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]

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.

May I suggest you let posters apply context where applicable
May I also suggest that you.appreciate that voting and political engagement does not happen in a bubble- my vote (or lack thererof) effects you and vice versa
I have a vested interest in all voters being as informed and engaged in perspective as possible

 

[TaylorB]

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

For what it's worth, yesterday when you cautioned people not to compare impeachment to criminal proceedings, I took a gander and searched "Dadsdream" and "witnesses," and literally the first post I read was you comparing impeachment to criminal proceedings.

Since this site is anonymous and your avatar is a cartoon, the only personal thing I learned about you in my stalkerish escapade is that you have a documented record of changing your argument to fit your narrative. The only other details I know about you are from prior friendly exchanges we've had. If that makes me a stalker, maybe I am still learning the internet message board thing

 

[JimEverett]

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.

It is not new evidence. It is old evidence available to the House if they had engaged in a proper investigation and impeachment proceeding. They did not - they wanted to rush through it (only to then delay it) and now want the SEnate to cure their deficiencies. They are playing a political game and using impeachment as their tool.

 

[JimEverett]

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.

I think it is important to be clear about what has been alleged in terms of the "ask" by Trump.

He asked for an investigation into Burisma (that, I believe was Vindman's testimony), and/or he asked to look into this Hunter Biden thing.
I am not aware of any allegation that Trump asked for a conviction of anything, much less Joe Biden. Not aware of an allegation that Trump asked for Biden to be taken into custody, that he be fined, that he lose anything of value whatsoever.

Further, I think the whole idea of Hunter Biden getting a job on the board of Burisma screams "corruption" - so I disagree with the idea that no one thinks Biden did anything corrupt.

 

[coldseat]

It is not new evidence. It is old evidence available to the House if they had engaged in a proper investigation and impeachment proceeding. They did not - they wanted to rush through it (only to then delay it) and now want the SEnate to cure their deficiencies. They are playing a political game and using impeachment as their tool.

Your stance isn't a justification for what the Senate is doing, it's an excuse for running a horribly biased cover-up of a trial. You're excusing horrible malfeasance because you have a problem with the House's investigation. At least own up to that much.

 

[Beach Friends]

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

So, who were the 6 people Eric spoke to in forming the allegations of his complaint?

 

[JimEverett]

Your stance isn't a justification for what the Senate is doing, it's an excuse for running a horribly biased cover-up of a trial. You're excusing horrible malfeasance because you have a problem with the House's investigation. At least own up to that much.

"Horrible malfeasance" - that is way over the top. You are jumping the gun given that the Senate has not even made most of its decisions yet.

 

[coldseat]

"Horrible malfeasance" - that is way over the top. You are jumping the gun given that the Senate has not even made most of its decisions yet.

You have a point, I suppose technically anything is still possible. We'll wait and see. I just don't see it going any other way, not with McConnell heading everything up. I also don't see any Republican Senator breaking ranks either. So I think not only is the decision pre-determined, but also the format. And the format is designed to get Trump off as quickly as possible while restricting as much information as humanly possible.

 

[wardorican]

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.

Intensesaint stated they used his name before, so TaylorB did his homework and caught up on what was told to him.

Various posters don't like repeating themselves and often tell others to "go back and look for what I said".

Looks like we have someone willing to do that, and consider that information. Isn't that a positive trait?

I find it better than hiding from your recent words. It is one thing to dig up something from 8 years ago on SR. Another to go back a few weeks or a month here.

 

[wardorican]

It is not new evidence. It is old evidence available to the House if they had engaged in a proper investigation and impeachment proceeding. They did not - they wanted to rush through it (only to then delay it) and now want the SEnate to cure their deficiencies. They are playing a political game and using impeachment as their tool.

I think it is equally plausible that they grew frustrated with the level of Trumps stonewalling. It is the same tactic he used for business. His model is to drag it out in court.

What is the justification for the DoD and State Dept to not hand over emails and what's app discussions that weren't one on one with the president?

 

[wardorican]

So, who were the 6 people Eric spoke to in forming the allegations of his complaint?

What did Bolton, Trump, Pompeo, and/or Giuliani say/hear? That is all that matters.

Once the call 'transcript' was released, and the DoD legal concerns over the OMB's non-obligation came to light, the who heard or thought what became less important. They had to use those folks, because they cant get anyone else. But there were enough savvy people in the loop or in the mechanics of it to know something was wrong/weird.

 

[Beach Friends]

What did Bolton, Trump, Pompeo, and/or Giuliani say/hear? That is all that matters.

Once the call 'transcript' was released, and the DoD legal concerns over the OMB's non-obligation came to light, the who heard or thought what became less import
Those ant. They had to use those folks, because they cant get anyone else. But there were enough savvy people in the loop or in the mechanics of it to know something was wrong/weird.

If you think that when people write a statement down on paper that cross examination does not reveal additional or different information then you are mistaken. So, while you may be satisfied I don't think that resolves the issue.

There is no guarantee of anonymity in the whistleblower statute.

 

[JimEverett]

I think it is equally plausible that they grew frustrated with the level of Trumps stonewalling. It is the same tactic he used for business. His model is to drag it out in court.

What is the justification for the DoD and State Dept to not hand over emails and what's app discussions that weren't one on one with the president?

Sure, I think there could be an element of truth to that. But I think equally true, if not more so, was that they wanted to rush the impeachment through for political purposes. I just believe that if it is important enough you fight.

I cannot prove this, of course - but the whole thing just strikes me as being very manipulative. Democrats are not stupid - they understand what is happening and understood what is happening/will happen - like this whole fight with the SEnate was planned. As in, they relly don;t want or care to hear what Bolton or McGhan have to say - that it is the "fight" that matters. Otherwise, I cannot make sense of why they did not press the issue in court over such a grave matter as election integrity - which was their stated concern.

 

[Archies Ghost]

State AGs urge Senate to reject impeachment in stinging letter: 'A dangerous historical precedent'

EXCLUSIVE: The attorneys general of 21 states have come forward with a blistering rebuke of the impeachment of President Trump, asserting that it "establishes a dangerous historical precedent."

www.foxnews.com

 

[Dadsdream]

Intensesaint stated they used his name before, so TaylorB did his homework and caught up on what was told to him.

Various posters don't like repeating themselves and often tell others to "go back and look for what I said".

Looks like we have someone willing to do that, and consider that information. Isn't that a positive trait?

I find it better than hiding from your recent words. It is one thing to dig up something from 8 years ago on SR. Another to go back a few weeks or a month here.

Taking what i said in a discussion about the House proceedings and applying it to what I am saying about the Senate proceedings is incorrect.

Apples and oranges.

 

[TaylorB]

Taking what i said in a discussion about the House proceedings and applying it to what I am saying about the Sentae proceedings is incorrect.

Apples and oranges.

The distinction is that when the House proceedings were run by Democrats, you were criticizing them not calling witnesses, and now that the Senate proceedings are run by Republicans, you are applauding them not calling witnesses. All under the pretext of "adherence to decorum and tradition of the Senate," when the tradition of the Senate for centuries has been to call witnesses and consider documents during impeachment proceedings.

Moreover, the context in which you raised the Confrontation Clause and compared impeachment to criminal proceedings was in support of your claim that the President had the right to confront the whistleblower as his "accuser." But the right to confront your accuser is exercised during cross-examination at trial. Which chamber does the Constitution task with conducting impeachment trials? Even if you were distinguishing the two chambers' proceedings -- a claim I'm not sold on -- the distinction didn't make any sense in that context, and it certainly doesn't now.

 

[Nebaghead]

State AGs urge Senate to reject impeachment in stinging letter: 'A dangerous historical precedent'

EXCLUSIVE: The attorneys general of 21 states have come forward with a blistering rebuke of the impeachment of President Trump, asserting that it "establishes a dangerous historical precedent."

www.foxnews.com

This is as relevant as AG's from blue states saying the opposite. I can say the AG in Nebraska needs to look at the governor who has stymied the medicare expansion and delayed it from being implemented in Nebraska after the citizens overwhelmingly voted for it in 2018. They don't expect it to be enacted till October of 2020. It took other states with the same legislation 3-6 months to implement. This AG is also the same guy that claims medical marijuana bill being proposed for Nebraska is unconstitutional.

 

[insidejob]

This is as relevant as AG's from blue states saying the opposite. I can say the AG in Nebraska needs to look at the governor who has stymied the medicare expansion and delayed it from being implemented in Nebraska after the citizens overwhelmingly voted for it in 2018. They don't expect it to be enacted till October of 2020. It took other states with the same legislation 3-6 months to implement. This AG is also the same guy that claims medical marijuana bill being proposed for Nebraska is unconstitutional.

Exactly. Every single one of those AG's are from deep red states and toe the Trump party line. Hell, Landry in Louisiana is such a clown that he hates his own brother because he's gay. I can't remember what Landry was pushing, but it was totally anti-LGBTQ and his brother came out against him for it and talked about how badly he's been treated ever since he came out of the closet by our lovely AG.