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

 

[samiam5211]

why isn’t it a slam dunk?

Because 35% of the country and 80% of people who vote in Republican primaries are completely on board the Trump train no matter where it takes them.

Most of the Republican senators fear a primary challenge more than they care about right and wrong.

 

[coldseat]

Yet the house proved nothing?

Only you, your fellow Trump supporters and his lawyers actually believe that. The House proved many facts in it's case.

 

[samiam5211]

So the only person who knows the truth is the president? if so, wasn’t it the Houses job to find the truth no matter what it took?

You attack the house because they didn't have any first hand information, and use it to justify your defense of the president.

Then you blame the house for allowing the president to withhold all of the first hand information, which you also somehow use to justify your defense of the president.

Your mind isn't really one i'm interested in changing.

 

[Lazybones]

It's funny to see Trump supporters still arguing a stance that even most Republican senators have admitted was proven by House managers in testimony and documents.

They've pretty much conceded that yeah, Trump held up the aid to pressure Ukraine. That that much has been proven by House managers in both testimony and documents. They just don't care and are going to vote to acquit him anyway. Therefore there's no point in calling Bolton or any other witnesses to testify. Or so goes the argument.

But keep on arguing that, lol.

I’m not arguing anything. The house didn’t prove anything. If they did we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

the funny thing is watching liberals try and put responsibility on everyone except the people who decided to pursue impeachment. You guys want DJT to show proof, you want the senate to do the heavy lifting because the House is incompetent.
Yet you (not specifically you) are still standing behind schiff and Pelosi wvwn though that don’t have the ability to win.

 

[dtc]

I think if he admitted that his sole purpose in delaying the aid was to hurt Joe Biden and help his own re-election chances then I do think he should be removed. Absent strong proof of that I don't believe he should be removed because I think it impinges on the legitimate use of Executive power.

So, when or if Bolton testifies that he was told directly by Trump that this is the case you are going to change your tune and demand Trump be removed, no?

 

[Lazybones]

Because 35% of the country and 80% of people who vote in Republican primaries are completely on board the Trump train no matter where it takes them.

Most of the Republican senators fear a primary challenge more than they care about right and wrong.

hold on, what does public support have to do with impeachment. The house is run by Democrats?

I guess I’m not smart enough to follow the reasoning.

Pelosi and schiff were in charge of bringing charges of impeachment and backing it up with evidence of an impeachable offense. What do republican voters or republican senators have to do with the house not being able to hold up their end?

 

[coldseat]

Interesting poling here, even 48% or Republicans think the senate should have witnesses.

Three-quarters of the public (75%) in a new Quinnipiac University poll, to be exact. And while that numbers includes almost unanimous support for witnesses among Democrats (95%), it also shows a large majority of independents in favor of witnesses (75%) and even a near-majority of Republicans (49%).

Those numbers aren't an outlier, either. A CNN poll released earlier this month showed 69% support for witnesses -- including, again, a plurality of Republicans (48%). A Monmouth University poll showed 75% for witnesses.

In short: Public opinion is firm in favor of witnesses. And that support is across the political spectrum -- an anomaly in our deeply polarized times. The reason is simple: Logic suggests that if witnesses have new or important information, most people think we should hear from them. Not allowing witnesses to bring forward that new information feels like a cover-up or at least makes people suspicious as to why anyone wouldn't want to have the fullest picture possible before deciding on whether or not to remove a President.

Republicans’ 75% problem on impeachment witnesses | CNN Politics

Two days from a giant vote over whether witnesses will be allowed to be called in the Senate impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, Republicans are faced with a stark problem: The voting public really likes the idea.

www.cnn.com

 

[CoolBrees]

Best part about the apparition’s articles he/she just posted is that the first thing they say when you click on them is they aren’t from C-Span and are a commentary. Next time just post a link to the comments section.


Regarding aid-
Well of course there is a reason why the aid was delayed this time and not others. That is why I asked the question, to see if there was a reason that I may not be aware of. I would be happy to entertain any plausible reason. The fact remains, no reason has been presented, and as coldseat pointed out, even the defense had moved on from if it happened or not. It happened. Now you and the defense have retreated to the hill of “so what” and are arguing from the position that it doesn’t raise to the level of impeachment. That is where the “legal team of the damned” is and that should be your angle too.

You base the whole deep state theory over a couple of texts between rank and file FBI, but you need video evidence and a read confession in this instance. The level of evidence required seems to fluctuate depending on the individual’s political affiliation. But I bet that is just me, right?

 

[coldseat]

I’m not arguing anything. The house didn’t prove anything. If they did we wouldn’t be having this conversation.

Yes we would. We would be having this conversation regardless of what the House would have done short of not voting to approve impeachment.

And again, constantly proclaiming that the House didn't prove anything is just a myopic response, and it's treated as such by anybody not dressed in Trump robes.

 

[Archies Ghost]

User Clip: QPQ Question

QPQ Question

www.c-span.org

User Clip: QPQ Answer

QPQ Answer

www.c-span.org

 

[Lazybones]

Best part about the apparition’s articles he/she just posted is that the first thing they say when you click on them is they aren’t from C-Span and are a commentary. Next time just post a link to the comments section.


Regarding aid-
Well of course there is a reason why the aid was delayed this time and not others. That is why I asked the question, to see if there was a reason that I may not be aware of. I would be happy to entertain any plausible reason. The fact remains, no reason has been presented, and as coldseat pointed out, even the defense had moved on from if it happened or not. It happened. Now you and the defense have retreated to the hill of “so what” and are arguing from the position that it doesn’t raise to the level of impeachment. That is where the “legal team of the damned” is and that should be your angle too.

You base the whole deep state theory over a couple of texts between rank and file FBI, but you need video evidence and a read confession in this instance. The level of evidence required seems to fluctuate depending on the individual’s political affiliation. But I bet that is just me, right?

Any first hand evidence would have been something to provide in the initial proceedings. Instead we got speculation, he said/she said blah blah blah. Just no evidence of an impeachable offense.

you may disagree, but what is unfolding in front of our eyes indicates that the House is either incompetent or never intended on winning the impeachment.

I came here thinking one of the posters on this board would give me a reason that the above is false. Yet, we get the same rhetoric of how bad trump is and his supporters are mind numbing robots.

 

[xpuma20x]

User Clip: QPQ Question

QPQ Question

www.c-span.org

User Clip: QPQ Answer

QPQ Answer

www.c-span.org

The problem with both of those questions/videos is that they have nothing to do with personal gain via assistance in an election. Which is what keeps getting glossed over.

 

[dtc]

I think you have some that are just jittery about backlash for voting "no" on witnesses for political reasons. Of course Romney is in a different category - he just hates Trump.

In the end, I don't think they will vote for witnesses. That would just delay the inevitable - and not just for a couple of weeks either. If you vote for "witnesses" then you have to vote on each witness as I understand it. It's gonna get real messy and for no real reason.

Well, you may be correct, but underneath the crude and immoral veneer, somewhere deep in the hearts of some Republican Senators lies a soul. It may not be Trump shooting a bystander in Times Square that crosses that line, but somewhere you have to believe a line exists.

What you're describing as unnecessary or "messy" might result in the light being shown on Trump's little orange toes being across it.

By a long way.

 

[Lazybones]

Yes we would. We would be having this conversation regardless of what the House would have done short of not voting to approve impeachment.

And again, constantly proclaiming that the House didn't prove anything is just a myopic response, and it's treated as such by anybody not dressed in Trump robes.

What did the house prove other than their incompetence? Proof means evidence, not speculation or made up stories from schiff to fit his narrative. If the house proved something substantial, this should be a slam dunk.

 

[samiam5211]

hold on, what does public support have to do with impeachment. The house is run by Democrats?

I guess I’m not smart enough to follow the reasoning.

Pelosi and schiff were in charge of bringing charges of impeachment and backing it up with evidence of an impeachable offense. What do republican voters or republican senators have to do with the house not being able to hold up their end?

What I am saying is that there is already more than enough evidence to convince a normal person that Trump withheld aid because he wanted to use it to get help with his reelection campaign.

The house did plenty to make their case, they just need more because the Republican Senators are being held hostage by people wearing Red Hats and repeating chants about things they lack the ability to comprehend.

 

[Lazybones]

What I am saying is that there is already more than enough evidence to convince a normal person that Trump withheld aid because he wanted to use it to get help with his reelection campaign.

The house did plenty to make their case, they just need more because the Republican Senators are being held hostage by people wearing Red Hats and repeating chants about things they lack the ability to comprehend.

the house provided professors speculating. If you and your ilk think that the house did a good job of presenting this impeachment, I don’t know what to say. If my party leaders mishandled such an important part of American history, I would be the first person to call them out. (I did with Romney and justice Roberts when they mishandled Obamacare and the 2012 election). Romney was incompetent. The 2012 election should have been an easy victory, but he was spineless and made bad decisions. (Much like the house)

 

[samiam5211]

Saw this on Facebook. It seems about right...

ALL THE WITNESSES: Ok we all agree. This is what happened.

REPUBLICANS: None of you were in the room!

BOLTON: *raises hand* Well I was in the...

REPUBLICANS: Who asked you?! Shut up! You’re a liberal pawn!

BOLTON: Um... I’m actually I’m a lifelong Republican and I was literally Trump’s national security advi...

REPUBLICANS: Shut your mustache! Somebody bring back the first national security advisor.

FLYNN: *in orange jumpsuit* Hey sorry guys I’m in jail lol.

REPUBLICANS: What? Why?

FLYNN: For lying to the FBI about the Russia investigation.

REPUBLICANS: Well what idiot told you to do that?!

FLYNN: The Pres...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! No one believes either of you!

KELLY: *raises hand* I believe them. And I was Trump’s Chief of sta...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! Let’s talk to the current chief of staff. Who is he?

MULVANEY: *raises hand* It’s me. Sort of. Well, I'm the act...

REPUBLICANS: shirt. Never mind.

PARNAS: *raises hand* I was also in the room. In fact, here’s a cell phone video of the President saying that...

REPUBLICANS: Wait what?! How in hell did you sneak a cell phone into a meeting with the President?

PARNAS: It was easy I just walked right in and...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! You’re a criminal!

PARNAS: Correct. So I just walked right into...

TRUMP: I don’t know him.

PARNAS: And here’s 500 pictures of me with the President because we’re besties.

REPUBLICANS: Wait... What idiot introduced you to the President??

PARNAS: His personal lawyer.

REPUBLICANS: Cohen??

COHEN: *also in orange jumpsuit* Hey no sorry guys I’m in jail too. Oops.

REPUBLICANS: Why?

COHEN: For campaign finance violations.

REPUBLICANS: Who’s campaign?

COHEN: The Pres...

REPUBLICANS: Shut up! Who was the campaign chair??

MANAFORT: *also in orange jumpsuit* Yeah. Me. Also in jail. Heyyyy.

REPUBLICANS: IS EVERYBODY IN JAIL?!?

PARNAS: It was Giuliani.

YOVANOVITCH: Giuliani! That’s the guy who had me fired from my job!

REPUBLICANS: Who are you??

YOVANOVITCH: I was the ambassador to Ukraine.

REPUBLICANS: Wait, you had her fired? Do you work for the government??

GIULIANI: Nope. But I figured no one really follows any rules around here so...

REPUBLICANS: Well who is the ambassador to the European Union??

SONDLAND: *raises hand* It's me. I was also in the roo...

REPUBLICANS: F@$&!!!

PUTIN: *rubs his bare chest* [\quote]

 

[Archies Ghost]

Obstruction Article Question

User Clip: is the Obstruction Article unprecedented?

is the Obstruction Article unprecedented?

www.c-span.org