The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (1 Viewer)

[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

 

[wardorican]

SR seems to be up now. What did I miss?

 

[BobE]

SR seems to be up now. What did I miss?

It was down

 

[Dadsdream]

You didn’t say what you thought was appropriate, only what was legal. It is a skirting of responsibility I find most disappointing.

It may have been worth a justice department investigation, but nothing I am aware of would warrant it in this case.

No it is not appropriate for the president to create an extra governmental channel to conduct this investigation.

Is it an abuse of power? Absolutely.

Yes. Our failure to think it necessary to pass a law prohibiting so shouldn’t prevent us from repossessing the authority someone was loaned from us.

Again, you didn’t really answer my question. You abdicated your responsibility as a citizen to the law.

I didn't abdicate a blessed thing. I answered all questions. It seems my answers displease.

I'd postulate that no one will never answer all these questions sufficiently enough to satisfy such an inquisition-style bombardment.

So please, do everybody a favor, don't harangue people about their responsibilities as citizens. It's highly . . . How shall I put this . . . Rude and presumptuous to do so, my opinion.

 

[Dadsdream]

I never said they were constrained or had to follow a court of law. Just said it isn't silly to aim for that ballpark.

It's not silly, once you understand the Senate's purpose.

Aiming for the Senate have to follow criminal trial proceedings isn't aiming higher, it's actually aiming lower. The Senate is constructed for higher level decisions than mere criminal courts.

It's the guardian against overreach by the House AND the President, both.

 

[wardorican]

It's not silly, once you understand the Senate's purpose.

Aiming for the Senate have to follow criminal trial proceedings isn't aiming higher, it's actually aiming lower. The Senate is constructed for higher level decisions than mere criminal courts.

It's the guardian against overreach by the House AND the President, both.

That.
is.
not.
what.
I'm.
saying.

 

[TaylorB]

Geez. Anything brought before the Senate can be 1. Accepted, 2. Declined, or 3. Pocketed (No Action). That's not just articles of impeachment . . . that's anything brought to the Senate.

Yes, I'd play it safe and throw out any comparisons to criminal trials, because as you can clearly see, the Senate writes its own rules for impeachment trials. There are no constraints to make it conform to criminal trial procedure, other than wishful thinking.

Can you? Please, by all means, go look it up and let everybody know.

They accepted the articles last Thursday. OK, now they're setting the ground rules and people are making comparisons to criminal trial procedures.
Allow me to suggest not drawing any comparisons to criminal trials whatsoever.

Dadsdream, the argument that you can‘t compare the impeachment process to a criminal prosecution is undercut by what you said when you wanted a witness to have to testify...

There's one little thing that bugs me about what you're saying . . .

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

The usual response is that this impeachment is not a criminal prosecution. But, that depends on who you ask. Off hand, I'd say accusing someone of "high crimes and misdemeanors" with the possibility of being removed from office and sent to jail would count as a criminal prosecution, but that's just me and I'm not a legal expert.

 

[Beach Friends]

I remember when the Democrats kept saying that we dont need to hear from Eric Cxxxxxxx because everything had already been proven by other witnesses. So, now that they don't believe that anymore they surely want to hear from him, right?

There is no telling what that guy knows, even Schiff has not spoken to him and pinkie swears he doesn't even know who he is.

 

[TaylorB]

I remember when the Democrats kept saying that we dont need to hear from Eric Cxxxxxxx because everything had already been proven by other witnesses. So, now that they don't believe that anymore they surely want to hear from him, right?

There is no telling what that guy knows, even Schiff has not spoken to him and pinkie swears he doesn't even know who he is.

(1) What specifically was in his complaint that hasn’t already been confirmed by the witnesses they have? 2) calling previously blocked witnesses to bolster the case doesn’t mean they don’t believe they can‘t prove it without them, (3) “what the guy knows“ would be more of a mystery if he had said anything in his complaint we weren‘t able to corroborate after the fact. They don’t want him to testify publicly for the same reason you wouldn’t spell out his entire name on here: because his identity deserves to be protected. The whistleblower-outing angle is a shameful and desperate defense. I’m glad I hadn’t heard it used recently.

 

[Intensesaint]

(1) What specifically was in his complaint that hasn’t already been confirmed by the witnesses they have? 2) calling previously blocked witnesses to bolster the case doesn’t mean they don’t believe they can‘t prove it without them, (3) “what the guy knows“ would be more of a mystery if he had said anything in his complaint we weren‘t able to corroborate after the fact. They don’t want him to testify publicly for the same reason you wouldn’t spell out his entire name on here: because his identity deserves to be protected. The whistleblower-outing angle is a shameful and desperate defense. I’m glad I hadn’t heard it used recently.

You realize we have used his full name here before. Beach is probably doing the x-out thing to be cheeky and you missed it.

Eric Ciaramella was his name.

The question I have is, why are democrats so scared of him getting on the stand?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You realize we have used his full name here before. Beach is probably doing the x-out thing to be cheeky and you missed it.

Eric Ciaramella was his name.

The question I have is, why are democrats so scared of him getting on the stand?

Why is anyone so set on trying to out the person that Trump implied should be put to death?

 

[Beach Friends]

They don’t want him to testify publicly for the same reason you wouldn’t spell out his entire name on here:

I doubt that the reason the Democrats don't want him to testify is because I can't remember how to spell his name.

IIRC, Eric said in his complaint that he spoke to 6 people about the phone call. Who are those 6 people?

 

[Dragon]

I doubt that the reason the Democrats don't want him to testify is because I can't remember how to spell his name.

IIRC, Eric said in his complaint that he spoke to 6 people about the phone call. Who are those 6 people?

EVERY single point of his complaint has been proven true - some of it by Trump himself!

The only reason to ask for those names would be in order to punish them for speaking up! - Which other reasons could there possible be?

And why still keep writing the name of someone who may or may not be the whistleblower when it is obvious that it may put the person at risk - there are crazy people in the world and some fanatic may do something stupid. In this day and age even if it is easy to hide behind a keyboard and repeating rumors heard on other sites, they sometimes have very real life consequenses for those who are affected.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/22/us/pizzagate-attack-sentence.html

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I doubt that the reason the Democrats don't want him to testify is because I can't remember how to spell his name.

IIRC, Eric said in his complaint that he spoke to 6 people about the phone call. Who are those 6 people?

At long last Senator McCarthy have you no sense of decency?!
Ring a bell?

 

[RobF]

The only reason to ask for those names would be in order to punish them for speaking up! - Which other reasons could there possible be?

Right. I think at this point in the conversation, when the reasons and necessity for whistleblower protection should be thoroughly understood, and when the investigation of the whistleblower's complaint has been more than substantiated independently of the whistleblower, it's pretty clear that anyone going, "But, the whistleblower!" either isn't paying any attention at all, or is wilfully pushing an irrational partisan talking point. They either don't realise, or don't care, that the result of the investigation is, at this point, completely independent of them.

It should also be obvious that the whistleblower's account was limited by the extent of their own knowledge, and that their limited account being substantiated by other witnesses rendering the whistleblower's own testimony redundant doesn't change the fact that other witnesses can add information and evidence beyond that known to the whistleblower. It should also go without saying that for any investigation to be comprehensive it would necessarily depend on calling those witnesses to hear that additional evidence.

 

[TaylorB]

I doubt that the reason the Democrats don't want him to testify is because I can't remember how to spell his name.

IIRC, Eric said in his complaint that he spoke to 6 people about the phone call. Who are those 6 people?

You realize we have used his full name here before. Beach is probably doing the x-out thing to be cheeky and you missed it.

Eric Ciaramella was his name.

The question I have is, why are democrats so scared of him getting on the stand?

I looked at old posts to see who was using his name on here, and it was mostly your two accounts. It’s been explained to both of you repeatedly why he was protected and why his testimony was unnecessarily cumulative given that the info has been obtained and confirmed from better sources. This is another deflection, as neither of you will acknowledge the fact that the whistleblower‘s info was solid.

Since you scoffed at the fact that I was unaware there was a prior crusade to air his name on here, I‘m wondering why you didn’t push back on my statement that the complaint was accurate. Pretty much all reasonably serious people stopped promoting the “where’s the whistleblower” nonsense several weeks ago because they couldn’t dispute the complaints. His name seems to appear most frequently on fringe sites that promote propaganda and conspiracies.

If Republicans wanted to appease the crowd that insists on outing this guy, they could vote in the senate to call him as a witness. I wouldn’t have a problem with that if they could ensure his physical protection, and if it meant we also got to hear other witnesses with more relevant/direct info. Except the GOP is busy voting down witnesses and documents. Intensesaint — you suggested that not calling a witness means the party is scared of said witness. Is that really a good talking point for Trump defenders right now? Will either of you ever specifically acknowledge the accuracy of the complaint?

 

[Dadsdream]

Dadsdream, the argument that you can‘t compare the impeachment process to a criminal prosecution is undercut by what you said when you wanted a witness to have to testify...

Touche'!
Caveat: House proceedings and Senate proceedings are apples and oranges.

 

[Dadsdream]

I looked at old posts to see who was using his name on here, and it was mostly your two accounts. It’s been explained to both of you repeatedly why he was protected and why his testimony was unnecessarily cumulative given that the info has been obtained and confirmed from better sources.

This post is starting to sound like a stalker with control issues.

You also dug back into my posts about the House proceedings and promptly applied it to what I was saying about the Senate proceedings. Apples and oranges, like I said.

May I suggest not digging around in past posts and instead stick to the ebb and flow of the current conversation.

 

[First Time Poster]

This post is starting to sound like a stalker with control issues.

You also dug back into my posts about the House proceedings and promptly applied it to what I was saying about the Senate proceedings. Apples and oranges, like I said.

May I suggest not digging around in past posts and instead stick to the ebb and flow of the current conversation.

You always run to this narrative when you've backed yourself into an inconsistent, hypocritical corner. The poster isn't "stalking" anyone. That's lame. They remembered a prior post you made, clearly contradicting your current thought, used the search function afforded to all posters on this site, and exposed your opposing statements. It's no different than a media operation showing someone saying one thing during one decade and then saying something completely different in another. You may not like being the target of it but stop giving them material.

We went through this when this site was still in development and we were discussing the parameters of it. I said then you were on a crusade to make Andrus say it wasn't permissible to have posters paste another's posters prior post (5 times fast), trying to fit that into the banner of "clean slate." Why? Why are you so afraid of being confronted with your own words? Are you that wildly inconsistent and hypocritical that all discussions must be contained to what is said on that date? This site wasn't supposed to be an escape hatch from everything we've ever said and did. You didn't want posters linking back to posts from SR. Fine. Now, it is out of bounds to link back to posts said on this site?! Seriously? Again, why? Stand up and defend what you've said. Or don't.

Perhaps you can explain why the House & Senate proceedings are "apples to oranges" and make a proper refute of the claim instead of calling the poster a stalker. Because right now, TaylorB has you in discover check and I'm interested to know how you can reconcile the two thoughts.