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

 

[MT15]

Normally you limit your whataboutism to Trump, so I see you have an extra spring in your step tonight as you threw in the last 100 years.
BTW, even before get to Durham the walls are closing in, we are seeing the beginning of the end, and bombshells! Better buckle in, it's gonna be a helluva ride!

That’s not whataboutism, lol. It speaks exactly to what you were complaining about. For most of recorded history women were not allowed to hold any positions of power. Now that they can, that it’s even possible, you criticize a symbolic pledge to get more women involved. Not to exclude men, but merely to include women.

You may get your bombshell report, but if you do it will be because of this AG’s willingness to be in the bag for this president. It will be a hollow victory that comes at the price of our rule of law. And you will blindly celebrate it as the US becomes weaker and more like any number of countries where corruption and nepotism rule, and to oppose the President, even for just cause, puts a person in legal peril from a totally corrupt DOJ.

 

[insidejob]

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

I think "unhinged" being linked to "Trump Derangement Syndrome" in the past by Trump, Jr. and idiots like Dan Bongino (or however you spell that crackpot's name) and others is what makes unhinged more of a pejorative than "bending over backwards."

I see your point, just explaining why I think unhinged could be considered out of bounds if we're trying to eliminate name calling and general behavior that doesn't advance genuine discussion.

 

[RegularChuck]

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.

I don't agree with Warren's plan on filling cabinet positions that way, but I'll take that over filling positions based on the highest bidder or nepotism.

 

[Lapaz]

Schiff is so widely despised by one side that it’s hard to imagine he moved the needle with many voters, notwithstanding his impressive of display advocacy the last few days. Amash has been spot on with his commentary on impeachment, and although he’s PNG among a lot of trump defenders, there might be some people closer to the middle that would give him an ear over Schiff. I wonder if it was a consideration to bring Amash on as a house manager. Hard to imagine how it would have made a significant impact, but it could have made decisions over witnesses and documents that much harder for the at-risk GOP senators to vote down.

Democrats can’t or shouldn’t decide on who to represent them based on Republican hatred, because they tend to hate all effective Democrats. Schiff is outstanding. No way Amash could’ve done better. Extremists will shut their ears, but moderates will listen and learn from Schiff.

 

[TaylorB]

Democrats can’t or shouldn’t decide on who to represent them based on Republican hatred, because they tend to hate all effective Democrats. Schiff is outstanding. No way Amash could’ve done better. Extremists will shut their ears, but moderates will listen and learn from Schiff.

My post's poor wording confused my point a bit.

Schiff has been outstanding, and it's hard to think of trial lawyers that could have outperformed him on substance. But if we assume the primary consideration for selection of House Managers was their ability to assist in obtaining a conviction and removal, it would have been worth discussing adding Amash to the team to counterbalance the widespread view of Schiff as an untrustworthy partisan.

Whether I agree moderates will listen to Schiff depends on what is meant by "moderates." I think very few people of the 42-43% of people responding favorably to polls about Trump's job performance will listen to Schiff. His presentation of the overwhelming case for impeachment has been masterful, but I still haven't heard of any movement in Congress or publicly. I don't think 43% of people are "extremists." I just think Schiff, like Pelosi, has been demonized by the right very effectively.

I have no clue whether having Amash on the team necessarily would have changed anything (of course, we still don't know the outcome beyond all doubt). Amash strikes me as a very bright legal mind, but there's a difference between talent on twitter and talent as a trial lawyer, so who knows. But literally the first thing that occurred to me when Schiff was chosen to run the show was how much Rs hated him, and I couldn't help but wonder if the powers that be considered including someone with broader appeal, even if they planned on Schiff still running point. I happen to think they've done very well, and I'm not second-guessing what they ultimately chose to do, but I disagree with the notion that Rs perceptions should not have been considered at all in the process. My guess is that they were, but that Schiff's immense talent as a trial lawyer tilted the role his way.

 

[coldseat]

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.

The irony is that this was the exact reason given by Democrats to not remove Clinton from office during his impeachment. It's a valid reason in some circumstances and would hold more credence if Republicans were to actually argue that. But they are unable to because Trump has mandated that his defense must be full exoneration, no apology, no wrong doing. And they don't want to incur his or Trump voters wrath if they do say he did something wrong and admit how serious a transgression this was.

Still, I agree with you that this situation is exactly why we have impeachment. It's not a reasoning that truly applies here.

 

[MT15]

I find it ironic that most of the far right will rail against PC as infringing on their free speech, but they will idolize a petty tyrant who will stifle the slightest viewpoint that is critical of him.

Where’s the freedom of expression in the Republican Party today? Total slavish devotion to Trump is the only thing allowed. Even when he misspeaks and feels compelled to take a Sharpie and redraw a weather map rather than admit he misspoke, they feel like they cannot admit he made a mistake. I just don’t get it.

 

[FWtex]

I find it ironic that most of the far right will rail against PC as infringing on their free speech, but they will idolize a petty tyrant who will stifle the slightest viewpoint that is critical of him.

Where’s the freedom of expression in the Republican Party today? Total slavish devotion to Trump is the only thing allowed. Even when he misspeaks and feels compelled to take a Sharpie and redraw a weather map rather than admit he misspoke, they feel like they cannot admit he made a mistake. I just don’t get it.

Where is the freedom of expression in the Republican Party? Seriously? Republican are the party that will consistently break ranks and vote against the majority of the party. You all call that controversy but in reality that is how congress is supposed to work. In contract. the Democrat party always follows the party line to vote as one which is just one reason I could not vote for a Democrat in present day. Any vote for a local democrat is a vote for group think of some person or group that has their own person interest that more than likely is not aligned with my district, state, or personal interest.

Free speech rights infringed? just one example of Trump shutting down any persons right to speech. You can pretty much turn on any TV channel and see anti trump every where but he just keeps on going. In contrast you have Democrat congress people and media advocating for shutting down conservative speech and conservative right to assemble. Show me one example of a conservative activist shutting down a democrat speech or protesting a democrat speech or threatening a group that attended a democrat speech.

I anxiously await your thoughtful and legitimate response.

 

[JimEverett]

Where is the freedom of expression in the Republican Party? Seriously? Republican are the party that will consistently break ranks and vote against the majority of the party. You all call that controversy but in reality that is how congress is supposed to work. In contract. the Democrat party always follows the party line to vote as one which is just one reason I could not vote for a Democrat in present day. Any vote for a local democrat is a vote for group think of some person or group that has their own person interest that more than likely is not aligned with my district, state, or personal interest.

Free speech rights infringed? just one example of Trump shutting down any persons right to speech. You can pretty much turn on any TV channel and see anti trump every where but he just keeps on going. In contrast you have Democrat congress people and media advocating for shutting down conservative speech and conservative right to assemble. Show me one example of a conservative activist shutting down a democrat speech or protesting a democrat speech or threatening a group that attended a democrat speech.

I anxiously await your thoughtful and legitimate response.

Yes - just remember, it is an actual plank of the Democratic Party Platform to ban films, books, pamphlets, articles, etc. that advocate for or against a candidate if corporate funds were used to make or disseminate that speech.

 

[Beach Friends]

LOL, at least one of Schiff's goals should have been to persuade people who don't agree with him. Boring people to death is not persuasive.

That's before you get into how the guy has torched his credibility for 3 years. Nobody is going to listen to that very odd man for hours if they are not forced to.

 

[TaylorB]

Free speech rights infringed? just one example of Trump shutting down any persons right to speech. You can pretty much turn on any TV channel and see anti trump every where but he just keeps on going. In contrast you have Democrat congress people and media advocating for shutting down conservative speech and conservative right to assemble. Show me one example of a conservative activist shutting down a democrat speech or protesting a democrat speech or threatening a group that attended a democrat speech.

I anxiously await your thoughtful and legitimate response.

To name a few,

(1) revoking and threatening to revoke security clearances of former government officials who appear on TV and say things that are critical of the administration;
(2) trying to use the DOJ to block the AT&T - Time Warner merger because Time Warner owns CNN which covers him negatively;
(3) revocation of press passes of reporters working for CNN, NBC, WaPo;
(4) taking actions harmful to Amazon in connection with Bezos' ownership of WaPo, which was critical of him, Kushner, and Saudi Arabia;
(5) threatening to expand libel laws due to negative coverage;
(6) repeatedly proclaiming that the mainstream media is the enemy of the people;
(7) publicly supporting boycotts of networks he doesn't like;
(8) tweeting fake videos of himself committing violent acts against networks he doesn't like;
(9) publicly berating NFL players for protesting racially motivated police violence by kneeling;
(10) blocking critics from his twitter account from which he claims to provide public statements;
(11) publicly floating the idea that NBC should lose its broadcasting license;
(12) publicly intimidating witnesses in cases against him.

That list is illustrative, not exhaustive.

 

[coldseat]

To name a few,

(1) revoking and threatening to revoke security clearances of former government officials who appear on TV and say things that are critical of the administration;
(2) trying to use the DOJ to block the AT&T - Time Warner merger because Time Warner owns CNN which covers him negatively;
(3) revocation of press passes of reporters working for CNN, NBC, WaPo;
(4) taking actions harmful to Amazon in connection with Bezos' ownership of WaPo, which was critical of him, Kushner, and Saudi Arabia;
(5) threatening to expand libel laws due to negative coverage;
(6) repeatedly proclaiming that the mainstream media is the enemy of the people;
(7) publicly supporting boycotts of networks he doesn't like;
(8) tweeting fake videos of himself committing violent acts against networks he doesn't like;
(9) publicly berating NFL players for protesting racially motivated police violence by kneeling;
(10) blocking critics from his twitter account from which he claims to provide public statements;
(11) publicly floating the idea that NBC should lose its broadcasting license;
(12) publicly intimidating witnesses in cases against him.

That list is illustrative, not exhaustive.

Asked and answered. Lol

That challenge did not work out in his favor.

 

[V Chip]

Where is the freedom of expression in the Republican Party? Seriously? Republican are the party that will consistently break ranks and vote against the majority of the party.

I don't think recent history supports your view:

"both Democrats and Republicans maintained fealty to their parties overall in 2018. In the House, Republicans stuck with their party an average of 91 percent of the time on such votes and Democrats did 89 percent of the time, both slightly down from 2017, but still hovering around historic highs."

 

[wardorican]

An aside, and this interview was pretty good.

 

[MT15]

Yes - just remember, it is an actual plank of the Democratic Party Platform to ban films, books, pamphlets, articles, etc. that advocate for or against a candidate if corporate funds were used to make or disseminate that speech.

This seems like a tangent into one of your pet causes rather than addressing what I said.

Do you see the irony of being concerned about freedom of expression while supporting a president who will brook no difference of opinion? Like, at all? What Trump does in this area is over the top, out of the norm.

Care to address the number of Republican members of Congress who have resigned since Trump was elected?

From the Atlantic:

“In all, 25 GOP House members and four senators are forgoing reelection this year without declaring their candidacy for another office, while just seven Democrats in the House and one in the Senate are retiring outright. The Republican retirements are quickly approaching the level the party saw in 2018, when 28 Republicans retired ahead of the midterms, foreshadowing the blue wave that swept in a Democratic House majority. More could be on the way, as members typically use the holiday recess to discuss their future plans with their family.”

FWTex, you haven’t refuted anything I said. Did Republican elected officials dare to correct Trump over his absurd weather map fiasco? No, they did not. Not only that, a Trump appointee made someone (the weather service? I forget) issue a statement to attempt to cover up Trump’s mistake, and act like it wasn’t a mistake.

Trump regularly tries to bully and intimidate anyone who dares to question him or even anyone who sincerely disagrees with him when he is clearly wrong. It’s no way to run any type of organization, let alone the US Government.

You all know, deep down, that all of this is true. He’s not well, he has serious issues that prevent him from being an adequate leader. With him, you either grovel at his feet or he will come after you.

 

[Dadsdream]

To name a few,

(1) revoking and threatening to revoke security clearances of former government officials who appear on TV and say things that are critical of the administration;
(2) trying to use the DOJ to block the AT&T - Time Warner merger because Time Warner owns CNN which covers him negatively;
(3) revocation of press passes of reporters working for CNN, NBC, WaPo;
(4) taking actions harmful to Amazon in connection with Bezos' ownership of WaPo, which was critical of him, Kushner, and Saudi Arabia;
(5) threatening to expand libel laws due to negative coverage;
(6) repeatedly proclaiming that the mainstream media is the enemy of the people;
(7) publicly supporting boycotts of networks he doesn't like;
(8) tweeting fake videos of himself committing violent acts against networks he doesn't like;
(9) publicly berating NFL players for protesting racially motivated police violence by kneeling;
(10) blocking critics from his twitter account from which he claims to provide public statements;
(11) publicly floating the idea that NBC should lose its broadcasting license;
(12) publicly intimidating witnesses in cases against him.

That list is illustrative, not exhaustive.

Where did you get that list?

 

[Taurus]

My post's poor wording confused my point a bit.

Schiff has been outstanding, and it's hard to think of trial lawyers that could have outperformed him on substance. But if we assume the primary consideration for selection of House Managers was their ability to assist in obtaining a conviction and removal, it would have been worth discussing adding Amash to the team to counterbalance the widespread view of Schiff as an untrustworthy partisan.

Whether I agree moderates will listen to Schiff depends on what is meant by "moderates." I think very few people of the 42-43% of people responding favorably to polls about Trump's job performance will listen to Schiff. His presentation of the overwhelming case for impeachment has been masterful, but I still haven't heard of any movement in Congress or publicly. I don't think 43% of people are "extremists." I just think Schiff, like Pelosi, has been demonized by the right very effectively.

I have no clue whether having Amash on the team necessarily would have changed anything (of course, we still don't know the outcome beyond all doubt). Amash strikes me as a very bright legal mind, but there's a difference between talent on twitter and talent as a trial lawyer, so who knows. But literally the first thing that occurred to me when Schiff was chosen to run the show was how much Rs hated him, and I couldn't help but wonder if the powers that be considered including someone with broader appeal, even if they planned on Schiff still running point. I happen to think they've done very well, and I'm not second-guessing what they ultimately chose to do, but I disagree with the notion that Rs perceptions should not have been considered at all in the process. My guess is that they were, but that Schiff's immense talent as a trial lawyer tilted the role his way.

Dude has a D after his name. He is therefore viewed by Republicans as an untrustworthy partisan. QED

 

[TaylorB]

Where did you get that list?

I wrote it myself, based upon things trump has done.