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

 

[CoolBrees]

If the R’s want to call the whistleblower, they can as far as I know. Only need 51 votes, so not even their whole caucus.

Why haven’t they subpoenaed him or her knowing they have the votes?

 

[JimEverett]

Again, Adam Schiff flat out said was that court cases were more prolonged than usual then going to appeals. The charges are in relation to the current election cycle. Waiting to let him continue to try to cheat wasn't a good idea, nor the right thing to do.

Imagine this scenario.

The House waited, took these final pieces to court, if/when/after subpoenas were ignored, and assume Democrats retain the House (may not... then Republicans just kill the investigation). What if it proves, beyond all reasonable doubt that this was a quid pro quo, for personal gain, everyone knew what they were doing was wrong, but possibly hard to prove...

Do questions about the validity of the election come up? Now this is different than 2016... this is a charge of election tampering (by spreading falsehoods using govt authority) while being the sitting president. The only way you get a deal is if you do this shady stuff for me to help me get re elected...It may not be full blown dictator ballot stuffing, but I think it would be a whole new level of corruption. Especially if the house flips back to republicans. If the court orders documents released and they proved the impeachable offense.... what do you do now that presumably the Republican house and senate wouldnt act, since it is their guy. Do you think any would flip to do the right thing?

But the Courts will not take 8 months to rule. There will be an expedited process given the impeachment inquiry.

In your scenario - what is the damage done from being where we are now - in late January vs. being in the same place come early to mid-March? Further, assuming the Democrats are correct - there is also the factor of having a relatively weak impeachment case v. having a much stronger case.

 

[coldseat]

It's the same playbook as Russiagate. The Democrats had their chance and they passed on getting the courts to compel their testimonies. That's why obstruction of Congress is a laughable charge.

What do you think will be found? We've already seen the call transcript. We know the Democrats had to move on to Ukraine because Russiagate fizzled out. The Russia investigation and the information that came from it was SO important that the Democrats didn't include ANYTHING at all from it in their impeachment articles.

I guess you didn't know that there are still court cases pending on subpoenas for the Russia Investigation. Trump did the exact same thing then when the House finally took up the issue of obstruction in the Russian investigation. The only difference there is that we had Mueller do an actual investigation and he wasn't blocked from all Executive documents and witnesses the way the House was when it was investigating Ukraine.

You already know what they'll find and it will point straight at Trump. Just like all of the evidence and witness that have testified in the House investigation point straight at Trump.

 

[samiam5211]

It makes it seem like there is something dirty going on behind the scenes that Schiff and the Democrats don't want the public to know.

I could see how that might come off as sketchy...

I hope you would feel the same way if a president complained about a congressional investigation not including first hand information while also preventing access to any first hand information.

Sketchy...bigly sketchy.

 

[t_rav_82]

The "whistleblower" started this whole process. Do you realize how crazy it sounds to claim that the person who started this whole process doesn't need to be heard from? It makes it seem like there is something dirty going on behind the scenes that Schiff and the Democrats don't want the public to know.

Pretty sure DJT started this whole process and I'd love to hear from him. But it's really not that crazy that the whistleblower doesn't need to be heard from once it's confirmed from other sources that their report was credible.

 

[BobE]

I get that this is historical and all but they really need to add some intermission performances or something. This shirt gets old fast. Off to AA to keep my sanity y'all hold it down.

 

[Nebaghead]

But the Courts will not take 8 months to rule. There will be an expedited process given the impeachment inquiry.

In your scenario - what is the damage done from being where we are now - in late January vs. being in the same place come early to mid-March? Further, assuming the Democrats are correct - there is also the factor of having a relatively weak impeachment case v. having a much stronger case.

Can you point out in a law or the constitution where expedited Supreme Court review is written? It isn’t guaranteed. What is to say they get it and the senate stalls the impeachment till after the election. Lots of if and buts.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

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.

Trump asked for an announcement to be made that an investigation into Burisma is happening. We know from his conversation that he was after this "whole Hunter Biden" thing. You don't think an announcement into corruption connected to Biden would damage his election prospects? And you think the government has the right to damage someone without some sort of due process?

By your standard, you're ok with a theoretical President Warren pressuring a country to announce a corruption investigation into Koch Industries while they're seeking some sort of acquisition or other deal that would make it harder for them to make that deal?

And I certainly don't think you believe that anything we know about Biden is worth suspicion. You don't seem to think that merely having a family member making money in area where an elected official has power is worth a serious inquiry. It doesn't seem to meet your standard of evidence.

FWIW, I've offered multiple times to propose a rule/law that says high ranking government officials should not have family members in business in areas where they have some sort of influence over. But no one seems to want to push that. Least of all Trump.

 

[Saintamaniac]

"The whistleblower needs to testify, the whistleblower needs to testitfy." That's all trump supporters here keep screaming as if everything the whistleblower reported hasn't been collaborated by others. The whistleblower and Biden are so key to proving trump's innocence that the Republicans in the Senate won't even hold a vote and compel him/her to testify even though they have the votes as someone else already pointed out. They remind me of the guy being held back by his friends pretending to want to fight but in reality he is deathly afraid that he'll get his arse kicked once his friends let him go.

Trump lawyers and Republicans have produced 0 evidence that show trump isn't guilty of what he's been impeached for. "Read the transcript". It's been doctored. Produce the original in its entirety. Crickets.

Republicans in the house through a hissy fit about the whistleblower needing to testify and so did trump. He did the same thing with Bolton only to cry "national security". It's pretty clear to the majority of the people in the country and around the world the political cover up and charade that the Republicans are orchestrating in plain sight.

 

[Beach Friends]

"The whistleblower needs to testify, the whistleblower needs to testitfy." That's all trump supporters here keep screaming

I apologize if it seems that way. We also want to hear from Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. However, I am okay with letting the Senate dispensing with the impeachment nonsense and then looking into the corruption of the Bidens.

 

[V Chip]

I apologize if it seems that way. We also want to hear from Hunter Biden and Joe Biden.

Hear from them on what?

(Paraphrasing the question @UncleTrvlingJim has asked repeatedly with no real reply) You don't think there's enough evidence to launch an investigation of Joe Biden do you?

 

[samiam5211]

I apologize if it seems that way. We also want to hear from Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. However, I am okay with letting the Senate dispensing with the impeachment nonsense and then looking into the corruption of the Bidens.

What do you feel they have to add?

Do you think Trump’s impeachment should depend o. the Biden’s guilt or innocence?

 

[FullMonte]

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 do you think that their attempts to keep him from testifying are because they are scared of what he might say? Couldn't it equally be (or more likely be) that putting him on the stand would discourage future whistleblowers from reporting?

Now let me make an analogy:

I call 911 to report someone breaking into my neighbors house. The cops show up, and find two men coming out through a broken window carrying a crowbar and several items from inside the house. The two men have a lengthy arrest record for burglaries of this type, and one of them cops a plea deal, admitting everything. The other wants to go to trial. His attorney tries to call me, as the 911 caller, as a witness, but the prosecution objects to having my name entered in the record or forcing me to testify, since there is nothing I can say that would aid the prosecution or defense.

Is there a reason I should be forced to testify when I can't actually testify to anything that materially affects the outcome? Does the prosecution's resistance to calling me as a witness mean that they are afraid of what I might say?

 

[Beach Friends]

I have a selfish purpose, I want to make 50k a month for doing nothing and I want to know what motivated a Ukrainian company to pay him that. You know, so I can duplicate that. Is that kind of thing something that is listed on Monster.com?

I am shocked that there seems to be zero liberals who are curious about that.

 

[FullMonte]

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.

As I pointed out earlier, in the memorandum of telephone conversation, the president never asked anything about Burisma. He asked for an investigation into the Bidens, and mentioned that Joe got he prosecutor fired. I think it's relevant that Trump didn't mention corruption in Ukraine, he didn't mention suspicious activity by Hunter Biden, the only item he mentioned was Joe Biden getting the prosecutor fired.

If he was actually concerned about whether or not there was any corruption regarding Hunter Biden being on the board of Burisma, why wasn't THAT what he mentioned? Why was the one thing he mentioned something that our own DOJ can look into? Can't our government find out if Joe Biden was acting on behalf of the USA, under direction from the President when he got the prosecutor fired? What, exactly, was Trump expecting Ukraine to find out about Joe Biden getting the prosecutor fired?

 

[FullMonte]

I have a selfish purpose, I want to make 50k a month for doing nothing and I want to know what motivated a Ukrainian company to pay him that. You know, so I can duplicate that. Is that kind of thing something that is listed on Monster.com?

I am shocked that there seems to be zero liberals who are curious about that.

I think it's quite clear why they hired him. They thought that hiring the son of the vice president of the US might give them some pull with the US if they needed. The question is, did the Vice President ever do anything questionable based on the fact that his son worked for Burisma?

For example, did the Ukrainian government give Hunter Biden more than a dozen trademarks in their country, and then within days, did Joe Biden begin trying to aid a Ukrainian company that was under sanction in the US?

 

[FullMonte]

I apologize if it seems that way. We also want to hear from Hunter Biden and Joe Biden. However, I am okay with letting the Senate dispensing with the impeachment nonsense and then looking into the corruption of the Bidens.

Why? Do you think that if Hunter Biden is proven to be corrupt with regards to Burisma, that somehow exonerates the president? Unless I'm mistaken, that would also mean that if Hunter Biden is shown to have done nothing wrong, that means that the president is guilty.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I have a selfish purpose, I want to make 50k a month for doing nothing and I want to know what motivated a Ukrainian company to pay him that. You know, so I can duplicate that. Is that kind of thing something that is listed on Monster.com?

I am shocked that there seems to be zero liberals who are curious about that.

So, you think we should investigate everyone who has a family member making money with a company that does business in an area that the official has some jurisdiction or influence over?

I’ve said multiple times that I think those sorts of connections are inappropriate and would support rules to prevent that, to crickets from the conservatives.