The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (24 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

 

[wardorican]

Story linked in tweet.

Side note. Interesting that their complaint is that this is an unfair way to remove a president. Well... they cant remove him. All they can do is bring charges for impeachment to the whole house.

Also, as stated, this is how republicans did the various Benghazi investigations.

This feels like the normal committee work route congress always does. It just involves one of the most serious political charges congress can levy.

 

[wardorican]

 

[MT15]

Republican lawmaker 'destroyed' latest impeachment inquiry witness argument: McCarthy

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, R-Calif., claimed a fellow Republican lawmaker deconstructed a key part of the latest Trump impeachment inquiry witness' testimony in Tuesday's closed-door session.

www.foxnews.com

Remember, how you view this "leak" is how the other side views the Democrat leaks. See where the problem lies?

I have no problem with Kevin McCarthy giving his opinion. We will see who is correct soon enough.

 

[MT15]

That's purely your partisan take (or should I say wish?) on this matter. I haven't talked to a single person that voted for Trump in 2016 that has been persuaded not to vote for Trump in 2020 by the selective leaks and fake outrage emanating from this sham.

no, that’s my considered opinion after reading the material that’s been made available. Which is why I qualified it with “going by what has been released so far” or some such statement.

I can separate fact from fallacy or opinion. It’s a valuable skill.

 

[MT15]

Maybe he just did not appreciate the irony of sending billions to fight corruption, only to have it stolen by the corrupt.

But yet he was really, really keen on having these same “corrupt” people issue a public statement that they were opening an investigation into his main political rival. Huh.

 

[Beach Friends]

But yet he was really, really keen on having these same “corrupt” people issue a public statement that they were opening an investigation into his main political rival. Huh.

Joe's not much of a rival. Then again, none of the Democratic candidates are.

 

[MT15]

This is a really good explanation why that stunt pulled by some Republicans with the blessing of the President was such a bad idea, and was harmful to national security. It’s a whole twitter thread written by someone who knows about the security of SCIF rooms.

 

[MT15]

Joe's not much of a rival. Then again, none of the Democratic candidates are.

that’s all you got?

 

[Beach Friends]

that’s all you got?

Exactly what I said when I saw the Democratic field.

The reality is that this impeachment attempt is a desperate attempt to avoid having to run against the orange one. But, they are never getting 2/3 of the Senate.

Resistance is futile.

 

[MT15]

Exactly what I said when I saw the Democratic field.

The reality is that this impeachment attempt is a desperate attempt to avoid having to run against the orange one. But, they are never getting 2/3 of the Senate.

Resistance is futile.

we shall see. Trump seems to be really really concerned about Joe, though. Enough that he has completely gone off the rails and will be impeached over his illegal and improper use of his office for political gain.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Joe's not much of a rival. Then again, none of the Democratic candidates are.

Tell that to the guy that conditionally withheld congressionally passed foreign aid so that a foreign head of state would publicly slander/damage his political rival, along with his party's national organization, by declaring there would be an open investigation on them.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Exactly what I said when I saw the Democratic field.

The reality is that this impeachment attempt is a desperate attempt to avoid having to run against the orange one. But, they are never getting 2/3 of the Senate.

Resistance is futile.

Yeah, desperate, that must be why Nancy Pelosi dragged her feet for almost a year on impeachment, despite ample justification following the Mueller Report's outlining of attempted conspiracy and up to ten counts of obstruction, and his lawyer pleading guilty to felony campaign finance violations at Trump's direction.

It's fair to claim that the probability of conviction given the Republican's loyalty is low, but the notion this is some desperate ploy betrays any honest reading of the evidence.

 

[yuyi64]

I can separate fact from fallacy or opinion. It’s a valuable skill.

Agreed, that's why it should actually be practiced instead of simply used as a platitude to justify a partisan opinion.

 

[Intensesaint]

I am trying to understand why these meetings are being held in secret. Doesn't an impeachment process have to be done in the public eye?

 

[bdb13]

I am trying to understand why these meetings are being held in secret. Doesn't an impeachment process have to be done in the public eye?

Are they breaking a law?

 

[Intensesaint]

Are they breaking a law?

Not from what I have seen, no. My guess is that they really don't have anything solid at this point and may not want to draft actual articles of impeachment at all, lest it be seen as another attempt to thwart the president outside of the election process.

The articles of impeachment do have to be filed for all to see and evidence brought forth as well.

I am pretty sure this is the first time there have been secret meetings behind closed doors in the lead up to a possible impeachment.

It just looks uncouth, if you have confidence in your case against the president, then let the sun shine on it.

 

[wardorican]

This is a really good explanation why that stunt pulled by some Republicans with the blessing of the President was such a bad idea, and was harmful to national security. It’s a whole twitter thread written by someone who knows about the security of SCIF rooms.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I am pretty sure this is the first time there have been secret meetings behind closed doors in the lead up to a possible impeachment.

In the previous two impeachment processes, the investigation was done by a special counsels instead of Congressional committees. In both of those impeachment investigations, the special counsel did everything behind closed doors and without bipartisan involvement, just like Mueller's investigation.

If this investigation was done the the same way it has been previous times, it would be even more secretive and allow for less wiggle room to ignore subpoenas. If this is how the investigation was being conducted, would you then think it was fair and proper?