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

 

[MT15]

Yeah, I’ve said that I would rather have seen all the documents and witnesses, of course. But I understand why they did it.

 

[FullMonte]

I have a question - if Bolton testifies and the President does not try to stop him does that constitute evidence against Obstruction of Congress in your mind?

If I were McConnell and I saw that I did not have the votes for stopping Bolton's testimony (or anyone else that the House did not fight to get testimony from - which is everyone that did not actually testify before in the Impeachment proceedings) then I would at least try to get my caucus to support tying that testimony to dropping the Obstruction charge.

I would probably be ok with the obstruction charge being dropped if the president provided all of the documents that were requested, the full unredacted transcript of the call, and allowed any and all witnesses to testify.

But, no...I would not be ok with dropping the obstruction charge because the president allows a single witness who's been practically begging to testify.

 

[FullMonte]

One witness I would love to see called (even though I know it would never happen) is Yuri Lutsenko. He was one of the prosecutors in Ukraine who replaced Viktor Shokin.

In an interview, he stated that he repeatedly told Giluliani that he wouldn't open an investigation into Joe/Hunter Biden because he had seen no evidence against the men; and that he would be willing to reconsider if the FBI/DOJ opened an investigation.

It would be interesting to hear a timeline from him about when he was first contacted by Giuliani about this, and what Giuliani was claiming/asking/offering.

 

[FullMonte]

It doesn't sound like you had the opportunity to listen to the WH presentation. They did, in fact, point to the transcript which showed that during the call the POTUS expressed concern that Europe was not contributing enough to the defense of the Ukraine. Also, Trump was concerned about corruption in the Ukraine generally. You may not agree with them, but they certainly made those arguments.

I know that they made the argument that Trump was concerned about corruption in Ukraine generally. However, that goes against the undeniable evidence that we have:
--The memo of the July 25 phone call makes no mention or reference to general corruption. The president mentions two very specific things: A) An investigation into the DNC server that he wrongly believes is in Ukraine because a Ukranian owned company took it; and B) An investigation into Joe Biden for getting the prosecutor fired.
--The DOD certified that Ukraine had met the steps that congress required to address corruption in their country in May of 2016, and between that certification and the July 25 phone call, the White House approved the release of the aid around 50 separate times, never once indicating they were holding it due to concerns about corruption.
--When Trump ordered the aid withheld, he instructed OMB to keep it a secret and not tell anyone that the aid was being withheld, even though the ICA of 1974 required him to notify congress that he was holding up the aid, the reason why, and the amount of time it was going to be held up (among other things)

 

[Archies Ghost]

My only response to that is that impeachment is not a criminal trial. Not trying to be vague - just being honest - because I am not exactly sure what would constitute overwhelming proof.




Its a good question - and it may end up biting them in the butt. Defenses should always be multifaceted, imo.

Trump's defense team made this point numerous times. The problem we are having in this thread is that Trump's defense is an unknown to the folks discussing it.

I realize nearly every news organization cut away from Trump's defense in order to expose the fewest voters to both sides of the story but I would expect participants in this thread to be able to google the CSPAN links.

The only discussion here of Trump's defense is to smear the lawyers on his team, which is an old school tactic when you can't refute the substance.

 

[RegularChuck]

Trump's defense team made this point numerous times. The problem we are having in this thread is that Trump's defense is an unknown to the folks discussing it.

I realize nearly every news organization cut away from Trump's defense in order to expose the fewest voters to both sides of the story but I would expect participants in this thread to be able to google the CSPAN links.

The only discussion here of Trump's defense is to smear the lawyers on his team, which is an old school tactic when you can't refute the substance.

I wouldn’t say that’s the only discussion about Trump’s defense. And hasn’t there been a lot of smearing of the house lawyers here as well? Does that mean they can’t refute the substance?

 

[superchuck500]

 

[TaylorB]

The only discussion here of Trump's defense is to smear the lawyers on his team, which is an old school tactic when you can't refute the substance.

That's great -- if we can all agree that the impeachment discussion should focus on the substance as opposed to smearing the people making the arguments, and that avoiding discussion of the substance of these issues is an old school deflection tactic, I think we're all much better off. So count me in for that.

Which aspect of Trump's team's defense are you primarily referring to in your last post as having been inadequately addressed by those in favor of impeachment? I've been paying attention to the defense to the limited extent my time allows, but I can usually find video clips of any arguments I'm missing. I know you referred to the Trump defense being ignored in general, and it's hard to respond to every aspect of the defense in a single post, but if there's a particular issue we can start with I'll happily review it and discuss any thoughts I have on it.

 

[Optimus Prime]

article about how trump's supporters turned on Bolton
========================================

The headline drew little notice when it appeared last spring on a blog called “Disobedient Media.”

“John Bolton Took Money From Banks Tied To Cartels, Terrorists, Iran,” it read.

On Monday, the blog entry gained sudden popularity. That’s because its central claim — based only on innuendo and half-truths — proved useful to President Trump’s most fervent online supporters, who rushed to discredit the former United Nations ambassador and national security adviser as news broke that his forthcoming book would corroborate accounts that the president held up aid to Ukraine to advance investigations into his domestic political rivals.

The story quickly gained more than 5,000 interactions on Facebook — meaning shares, likes or other user actions — as it spread across pages and groups devoted to defending Trump. Soon, it became a building block of a campaign to discredit Bolton by impugning his motives and portraying him as a turncoat.

The attacks, which unfolded vividly in the 24 hours after it became clear Bolton had potentially damaging information to share, crescendoed on conservative podcasts and cable television, as individual catchphrases — such as “Book Deal Bolton” — gained currency across the far-right firmament.

By Tuesday, they offered a case study in how the pro-Trump Internet targets a perceived enemy, even an archconservative and war hawk.

The vilification of Bolton — branding him as a traitor and member of the “deep state,” a reference to a conspiracy theory favored by the president that a shadow government is working to thwart him — made use of misleading text as well as eye-catching memes. It moved from anonymous Twitter accounts with a few dozen followers to prime-time hosts on Fox News with an audience of hundreds of thousands.

Finally, it made its way to Capitol Hill, when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday described the eyewitness to activity at the heart of the president’s impeachment trial as a “disgruntled, fired employee who now has a motive, a multimillion-dollar motive, to inflame the situation.”

Trump himself echoed some of the attacks Monday when he retweeted a post from Lou Dobbs of the Fox Business Network calling Bolton a “Rejected Neocon” and the “Deep State’s Last Desperate Act.”

That move, experts say, showcased how personal insults driven by online conspiracy theories — which Trump harnessed on his path to the presidency — remain fundamental to his hold on his base........................….

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[coldseat]

I realize nearly every news organization cut away from Trump's defense in order to expose the fewest voters to both sides of the story but I would expect participants in this thread to be able to google the CSPAN links.

Where did this happen? Or are you just assuming it happened.

The only major news station that I heard that did this was Fox, and it was during the House managers presentation on all days. I don't know what they did during Trump's lawyers presentation. I'm pretty sure CNN played all of from both sides. The only thing I know for sure is that NPR aired all of it from both sides, that's what I mostly listened too.

 

[Optimus Prime]

The only discussion here of Trump's defense is to smear the lawyers on his team, which is an old school tactic when you can't refute the substance.

If the truth is on your side pound the truth

If the facts are on your side pound the facts

If neither is on your side pound the table (or the process/procedure)

That certainly seems more true of one side than the other

 

[JimEverett]

article about how trump's supporters turned on Bolton
========================================

The headline drew little notice when it appeared last spring on a blog called “Disobedient Media.”

“John Bolton Took Money From Banks Tied To Cartels, Terrorists, Iran,” it read.

On Monday, the blog entry gained sudden popularity. That’s because its central claim — based only on innuendo and half-truths — proved useful to President Trump’s most fervent online supporters, who rushed to discredit the former United Nations ambassador and national security adviser as news broke that his forthcoming book would corroborate accounts that the president held up aid to Ukraine to advance investigations into his domestic political rivals.

The story quickly gained more than 5,000 interactions on Facebook — meaning shares, likes or other user actions — as it spread across pages and groups devoted to defending Trump. Soon, it became a building block of a campaign to discredit Bolton by impugning his motives and portraying him as a turncoat.

The attacks, which unfolded vividly in the 24 hours after it became clear Bolton had potentially damaging information to share, crescendoed on conservative podcasts and cable television, as individual catchphrases — such as “Book Deal Bolton” — gained currency across the far-right firmament.

By Tuesday, they offered a case study in how the pro-Trump Internet targets a perceived enemy, even an archconservative and war hawk.

The vilification of Bolton — branding him as a traitor and member of the “deep state,” a reference to a conspiracy theory favored by the president that a shadow government is working to thwart him — made use of misleading text as well as eye-catching memes. It moved from anonymous Twitter accounts with a few dozen followers to prime-time hosts on Fox News with an audience of hundreds of thousands.

Finally, it made its way to Capitol Hill, when Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) on Tuesday described the eyewitness to activity at the heart of the president’s impeachment trial as a “disgruntled, fired employee who now has a motive, a multimillion-dollar motive, to inflame the situation.”

Trump himself echoed some of the attacks Monday when he retweeted a post from Lou Dobbs of the Fox Business Network calling Bolton a “Rejected Neocon” and the “Deep State’s Last Desperate Act.”

That move, experts say, showcased how personal insults driven by online conspiracy theories — which Trump harnessed on his path to the presidency — remain fun.

damental to his hold on his base........................….

MSN

www.msn.com

This quote says to me that the author really doesn;t understand what he is talking about:

Bolton always seemed a weird choice to be on Trump's national seurity team, and the entire neocon, hawkish Republican establishment - of which Bolton is a part, was the central point of the REpublican "Never Trump" crowd

Trump hired him, so its on him. But Bolton never seemed to remotely fit into the foreign policy Trump pursued, so it is not surprsing at all that Trump supporters would turn on him. In fact, I think most were opposed to him being hired in the first place.

 

[JimEverett]

If the truth is on your side pound the truth

If the facts are on your side pound the facts

If neither is on your side pound the table (or the process/procedure)

That certainly seems more true of one side than the other

I disagree. Procedure is the most important aspect in terms of coming to the truth, and I imagine you would probably agree if given examples that do not involve Trump or potentially involved you.

 

[Lazybones]

If the truth is on your side pound the truth

If the facts are on your side pound the facts

If neither is on your side pound the table (or the process/procedure)

That certainly seems more true of one side than the other

you describe schiff and Pelosi pretty well.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Trump's defense team made this point numerous times. The problem we are having in this thread is that Trump's defense is an unknown to the folks discussing it.

Trump's defense has always been "It was a perfect call". His defense has always been he did nothing wrong. His defense is denying reality.

I realize nearly every news organization cut away from Trump's defense in order to expose the fewest voters to both sides of the story but I would expect participants in this thread to be able to google the CSPAN links.

They probably cut away so as not to expose themselves to truth in advertising laws.

The only discussion here of Trump's defense is to smear the lawyers on his team, which is an old school tactic when you can't refute the substance.

A trump supporter talking about being able to refute the substance is absolutely the definition of irony.

 

[brandon]

Procedure is the most important aspect in terms of coming to the truth

No, it isn't.

I imagine you would probably agree

No, I wouldn't.

if given examples that do not involve Trump or potentially involved you.

You're free to give such examples of procedure being "the most important aspect in terms of coming to the truth."

 

[Optimus Prime]

 

[MT15]

Where did this happen? Or are you just assuming it happened.

The only major news station that I heard that did this was Fox, and it was during the House managers presentation on all days. I don't know what they did during Trump's lawyers presentation. I'm pretty sure CNN played all of from both sides. The only thing I know for sure is that NPR aired all of it from both sides, that's what I mostly listened too.

MSNBC carried both sides fully. Like was said, the only “news” organization I heardthat did not was Fox, which muted the House managers and then bad mouthed them while they were presenting their case.

Seriously, if you only get your news from Fox you are going to be much less informed than almost anyone else out there.

Hence the incredulous posts we sometimes get here when something major and negative comes out about Trump.

Archie, your statement was totally false. Should be withdrawn.