. Counter to conventional wisdom, this impeachment does not expose a corrupt president. Instead, it reveals the rot at the core of an establishment willing to abuse the system to...

www.washingtontimes.com

Nobody here is "making stuff up." This is not a conspiracy theory. It's simply an opinion to be expressed and you can agree or disagree.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

To be fair, the daily kos is a garbage liberal source that doesn't stick to the facts and is heavily biased.

At best, their connection to the Mueller Report is that, well, there is already a case for obstruction of Justice, so if you actually build a strong case on the Ukraine situation, you might as well throw those in as additional counts. That's how I read it. Otherwise, I didn't seem to get the rest of their point or see how it tied to the Mueller Report.

The Daily Kos is The Bleacher Report of liberal politics.

That “article” was written by the “community.”

I.E. anyone with an account can basically write a post and as long as it meets some bare minimum standards get published on the site. So much like Bleacher Report, you can have some great stuff(like some members that put together the most definitive and comprehensive free source special election tracking database around) and then you have some random Joe like you would find on any forum blabbering on some stream of consciousness nonsense for 8000 words or mostly random retweets like the linked.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

"Made up stuff . . ."

The Democratic Party in 2000:
"Stolen election."
"We won the popular vote."
"Not my president."
"Bush is Hitler."

The Democratic Party 2016
"Stolen election."
"We won the popular vote."
"Not my president."
"Trump is Hitler."

This is what the the Democratic Party does when it doesn't get its way. No doubt, Democrats were severely traumatized when the "too large to fail" Clinton campaign suffered the greatest upset since Truman beat Dewey.

"There are people here who are scared, afraid for their lives!" one relative told me. "You don't get it. We cannot have this man as our president! We simply can't!"

There were open calls for impeachment the moment that the 2016 election results came out.

It's my opinion that the whole Russia Collusion thing and impeachment push are an attempt to overturn the election results, and I am not alone in that opinion.

The news feed for our MadAboutPolitics includes Real Clear Politics articles, which link to other articles . . . like this one:

Impeachment: The Democrats’ chosen recourse to overturn 2016 election

The prospect of President Trump being impeached by the House of Representatives should not be surprising to people. Counter to conventional wisdom, this impeachment does not expose a corrupt president. Instead, it reveals the rot at the core of an establishment willing to abuse the system to...

www.washingtontimes.com

Nobody here is "making stuff up." This is not a conspiracy theory. It's simply an opinion to be expressed and you can agree or disagree.

The Republican mantra for 8 years was "take our country back" as white supremacist support amongst the right swelled and Republicans, spearheaded by the current president, tried to delegitimize the last one for calling into question his birth certificate or his loyalty to the country at every stop. Before Bush, the Republicans impeached Clinton over a blowjob. The difference in between is Bush lied the country into a war that cost 100's of thousands of lives, broke countless international laws, sanctioned torture and an overreach of executive power, while Trump has committed multiple felonies while stoking violence and running an administration that would make Boss Tweed blush.

However, the question in this thread is evidentiary, not emotional. It is about impeachment, not the projections and cherry-picking of partisan projections. Painting the whole with the emotional hysterics of some knowing full well the other is just as susceptible to such tactics.

And to you personally, it was that for a very extensive period of time you called the underlying actions the current president has admitted to publicly a near treasonous abuse of power when you presumed, based on false evidence, that Obama was doing so: I.E. abusing his office to investigate his party's political rivals via the Steele Dossier(something you passionately argued about). Yet somehow your posture toward Trump is decidedly different, absent entirely any of the signals or calls for punishing once perceived criminality, despite far more clear and concise evidence of Trump's active solicitation and participation in such a scheme. Why the change DD? Honest question?

 

[LA - L.A.]

The evolution of Trump's defense:

• The whistle blower complaint is completely untrue. There was no withholding of foreign aid and I didn't ask Ukraine to investigate Biden and his son.
• After Trump's own memo of the phone call shows irrefutably that he asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens, Trump switches his defense to I was only asking them to investigate corruption. It was not politically motivated and there was no quid pro quo.
• Today after Mulvaney irrefutably and defiantly confirmed that there was a quid pro quo and it was for personal political gain, Trump switches his defense to the aid was held up to get Ukraine to investigate 2016 election interference.
• Again today after it was pointed out that Trump's own memo irrefutably shows him asking Ukraine to also investigate the Bidens for corruption, Trump switches his defense back to there was no quid pro quo and he has Mulvaney deny everything he said while the nation was watching through the lenses of several news outlets.

A person who is telling the truth, being honest and truly believes they have done nothing wrong is not a person that has to keep changing their story every time new facts are revealed. If they are telling the whole truth and nothing but the truth, then newly revealed facts should corroborate their story, not contradict it.

 

[wardorican]

What a day. Mulvaney admitted to it. Made it about the last. Now, am I hearing correctly, he's now backpedaling what he said?

 

[wardorican]

 

[JRad]

The Democratic Party in 2000:
"Stolen election."
"We won the popular vote."
"Not my president."
"Bush is Hitler."

The Democratic Party 2016
"Stolen election."
"We won the popular vote."
"Not my president."
"Trump is Hitler."

This is what the the Democratic Party does when it doesn't get its way.

Interesting how both these examples are from elections where the popular vote didn’t align with the winner. I’d argue the American people didn’t get their way, but that’s probably left for another thread.

 

[yuyi64]

Mulvaney admitted to it. Now, am I hearing correctly, he's now backpedaling what he said?

I wish he hadn't backpedaled because what he said is true. All foreign aid involves quid pro quo of some kind, whether publicly stated or not. This has been the case before Trump and will continue to be the case after Trump so it's time to stop pretending it doesn't happen.

 

[Dragon]

I wish he hadn't backpedaled because what he said is true. All foreign aid involves quid pro quo of some kind, whether publicly stated or not. This has been the case before Trump and will continue to be the case after Trump so it's time to stop pretending it doesn't happen.

The difference is that Trump does this for personal gain - not for the good of the US

And talking about personal gain and impeachment - this is a clear violation of the emoluments clause which by the way is also an impeachable violation. This probably went under the radar due to Syria and Ukraine

First, Mulvaney blew away the cobwebs in the White House Briefing Room by announcing that the President would hold next year's G7 summit at his Doral resort in Florida. Even for an administration that has redefined the concept of conflicts of interests, this is a staggering move. Mulvaney insisted with a straight face that Trump would not profit from the summit, even though millions of dollars from foreign delegations will flood into the coffers of the struggling resort and bring a worldwide branding boost.

https://us.cnn.com/2019/10/18/politics/donald-trump-impeachment-turkey-kurds-g7-mulvaney/index.html

 

[samiam5211]

Interesting how both these examples are from elections where the popular vote didn’t align with the winner. I’d argue the American people didn’t get their way, but that’s probably left for another thread.

Yea, it's interesting that since 1988, a Republican has only won the popular vote once, and even then it was only by about 2 percent.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I wish he hadn't backpedaled because what he said is true. All foreign aid involves quid pro quo of some kind, whether publicly stated or not. This has been the case before Trump and will continue to be the case after Trump so it's time to stop pretending it doesn't happen.

What Mulvaney actually said, which is why he had to try to deny he said it, was that foreign policy is always politicized and elections have consequences. He openly admitted that Trump politicized US foreign policy and evidence shows that Trump did it for personal political gain. That is not normal or acceptable. It is a clear dereliction of duty at the very least. It's an impeachable offense.

If Mulvaney had only said that all foreign aid involves quid pro quo, he wouldn't be trying to deny he said what he clearly said.

 

[barbar]

"Made up stuff . . ."

The Democratic Party in 2000:
"Stolen election."
"We won the popular vote."
"Not my president."
"Bush is Hitler."

The Democratic Party 2016
"Stolen election."
"We won the popular vote."
"Not my president."
"Trump is Hitler."

This is what the the Democratic Party does when it doesn't get its way. No doubt, Democrats were severely traumatized when the "too large to fail" Clinton campaign suffered the greatest upset since Truman beat Dewey.

"There are people here who are scared, afraid for their lives!" one relative told me. "You don't get it. We cannot have this man as our president! We simply can't!"

There were open calls for impeachment the moment that the 2016 election results came out.

It's my opinion that the whole Russia Collusion thing and impeachment push are an attempt to overturn the election results, and I am not alone in that opinion.

The news feed for our MadAboutPolitics includes Real Clear Politics articles, which link to other articles . . . like this one:

Impeachment: The Democrats’ chosen recourse to overturn 2016 election

The prospect of President Trump being impeached by the House of Representatives should not be surprising to people. Counter to conventional wisdom, this impeachment does not expose a corrupt president. Instead, it reveals the rot at the core of an establishment willing to abuse the system to...

www.washingtontimes.com

Nobody here is "making stuff up." This is not a conspiracy theory. It's simply an opinion to be expressed and you can agree or disagree.

I guess you have forgotten about the 8 years the right spent saying Obama was "another Hitler" or "worse than Hitler."

I don't normally espouse what-about-ism but you are cherry picking your examples to prop up a narrative that isn't true.

 

[Dadsdream]

I guess you have forgotten about the 8 years the right spent saying Obama was "another Hitler" or "worse than Hitler."

I don't normally espouse what-about-ism but you are cherry picking your examples to prop up a narrative that isn't true.

It's true in my experience, but with addenda:

The Democratic Party 2016
"Stolen election."
"We won the popular vote."
"Not my president."
"Trump is Hitler."
"Deplorables!"
"Fly-over country!"
"You're a racist!"
"You're a bigot!"
"You're a white supremacist!"

I find it astonishing that the same people who go to great lengths to denounce others for divisive, non-inclusive and politically incorrect language have absolutely no qualms about denouncing "Old White Men" as the root of all evil. Age bias, racism and gender bias all rolled into three words. Amazing.

 

[LA - L.A.]

It's true in my experience, but with addenda:

The Democratic Party 2016
"Stolen election."
"We won the popular vote."
"Not my president."
"Trump is Hitler."
"Deplorables!"
"Fly-over country!"
"You're a racist!"
"You're a bigot!"
"You're a white supremacist!"

I find it astonishing that the same people who go to great lengths to denounce others for divisive, non-inclusive and politically incorrect language have absolutely no qualms about denouncing "Old White Men" as the root of all evil. Age bias, racism and gender bias all rolled into three words. Amazing.

What do you think about the impeachment investigation and the recent admission by Mulvaney that Trump politicized US foreign policy and the evidence that shows Trump politicized it for personal political gain?

 

[Dadsdream]

What do you think about the impeachment investigation and the recent admission by Mulvaney that Trump politicized US foreign policy and the evidence that shows Trump politicized it for personal political gain?

Mulvaney was referencing the 2016 election.
US foreign policy has always been politicized, because the party in power has an elected mandate to do things their way.
Mulvaney is correct - we have always used a quid pro quo, carrot-and-stick approach to getting foreign governments to do our bidding.
There are suspicions, allegations and purported evidence of personal gain, but it's going to take successful full-blown impeachment to prove it.
I don't see that happening.
That being said, what the hell does he think he's doing scheduling an international conference at Mar-a-Lago? Geez.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Mulvaney was referencing the 2016 election.
US foreign policy has always been politicized, because the party in power has an elected mandate to do things their way.
Mulvaney is correct - we have always used a quid pro quo, carrot-and-stick approach to getting foreign governments to do our bidding.
There are suspicions, allegations and purported evidence of personal gain, but it's going to take successful full-blown impeachment to prove it.
I don't see that happening.
That being said, what the hell does he think he's doing scheduling an international conference at Mar-a-Lago? Geez.

Mulvaney said Trump was only trying to get Ukraine to look into the 2016 election when he admitted that Trump politicized US foreign policy.

We know from Trump's own memo and several people's testimony that Trump was also trying to get Ukraine to publicly announce a corruption investigation into the Biden's. Wanting the public announcement from the Ukraine makes it pretty clear to me that Trump was doing it to help himself in the election by hurting Biden.

There is no record or evidence that any other president has ever politicized US foreign policy for personal political gain in an election like Trump clearly seems to be doing.

Mulvaney did not say simply say it was a quid pro quo to advance the US interests. If that is what he said, then he wouldn't be denying he said what he said.

Trump has been funneling tax payer money into his own businesses since he took office. That is an abuse of power and an impeachable offense in and of itself. It fits his overall pattern of using his powers as president for personal financial and political benefit.

If one wouldn't be okay with a president from another political party doing what Trump is doing, then one shouldn't be okay with Trump doing it.