The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (4 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

 

[RegularChuck]

Unconstitutional precedent is unconstitutional.

You’re the one advocating for the Senate to act as the defense.

 

[Lapaz]

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.

There was nothing about corruption concerns stated in the call transcript. Trump was only concerned with investigating the Bidens, but that only implies corruption. He certainly didn’t ask for investigating corruption. Biden was associated with Obama,so Trump already hated him The only plausible reason to ask to investigate Biden without any eveidence is because he wanted to damage him politically, not to reduce corruption. Besides, the Biden involvement was old news that wouldn’t affect current corruption.

 

[SaintForLife]

More on Roberts refusing to read Senator Paul's question:

 

[JimEverett]

You’re the one advocating for the Senate to act as the defense.

You are free to believe what you want to believe, obviously - but being opposed to curing the defects in the House impeachment is not advocating for the Senate to act as the defense

 

[Beach Friends]

More on Roberts refusing to read Senator Paul's question:

It reminded me of when Schiff would not allow Vindman to testify who, by name, not whistleblower status, he had spoken with.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

More on Roberts refusing to read Senator Paul's question:

"My question did not mention a whistleblower, it just mentions by name the person that many people believe to be the whistleblower and has been widely reported as such by many outlets, rapidly spreading across social media when it was first reported.."

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You’re the one advocating for the Senate to act as the defense.

Sometimes a guy has to stand up for procedure and precedent in the face of less important things, like facts and material witnesses that want to testify.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

READ: Lamar Alexander’s statement on impeachment witness vote | CNN Politics

Sen. Lamar Alexander, a retiring Tennessee Republican, said in a statement late Thursday night that he would vote against a motion to hear additional witnesses in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump.

www.cnn.com

"I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense.

"There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a 'mountain of overwhelming evidence.' There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.

"It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year's ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.

"The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.

"The Senate has spent nine long days considering this 'mountain' of evidence, the arguments of the House managers and the president's lawyers, their answers to senators' questions and the House record. Even if the House charges were true, they do not meet the Constitution's 'treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors' standard for an impeachable offense.

"The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles. If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.

"Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with 'the consent of the governed,' not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide."

I am certain that trump will disagree with the following statement:

"There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine. There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a 'mountain of overwhelming evidence.' There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers."

In fact, many of our own members would disagree with that statement because all I have heard is that the Dems have brought a case lacking of real evidence of any wrong doing. Sen Jackson seems to be convinced that their evidence was overwellming and any more testimony would just be piling on. That being said, he believes that trump's actions are all good. SAD!!!

 

[cuddlemonkey]

It reminded me of when Schiff would not allow Vindman to testify who, by name, not whistleblower status, he had spoken with.

Reminds me of that time Ol' Schiff wouldn't allow someone to enter names into the record that might narrow down the search for the whistleblower during the time period when Trump was publicly commenting that we used to handle people like this differently. What a jerk.

 

[Beach Friends]

Reminds me of that time Ol' Schiff wouldn't allow someone to enter names into the record that might narrow down the search for the whistleblower during the time period when Trump was publicly commenting that we used to handle people like this differently. What a jerk.

Sounds like another argument against calling witnesses in the Senate. The unknown whistleblower might accidentally be called, or another witness might accidentally utter his name.

 

[dtc]

Not even enough to suspect?

Kind of a bold statement, especially since you presume to speak for everyone here.

The Ukrainians are corrupt, but they are not stupid. They were paying Hunter for something and it certainly wasn't his talent in the oil and gas industry.

Ok, they were paying him for his name.

How does that excuse what Trump did?

How is it even illegal for some foreign country to hire an idiot who's not qualified to do anything?

If Burisma wanted to pay me that sort of money to sit on their board, I'd probably do it. Wouldn't you?

 

[dtc]

The things that Trump is accused of doing comes down to aid that Ukraine received by the deadline and an announcement or an investigation that never happened. Does that sound like a strong case to impeach/remove a President?

attempted murder is a crime. So is attempted robbery.

Attempted bribery that only fails because you get busted is still a crime.

Why democrats parsed their language instead of calling Trump a criminal is beyond me but that doesn't excuse POTUS from his actions.

 

[Taurus]

They should have gone with "attempted bribery" from the start.

An investigation announcement guarantees at least a month's worth of negative press for Biden. Attack ads passed off as news.
To buy that much airtime on virtually every network would cost millions.
So what Trump essentially did was ask for a few million dollars to run anti-Biden ads.
It's bribery whether I ask for a million dollars to buy a Lamborghini or if I just ask for the Lambo itself.

 

[Beach Friends]

Ok, they were paying him for his name.

How does that excuse what Trump did?

How is it even illegal for some foreign country to hire an idiot who's not qualified to do anything?

If Burisma wanted to pay me that sort of money to sit on their board, I'd probably do it. Wouldn't you?

If you want to look at in a vacuum and craft your hypothetical as if some foreign corporation just out of the blue wanted to pay me a lot of money, sure. But the problem is that's not what happened here and we know it.

They didn't simply pay Hunter Biden "for his name." It's not like they were marketing blue jeans or cologne with his name on the product.

Look, one of his business partners, Kerry's son, apparently recognized immediately that this was shady, so much so he distanced himself from Biden and his other partner. And then he sent an email to the State department expressing his concern and stating he wasn't going to have any part of that.

Are you not the least but curious as to what transpired in that WH meeting of January 19, 2016? The one where the Ukranians reportedly came to their benafactors, the US, to ask whether an investigation into Burisma would be a problem given the fact Hunter was on the board? Where WH records indicated that the Ukrainians were signed in by one Eric Carimarella?

Does the timing of the Burisma hiring of Hunter Biden's business partner, 3 weeks after the UK froze Burisma assets, seem like there may be more at play than pure coincidence?

BTW, let me know if a Ukrainian company calls you out of the blue to offer you big barrels of money. If you exclude the obvious corruption angle, it would make a lot more sense for you to get that call than Bide. You certainly have more to offer than some slacker who just got kicked out of the military because he couldn't pass a drug test.

 

[SaintForLife]

attempted murder is a crime. So is attempted robbery.

Attempted bribery that only fails because you get busted is still a crime.

Why democrats parsed their language instead of calling Trump a criminal is beyond me but that doesn't excuse POTUS from his actions.

Because they knew bribery wouldn't hold up and the Senate would have most likely voted to dismiss the charges quickly.

They should have went with attempted investigation. That sounds really bad.

 

[SaintForLife]

Even those on the left are seeing through Schiff's act.

 

[samiam5211]

Even those on the left are seeing through Schiff's act.

What do you mean act?

Do you think Schiff was afraid of getting Bolton's testimony?

It is clear now, that none of it matters. Lamar Alexander said the house had proved the president's guilt, but that it wasn't impeachable. So it doesn't matter what Bolton says.

This also means that the president can do whatever he wants. I imagine he will be on the phone tomorrow extorting every foreign leader he possibly can. And that's just fine apparently.

 

[FullMonte]

This also means that the president can do whatever he wants. I imagine he will be on the phone tomorrow extorting every foreign leader he possibly can. And that's just fine apparently.

I think Seth Meyers had a better example...the president will now order any air travel shut down, in the public interest of safety, that would allow democratic senators to travel to campaign.