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

 

[samiam5211]

You are correct.

I am paying no attention to the Democrat fever dream.

This is what is wrong with the country.

You are choosing to be willfully ignorant, not only that, but you manage to be proud of it.

We do not deserve a republic.

 

[V Chip]

This right in this country is unhinged in it's defense of Trump.

To copy what I said to Joe...

We shouldn't feel comfortable with throwing around "unhinged" to describe the "other side." Some might believe those words to be true, but if we really want to clean up the board for better discussions, we should *all* try to moderate our own commentary.

 

[wardorican]

This right in this country is unhinged in it's defense of Trump. Anything to save Dear Leader. I've never seen so many people collectively stick their head in the sand and argue so much nonsense.

Your last line is just silly, the Dems keep coming back to that very point in their arguments because it's central to the whole impeachment.

The articles of impeachment are very clear as to why he was impeached for abuse of power, there's nothing nebulous about it. And it's justified.

I gave Joe a ton of crap for saying "unhinged" about "the Left or Democrats or the Democratic party", so I'm going to give you some of the same crap. We shouldn't use terms like that directed to a whole group. You could simply say the right is seemingly bending over backwards in defense of Trump.. etc.

 

[Beach Friends]

Not just the right.

It's been interesting to see that some of the best discussions debunking the Democratic narratives have come from the far left. Those people occupy an odd slice of the political pie. They generally aren't fans of the Democratic establishment because they feel that the Democratic party has abandoned the American worker. I probably disagree with their core beliefs, and yet I find that they are more reasonable on issues such as free speech, regime change wars and the corruption of the MSM.

 

[wardorican]

To copy what I said to Joe...

We shouldn't feel comfortable with throwing around "unhinged" to describe the "other side." Some might believe those words to be true, but if we really want to clean up the board for better discussions, we should *all* try to moderate our own commentary.

Ha, ok, you said it better.

 

[wardorican]

It's been interesting to see that some of the best discussions debunking the Democratic narratives have come from the far left. Those people occupy an odd slice of the political pie. They generally aren't fans of the Democratic establishment because they feel that the Democratic party has abandoned the American worker. I probably disagree with their core beliefs, and yet I find that they are more reasonable on issues such as free speech, regime change wars and the corruption of the MSM.

Lawyers argue a side. There are always a few points you can nitpick.

That being said, inviting or asking for foreign interference, even if just to do a smear campaign, on potentially false allegations, isn't something to blindly ignore, and do impact elections. Ballot stuffing isn't the only way to make an election unfair.

 

[V Chip]

It's been interesting to see that some of the best discussions debunking the Democratic narratives have come from the far left. Those people occupy an odd slice of the political pie. They generally aren't fans of the Democratic establishment because they feel that the Democratic party has abandoned the American worker. I probably disagree with their core beliefs, and yet I find that they are more reasonable on issues such as free speech, regime change wars and the corruption of the MSM.

It's nice to find that despite many differences in opinion, "opposites" can often have similar opinions/criticisms. It's also refreshing to see when one "side" criticizes its own. That doesn't happen that often in this polarized day and age.

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[Beach Friends]

It's nice to find that despite many differences in opinion, "opposites" can often have similar opinions/criticisms. It's also refreshing to see when one "side" criticizes its own. That doesn't happen that often in this polarized day and age.

Right now there are some who I would consider to be on the far left who are very critical of the Democratic party. I think they are properly characterized as anti establishment. Many of the journalists cited by AG fall into that category I think.

They are especially vocal now, in large part, because they feel the Democrats are giving candidates like Bernie, Tulsi and Yang a raw deal.

If you have not watched them any, give progressives like Jimmy Dore (who is actually a comedian) and Krystal Ball a chance. They offer criticisms of the MSM that are often insightful.

Jimmy Dore is palatable, even when I disagree with him, because he is funny. Krystal is tolerable, even when I disagree with her, because I think she would really like me if she ever had the restraining order lifted and gave me a chance.

 

[RegularChuck]

This is what is wrong with the country.

You are choosing to be willfully ignorant, not only that, but you manage to be proud of it.

We do not deserve a republic.

I don’t think he even means what he says. Look how active he is in this thread. He’s paying attention, he just made up his mind right at the beginning. That’s my interpretation of that post.

 

[Archies Ghost]

I don’t think he even means what he says. Look how active he is in this thread. He’s paying attention, he just made up his mind right at the beginning. That’s my interpretation of that post.

You are correct that I long ago decided that impeachment was a sentence in search of crime with regard to Trump and the current Democrats.

Impeachment, for any reason, is a bad thing. Elections have consequences and, barring egregious behavior that both parties can easily agree on, it should be avoided.

If I were to stipulate that Trump was guilty of withholding aid to the Ukraine for purely personal gain, I would still argue that it does not rise to the bar of impeachment.

However, we have crossed that particular Rubicon.

Impeachment for what amounts to triviality in the normal course of foreign affairs is now a thing.

In order to discourage endless repetition of this episode, our hope lies in the Senate disposing of this appropriately and for the Democrat party that foisted it upon us to suffer at the ballot box come November.

I am not the one clinging to the Republic be damned, full speed ahead course of action.

The left on this board doesn't even seem to acknowledge the harm any impeachment does and the greater harm this particular episode is likely to facilitate.

There are now two paths for the future of impeachment. It either becomes meaningless and automatically dismissed or it becomes a powerful political weapon that will make any period where the House and President are in opposition a time of constant crisis as we have seen.

 

[V Chip]

If you have not watched them any, give progressives like Jimmy Dore (who is actually a comedian) and Krystal Ball a chance. They offer criticisms of the MSM that are often insightful.

Unfortunately, I'm not a fan of either. They occasionally say insightful things, but Dore for instance is a conspiracy theorist who argued that Seth Rich was murdered by the Clintons (ugh) and that 911 was an inside job (double ugh). There's tons more on him that is cringe-inducing.

Krystal Ball is much better and I think she does have a much better take on things than Dore, but she's to me like a one-issue voter, except her one "issue" is being a Bernie Sanders supporter. I like that she is critical of a lot of unworthy opinions (but has some odd takes as well, like saying Obama wanted Trump to win the Presidency), but I have yet to see her once criticize Sanders or his campaign while she has hit most of the rest of the left on issues she disagrees with, and that makes me a bit wary of her.

 

[RegularChuck]

You are correct that I long ago decided that impeachment was a sentence in search of crime with regard to Trump and the current Democrats.

Impeachment, for any reason, is a bad thing. Elections have consequences and, barring egregious behavior that both parties can easily agree on, it should be avoided.

If I were to stipulate that Trump was guilty of withholding aid to the Ukraine for purely personal gain, I would still argue that it does not rise to the bar of impeachment.

However, we have crossed that particular Rubicon.

Impeachment for what amounts to triviality in the normal course of foreign affairs is now a thing.

In order to discourage endless repetition of this episode, our hope lies in the Senate disposing of this appropriately and for the Democrat party that foisted it upon us to suffer at the ballot box come November.

I am not the one clinging to the Republic be damned, full speed ahead course of action.

The left on this board doesn't even seem to acknowledge the harm any impeachment does and the greater harm this particular episode is likely to facilitate.

There are now two paths for the future of impeachment. It either becomes meaningless and automatically dismissed or it becomes a powerful political weapon that will make any period where the House and President are in opposition a time of constant crisis as we have seen.

Then do you give the arguments laid out in the impeachment process and these discussions objective consideration or do you tune them out since your mind was made up long ago?

 

[insidejob]

Then do you give the arguments laid out in the impeachment process and these discussions objective consideration or do you tune them out since your mind was made up long ago?

I'm willing to bet I know his answer. And so do you.

 

[Beach Friends]

So, this is probably not the thread for this, but it is something I want to explore further. I don't think the candidates remaining are all that "woke". And I don't know what you think will happen if they're elected.

My favorite candidate remaining is Amy Klobuchar. What do you think would happen if she were president?

Let's say Trump gets through this unscathed and more popular. Do you think this opens the door to allowing the White House to use foreign governments to announce investigations into their enemies in order to damage them? I don't think this will happen a lot, there has to be a confluence of opportunity and motive, but I think if this is considered allowable, it will happen again. And not just against other politicians, but anyone the President wants to hurt -- think Warren and Sanders going after Koch Industries (note I have no idea if they would, but if this is established as being legal, or at least with a standard of proof so high as to be meaningless, then I can see it happening).



I suspect if a Democrat were in office there would be a lot overlooking of behavior or rationalization, sure. But it also seems to me that when a Democrat is caught doing something smarmy, they usually apologize and promise not to do it again (often while looking for some other scheme). And then we all forget about it. I prefer that to basically the "F you" we get out of the White House now.

A lot there. I agree that the most woke have already made an exit.

However, Warren just announced that if elected 50% of her cabinet would be comprised of females and non binary people. Don't get me wrong, if hypothetically she looked for the best people and they all turned out to fall into those categories then fine.

But, to declare in advance that she is going to force force her decisions to fit such criteria is, to me, pandering and the equivalent of saying she is not going to make such decisions thoughtfully.

Futher, it indicates that she is a believer in "equity, " which sounds like a nice term but it's not so nice in practice. We can make equality of outcome the priority or we can make equality of opportunity the priority. They are not the same.

Biden recently made a comment that he thinks illegal aliens should only be deported when they commit a felony and then went on to specifically state that DUI's are not felonies. Of course typically they are not, but why is the man who has claimed that members of his family were killed by a drunk driver going out if his way to downplay that crime? It's not very logical, and that's one of the problems I have with a candidate that will now to the tyranny of wokeness. Reason goes out the window and fear of offending the perpetually offended controls. It's the reason we saw a stage full of candidates mindlessly all raising their hands in that infamous moment.

I don't know that much about your preferred candidate, other than she has a reputation for being an ill tempered boss.

I think we don't have to imagine the worst of times when it comes to weaponizing investigations of political opponents. I think we are seeing it play out before our eyes but we won't really get a clear picture of what exactly led to this point until Mr. Durham plays his hand.

 

[Taurus]

I think the Dems misplayed their hand with the witness swap. They should've called the GOP bluff and said "Sure! Call Hunter Biden, call Joe Biden, call freakin' Santa Claus if you want, so long as we get to call Bolton and Mulvaney. And NOT at three A.M. either. In Prime Time."

 

[TaylorB]

You are correct that I long ago decided that impeachment was a sentence in search of crime with regard to Trump and the current Democrats.

Impeachment, for any reason, is a bad thing. Elections have consequences and, barring egregious behavior that both parties can easily agree on, it should be avoided.

If I were to stipulate that Trump was guilty of withholding aid to the Ukraine for purely personal gain, I would still argue that it does not rise to the bar of impeachment.

However, we have crossed that particular Rubicon.

Impeachment for what amounts to triviality in the normal course of foreign affairs is now a thing.

In order to discourage endless repetition of this episode, our hope lies in the Senate disposing of this appropriately and for the Democrat party that foisted it upon us to suffer at the ballot box come November.

I am not the one clinging to the Republic be damned, full speed ahead course of action.

The left on this board doesn't even seem to acknowledge the harm any impeachment does and the greater harm this particular episode is likely to facilitate.

There are now two paths for the future of impeachment. It either becomes meaningless and automatically dismissed or it becomes a powerful political weapon that will make any period where the House and President are in opposition a time of constant crisis as we have seen.

I'll be the first to acknowledge that impeachment is a bad thing, and is potentially harmful to democracy, particularly if it's taken lightly and used as a convenient political tool. I also think it should be reserved for egregious behavior. The 2/3 Senate vote required for removal indicates an effort by the founders to require a reasonably strong bipartisan consensus. So in short, I tend to agree that all of those concerns about the magnitude and consequence of impeachment are valid.

I also think what the President did was very harmful to foreign policy with respect to both an ally (Ukraine) and an enemy (Russia), and that he has done even more harm by trying to cover it up. In the scope of what the framers were considering as impeachable conduct, my thought is that this conduct is at or near the center of that scope. It wasn't a miscalculated statement in a phone call -- it was a deliberate scheme that was concealed from the public and US officials for several months until it finally unraveled.

I've always been uncomfortable with the idea of moving forward with an impeachment that nearly half the country opposes, but in my view we can't allow that sort of presidential behavior if we want a healthy democracy in the future. If there was a consistent argument by Trump defenders to the effect of "the conduct is bad, but so is impeachment, and I just think the harm of impeachment is much worse," I would disagree, but there's room for debate and discussion about the impact of both. I just find that instead of that argument, it's typically finger pointing at the process, Dems, whistleblower, and a complete denial of the possibility of any wrongdoing on behalf of the president. You might see more acknowledgement of the downside of impeachment if we could reach that point in the discussion.

 

[dtc]

I gave Joe a ton of crap for saying "unhinged" about "the Left or Democrats or the Democratic party", so I'm going to give you some of the same crap. We shouldn't use terms like that directed to a whole group. You could simply say the right is seemingly bending over backwards in defense of Trump.. etc.

Not to quibble, but I'm going to quibble.

What's the difference between "unhinged" and "bending over backwards"?

They're even geometrically similar. Nobody can actually bend over backwards, but if they did they would appear "unhinged."


I don't see why "unhinged" is any more or less antagonistic than saying they're "bending over backwards."

JMHO, but if we find offense in one then we might find it in the other, as well. Hell, "Willing to stoop to any level" is no better, but all accurate.