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

 

[insidejob]

What a bunch of cowards.

 

[dtc]

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.

Hunter Biden is a red herring.

Trump's actions have been shown to be corrupt and Hunter/Joe Biden's Ukraine connections merely an excuse.

Still, whatever Biden did I'm happy to see investigated and prosecuted. Same with Trump.

 

[coldseat]

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 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!!!

I don't agree with his reasoning that this doesn't rise to the level of impeachment, I feel it clearly does. And his serious warning and fear of the partisan nature of the House investigation ignores the fact that there was serious matters at hand in this investigation and impeachment and all any Republican in the House did was lean heavily on partisan politics. There was never any effort by the right in the House to seriously investigate and flesh out the truth. From the very beginning, it was protect Trump at all cost. So blaming the partisan nature of the investigation on just Dems is just false. When one party has no interest in uncovering the truth and just wants to bury serious allegations of presidential abuse of power, what exactly is the other side to do? Just not care?

Having said all of that, I at the very least appreciate that Alexander is not insulting our intelligence by trying to hold to the claim that Trump did nothing wrong. He at least had the character to admit that Trump clearly did what he was accused of and that the House managers proved their case beyond any doubt. I at least appreciate that, even though the end result of him falling right back into line with his party is disappointing.

Now it's the turn of 50% of the public that think he should have been removed from office to vote Trump guilty of Impeachment this fall and kick his arse out of the white house.

 

[Lazybones]

I don't agree with his reasoning that this doesn't rise to the level of impeachment, I feel it clearly does. And his serious warning and fear of the partisan nature of the House investigation ignores the fact that there was serious matters at hand in this investigation and impeachment and all any Republican in the House did was lean heavily on partisan politics. There was never any effort by the right in the House to seriously investigate and flesh out the truth. From the very beginning, it was protect Trump at all cost. So blaming the partisan nature of the investigation on just Dems is just false. When one party has no interest in uncovering the truth and just wants to bury serious allegations of presidential abuse of power, what exactly is the other side to do? Just not care?

Having said all of that, I at the very least appreciate that Alexander is not insulting our intelligence by trying to hold to the claim that Trump did nothing wrong. He at least had the character to admit that Trump clearly did what he was accused of and that the House managers proved their case beyond any doubt. I at least appreciate that, even though the end result of him falling right back into line with his party is disappointing.

Now it's the turn of 50% of the public that think he should have been removed from office to vote Trump guilty of Impeachment this fall and kick his arse out of the white house.

you have your partisan glasses on. I’m not saying this as an insult, it’s just that you are only looking at this from one side. If the house republicans think that this was a sham impeachment, why should they aid in the lynching?

when you ask what is the other side supposed to do, what do you mean and who are you referencing? I’m assuming you are saying what else could the Dems possibly have done without the cooperation of the republicans. My answer is they could have done a better job of presenting their case. They could have been a little more selective when choosing the next strategy to try and dethrone trump. Hell, they could have subpoenaed witnesses that may have something to add to the case.

they did none of that.

the Dems filed the impeachment, according to them, they did exactly what is necessary to impeach according to nadler. They didn’t need anything from the republicand to prove beyond any doubt that the president is guilty. This sounds like a win.

the problem is the house did a shotty job even though they keep claiming it to be perfect.

 

[Infoman]

No one should be shocked, appalled, twisted, or otherwise vexed by the inevitable outcome of all this... we all knew what this was, and how it was going to end from the time it started (unless you've been lying to yourself). Both sides of this should be ashamed of themselves (but they won't be), and we need to let them all know at the ballot box...

Everyone knows that this was a pure political exercise launched by the House, and that was doomed to fail in the Senate... The Dems were always going play their cards in the House to try to be as inflammatory to Trump as possible as close as possible to the election... And the Reps were always going to defeat that attempt in the Senate as quickly as they could. It was all theatrics from the start...

Neither side was being 100% honest, and neither side was interested in "Constitution"... "Law"... "Justice".... "Truth".... and you all know it.

 

[coldseat]

you have your partisan glasses on. I’m not saying this as an insult, it’s just that you are only looking at this from one side. If the house republicans think that this was a sham impeachment, why should they aid in the lynching?

when you ask what is the other side supposed to do, what do you mean and who are you referencing?

I'm not going to go back and forth with you, because we're not going to reach some level of mutual agreement on this matter. My view is pretty defined and so are yours. But I will answer just these two questions.

From the very beginning of this investigation when the whistle blower account came to lite, there was never any true and genuine interest from any Republican House member on the intelligence committee or anywhere else, that was truly concerned with the allegations themselves. The where concerned with who the whistle blower was, with uncovering his identity, with lambasting him, with every matter of deflection possible. With anything and everything other than what should have been their central concern, "Does the whistle blower complaint, that the ICIG found credible and urgent, have merit and what were the facts behind the allegations. They never cared about that, and that was the central question. They only cared about protecting Trump. And it showed clearly that that was their motivation. They where never, NEVER going to cooperate with any sort of investigation, witness subpoenas, document subpoenas, etc. that the Democrats were authorizing to try and uncover the truth. They showed their hand from the very beginning and never wavered.

By the other side, I mean the Democrats investigating the matter (Schiff and other Dems on the intelligence committee). They couldn't just ignore this and go on about their business. And they couldn't act in concert with any Republicans on the committee because there is no cooperation between the two parties when it comes to investigating Trump. The only two options where to either do a partisan investigation in hopes of discovering the truth and maybe changing some minds along the way (obviously didn't happen). Or do nothing at all.

 

[Burtifus]

“I think it was inappropriate and wrong for the president to do what he did -- and I think it was proved. The question is whether you apply capital punishment to every offense. And I think in this case, I think the answer is no, let the people make that decision... and especially since the election begins Monday." -- Lamar Alexander

Count me in the minority that agrees with Lamar Alexander to some extent. While I may personally believe this is more of a capital offense than not, I can understand how reasonable individuals feel this only merits censure (I'm not sure why censure isn't discussed more other than POTUS' thin skin and each side's unwillingness to bend in the least). In our democracy, when reasonable individuals find themselves on two sides of an issue we usually send that to the ballot box.

 

[JimEverett]

Criticizing House Republicans for not being on board with impeaching the President at the start of the investigation seems really naive. Of course they are not going to jump in gung ho into the investigation.
IF the Democrats really thought the PResident should be removed then they would have taken different steps - they would have negotiated with Republicans - given in to at least some of their demands.
But even if getting REpublican "support" is impossible in this day and age the real failure in the Democrats was treating impeachment like it was just another piece of legislation. Impeachment should be hard. It does take some time. You have to turn over every rock and fight for information.
Is there any doubt the Democrats greatly sacrificed the quality of the impeachment in favor of time? I think it is very fair to say the goal all along was simply impeachment, not removal.

 

[RegularChuck]

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

Oh that’s right, you said YOU would act as the defense if you were McConnell. I can see the confusion now.

 

[Lazybones]

I'm not going to go back and forth with you, because we're not going to reach some level of mutual agreement on this matter. My view is pretty defined and so are yours. But I will answer just these two questions.

From the very beginning of this investigation when the whistle blower account came to lite, there was never any true and genuine interest from any Republican House member on the intelligence committee or anywhere else, that was truly concerned with the allegations themselves. The where concerned with who the whistle blower was, with uncovering his identity, with lambasting him, with every matter of deflection possible. With anything and everything other than what should have been their central concern, "Does the whistle blower complaint, that the ICIG found credible and urgent, have merit and what were the facts behind the allegations. They never cared about that, and that was the central question. They only cared about protecting Trump. And it showed clearly that that was their motivation. They where never, NEVER going to cooperate with any sort of investigation, witness subpoenas, document subpoenas, etc. that the Democrats were authorizing to try and uncover the truth. They showed their hand from the very beginning and never wavered.

By the other side, I mean the Democrats investigating the matter (Schiff and other Dems on the intelligence committee). They couldn't just ignore this and go on about their business. And they couldn't act in concert with any Republicans on the committee because there is no cooperation between the two parties when it comes to investigating Trump. The only two options where to either do a partisan investigation in hopes of discovering the truth and maybe changing some minds along the way (obviously didn't happen). Or do nothing at all.

thanks for your response. I think schiff and company should have taken Emerson’s advice. “ If you shoot at the king you better kill him”. Meaning, proper discernment without hate filled emotion, would have resulted in this not coming up for impeachment.

it comes off as a desperate move after mueller failed. They picked which battlefield they wanted, it just wasn’t the right battle to fight.

 

[JimEverett]

Oh that’s right, you said YOU would act as the defense if you were McConnell. I can see the confusion now.

Senators can negotiate. Not sure how that equates to acting as the defense.

 

[First Time Poster]

why should they aid in the lynching?

Can we just not go here? Its BHM tomorrow, seriously.

 

[Farb]

Can we just not go here? Its BHM tomorrow, seriously.

The word 'lynching' is no no now?

 

[Optimus Prime]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Jay Sekulow, one of President Donald Trump’s lead attorneys during the impeachment trial, is being paid for his legal work through a rented $80-a-month mailbox a block away from the White House.

The Pennsylvania Avenue box appears to be the sole physical location of the Constitutional Litigation and Advocacy Group, a for-profit corporation co-owned by Sekulow.

The firm has no website and is not listed in national legal directories.

The District of Columbia Bar has no record of it, and no attorneys list it as their employer.

But Sekulow, 63, is registered as chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, a non-profit Christian legal advocacy group based in an expansive Capitol Hill row house a short walk from the Senate chamber.

A half dozen lawyers employed by the non-profit ACLJ are named in recent Senate legal briefs as members of Trump’s defense team — including one of Sekulow’s sons.

The ACLJ, as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, is barred under IRS rules from engaging in partisan political activities.

The Republican National Committee has paid more than $250,000 to Sekulow’s for-profit CLA Group since 2017, when he was first named to Trump’s legal team as special counsel Robert Mueller was leading the Russia investigation, according to campaign disclosures..............

Charity watchdogs for years have raised concerns about the blurred lines between for-profit businesses tied to Sekulow and the complex web of non-profit entities he and his family control.

The Associated Press reviewed 10 years of tax returns for the ACLJ and other charities tied to Sekulow, which are released to the public under federal law.

The records from 2008 to 2017, the most recent year available, show that more than $65 million in charitable funds were paid to Sekulow, his wife, his sons, his brother, his sister-in-law, his nephew and corporations they own...........

Charities steered $65M to Trump lawyer Sekulow and family

WASHINGTON (AP) — Jay Sekulow, one of President Donald Trump’s lead attorneys during the impeachment trial, is being paid for his legal work through a rented $80-a-month mailbox a block away from the White House.

apnews.com

 

[insidejob]

WASHINGTON (AP) — Jay Sekulow, one of President Donald Trump’s lead attorneys during the impeachment trial, is being paid for his legal work through a rented $80-a-month mailbox a block away from the White House.

The Pennsylvania Avenue box appears to be the sole physical location of the Constitutional Litigation and Advocacy Group, a for-profit corporation co-owned by Sekulow.

The firm has no website and is not listed in national legal directories.

The District of Columbia Bar has no record of it, and no attorneys list it as their employer.

But Sekulow, 63, is registered as chief counsel at the American Center for Law and Justice, a non-profit Christian legal advocacy group based in an expansive Capitol Hill row house a short walk from the Senate chamber.

A half dozen lawyers employed by the non-profit ACLJ are named in recent Senate legal briefs as members of Trump’s defense team — including one of Sekulow’s sons.

The ACLJ, as a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) organization, is barred under IRS rules from engaging in partisan political activities.

The Republican National Committee has paid more than $250,000 to Sekulow’s for-profit CLA Group since 2017, when he was first named to Trump’s legal team as special counsel Robert Mueller was leading the Russia investigation, according to campaign disclosures..............

Charity watchdogs for years have raised concerns about the blurred lines between for-profit businesses tied to Sekulow and the complex web of non-profit entities he and his family control.

The Associated Press reviewed 10 years of tax returns for the ACLJ and other charities tied to Sekulow, which are released to the public under federal law.

The records from 2008 to 2017, the most recent year available, show that more than $65 million in charitable funds were paid to Sekulow, his wife, his sons, his brother, his sister-in-law, his nephew and corporations they own...........

Charities steered $65M to Trump lawyer Sekulow and family

WASHINGTON (AP) — Jay Sekulow, one of President Donald Trump’s lead attorneys during the impeachment trial, is being paid for his legal work through a rented $80-a-month mailbox a block away from the White House.

apnews.com

He can't even have his lawyer be above board? Amazing.

 

[Lazybones]

Can we just not go here? Its BHM tomorrow, seriously.

man, I apologize if I offended you, but come on really. The over sensationalizing of racism only makes actual racist actions get muted. Don’t be one of those people.

 

[Lazybones]

The word 'lynching' is no no now?

Unless it refers to a former president influencing the AG.

 

[bdb13]

Murkowski to vote No on witnesses.