The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (3 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

 

[SaintForLife]

What do you think the whistle blower has to contribute to the impeachment hearings?

We've had about a dozen people testify publicly to corroborate the whistle blower complaint.

There isn't any substantive reason to have the whistle blower testify, nor either of the Bidens for that matter.

Hunter Biden and the Whistleblower could have attended a Burisma funded orgy with underage midgets in the basement of comet pizza, and it wouldn't have anything to do with the Impeachment hearings.

So you don't think that a CIA officer with documented political bias, who lied on his whistleblower complaint, worked with Biden, was involved with Ukrainian officials, and started off the impeachment doesn't need to testify if more witnesses are allowed?

 

[dtc]

Here is the complete argument from Dershowitz

User Clip: QPQ Answer

QPQ Answer

www.c-span.org

It's really a laughable argument.

It's like granting custody of a child who's beaten by his father to the father because separating the child from the father would leave the child without anyone to beat him.

It's stupid.

 

[samiam5211]

So you don't think that a CIA officer with documented political bias, who lied on his whistleblower complaint, worked with Biden, was involved with Ukrainian officials, and started off the impeachment doesn't need to testify if more witnesses are allowed?

Can you list a couple of relevant questions he should be asked?

 

[dtc]

LOL. Yeah - its the Senate's fault for this sham impeachment.

It's a sham - according to you - because a precedentless happening has been conducted in a manner which you do not like because it focuses on your guy.

We get it.

 

[Beach Friends]

Can you list a couple of relevant questions he should be asked?

I would like to explore the January 19, 2016 WH meeting with Ukrainian prosecutors, which was supposedly held to discuss their concerns over whether an investigation into Burisma would complicate relations between the US and the Ukraine given that the VP's son was serving on the board of Burisma. He was listed as the WH contact who signed those visitors in. That would be a nice starting point.

 

[SaintForLife]

Yes to the first question, no to the second.

Remember, I was and still remain in favor of both Horowitz's and Durham's investigations. Several people lost their jobs over their handling of the FBI's investigation, and at least one guy will probably face criminal prosecution. Do you agree that the same thing should happen for any investigation into an American citizen without proper process? Or are you only in favor of it when it goes against your guy?

If someone's due process rights were violated during an investigation then whoever was involved should be fired and/or criminally prosecuted. Whose due process rights did Trump violate during the investigation that never happened?

Does the President have the right to arbitrarily use a foreign government to circumvent the US judicial process to damage someone they don't like?

Since that never happened with Trump can you give me an example of when that actually happened? Would any investigation into someone who might be a politcal opponent fall into that category no matter what the details are?

Should the United States use foreign governments to investigate our own citizens when we are not willing to do the investigation ourselves?

Is it illegal to ask a foreign goverment for information or to investigate a situation that may involve an American citizen or are they immune like many seem to think political opponents are as well?

Can a theoretical President Warren use a foreign government to damage Koch Industries in such a way that it hinders their ability to make business deals?

Do you mean an investigation by damaging a company? Do all investigations damage someone if you don't like the President? In your hypotheticals you need to give a few more details to see if there is a reason for the investigation. Otherwise you are just tailoring the questions to get the answers you want.

Are you comfortable with a President N.O Bronco pressuring a foreign government to announce an investigation into prostitution usage by SaintsForLife (or anything else that you'd find embarrassing or inconvenient)?

I don't know since I would just ignore him like I do here.

 

[FullMonte]

So you don't think that a CIA officer with documented political bias, who lied on his whistleblower complaint, worked with Biden, was involved with Ukrainian officials, and started off the impeachment doesn't need to testify if more witnesses are allowed?

Has any evidence or testimony been used in this trial that comes solely from the whistleblower complaint? If not, then there is no reason to call him in to question him.

To make an analogy. I hate my neighbor, I can't stand him, I want him out of my neighborhood and we have been feuding for years. I call the police to report that he is cooking meth in his shed. They arrive, and arrest him. He is charged with manufacturing a controlled substance. In what way does my feelings toward him bear on his guilt?

 

[samiam5211]

I would like to explore the January 19, 2016 WH meeting with Ukrainian prosecutors, which was supposedly held to discuss their concerns over whether an investigation into Burisma would complicate relations between the US and the Ukraine given that the VP's son was serving on the board of Burisma. He was listed as the WH contact who signed those visitors in. That would be a nice starting point.

Could you explain the relevance to the current proceedings?

If you think it matters whether Joe or Hunter Biden is guilty of anything matters in the context of the matter at hand, please describe the nexus.

You will need to explain why Trump decided to push for an announcement of an investigation into possible Biden/Burisma corruption when he had released aid without any such requirement for the past two years.

Why would he want it announced at all?

Also why Trump was asking about the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory when he had been told that it was nonsense by our government. Is there any record if anyone in our intelligence community suggesting this was a real thing?

Finally, why was he using Rudy and not asking DoJ to pursue an investigation? He mentioned Barr in the phone call, but is there any record of coordination between Barr or the DoJ with Ukraine on this?

 

[SaintForLife]

Has any evidence or testimony been used in this trial that comes solely from the whistleblower complaint? If not, then there is no reason to call him in to question him.

To make an analogy. I hate my neighbor, I can't stand him, I want him out of my neighborhood and we have been feuding for years. I call the police to report that he is cooking meth in his shed. They arrive, and arrest him. He is charged with manufacturing a controlled substance. In what way does my feelings toward him bear on his guilt?

Even for an analogy, that's a huge stretch to compare to an impeachment.

I can't believe how some people think that the guy who started the whole impeachment process doesn't need to be heard from. Do you realize how that sounds?

Whistleblower Was Overheard in '17 Discussing With Ally How to Remove Trump

Eric Ciaramella, right. He and a colleague, Sean Misko, below -- both now central to impeachment -- were Obama administration holdovers (whitehouse.gov). By Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigationsJ

www.realclearinvestigations.com

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

It's a sham - according to you - because a precedentless happening has been conducted in a manner which you do not like because it focuses on your guy.

We get it.

I don’t
I’m going to need him to repeat the same baseless claim another dozen or so times

 

[reubenray]

Is there a website with a Cliff Notes version of the questions and answers without all of the BS before they give the answer?

 

[FullMonte]

Even for an analogy, that's a huge stretch to compare to an impeachment.

How so? Your question that I responded to was essentially: "The whistleblower, in his past had demonstrated a bias against Trump and while he was in the employ of the government, he worked with the vice president. Doesn't that mean his complaint is suspect?" I was simply pointing out that his supposed bias against Trump has exactly ZERO to do with whether or not Trump is guilty.

I can't believe how some people think that the guy who started the whole impeachment process doesn't need to be heard from. Do you realize how that sounds?

Another way to word it...The guy who alerted the authorities to potential wrongdoings that were confirmed through other sources, who have testified to support his claims, can't really add much to the discussion.

Let's look at it another way. Let's say that you get what you want, he testifies that he didn't like Trump and he conspired to try and get rid of him. How, in any way, does that make the other testimony and evidence false?

 

[Beach Friends]

Could you explain the relevance to the current proceedings?

If you think it matters whether Joe or Hunter Biden is guilty of anything matters in the context of the matter at hand, please describe the nexus.

You will need to explain

Hah, just to let you know - I stopped reading exactly where I ended the quote. We are having a conversation, this isn't a final exam. I "will NEED to explain." Funny post

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

If someone's due process rights were violated during an investigation then whoever was involved should be fired and/or criminally prosecuted. Whose due process rights did Trump violate during the investigation that never happened?

Trump is accused of trying to violate Biden's due process rights, but was thwarted because of a whistle blower. I'm pretty sure you know that. Are you saying if the whistle blower waited until after Ukraine announced an investigation, you would support removing Trump from office?

Since that never happened with Trump can you give me an example of when that actually happened? Would any investigation into someone who might be a politcal opponent fall into that category no matter what the details are?

Again, you know that is what Trump is accused of attempting and why he's being impeached.

Is it illegal to ask a foreign goverment for information or to investigate a situation that may involve an American citizen or are they immune like many seem to think political opponents are as well?

If there is an active US investigation being conducted by our justice department, it is routine to ask foreign governments to cooperate in those investigations. And it is not routine to ask foreign governments to make an announcement of that fact. There was no active US investigation into the Bidens. Trump is accused of using his office and tax payer money to pressure a foreign government to work with his personal attorney to circumvent the US judicial process in order to damage his political opponent.

Do you mean an investigation by damaging a company? Do all investigations damage someone if you don't like the President? In your hypotheticals you need to give a few more details to see if there is a reason for the investigation. Otherwise you are just tailoring the questions to get the answers you want.

Let's say Koch Industries was seeking some acquisition, and that an announcement of a corruption probe scuttles that deal. Can a President orchestrate that announcement and obfuscate their role in it to damage that company?

I don't know since I would just ignore him like I do here.

It's not coming from the President, it's coming from [name your country here]. Maybe they put a billboard with a bunch of suspected john's on a busy highway with your face on it. Can the President orchestrate that?

 

[FullMonte]

Is there a website with a Cliff Notes version of the questions and answers without all of the BS before they give the answer?

I did see one question/answer today that was actually some pretty smart work to damage the president's defense.

The question to the president's defense team (paraphrased): The Logan Act prohibits any US citizen from negotiating with any foreign state, without the permission of the US government, about any matters of US policy. Will the president ensure that he will not direct any private citizens to conduct foreign policy unless they have been formally designated by the president and state department to do so.

President's Defense team: Rudy Giuliani was not conducting foreign policy. Volker was clear that Giuliani was just a source of information for the president. Volker testified that it was not his understanding that Giuliani was carrying out policy directives of the president, he was simply carrying out his views of what he thought the Ukranians could do to convince the president of their anti-corruption efforts.

Adam Schiff: The president's lawyer just said was that no foreign policy was being conducted here. Rudy Giuliani was not conducting foreign policy. Their defense has been, to a great degree that this was a policy difference, that this was a policy issue. They are now saying that it was not policy. They just admitted that their own defense is false.

Fuller version:

 

[samiam5211]

Hah, just to let you know - I stopped reading exactly where I ended the quote. We are having a conversation, this isn't a final exam. I "will NEED to explain." Funny post

It is because you can’t explain why the Biden’s guilt or innocence is relevant to the impeachment hearings.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

It is because you can’t explain why the Biden’s guilt or innocence is relevant to the impeachment hearings.

Nobody on this thread thinks there's enough publicly available evidence to suspect Biden of doing anything to be upset about.

 

[Beach Friends]

It is because you can’t explain why the Biden’s guilt or innocence is relevant to the impeachment hearings.

Nah, it's because I don't care spend any effort going back forth with you when quite frankly, I think this impeachment may be getting to you to the point that you're not in the mood to have a reasonable conversation.

Telling me what I MUST explain, and actually expecting that I am going to take you seriously is not reasonable.