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

 

[Lazybones]

Here's the thing Lazybones. There is nothing sincere about your approach. I don't think you meant any ill-will and a simple "my bad" would have ended the discussion but it has become pretty common to simply double-dpwn when challenged. I don't need a list of words not to use as to not offend anyone. I only have need to remember one word, "Decency" Decency keeps you from saying offensive crap rather it's a cliché or other term. It's something my parents instilled in me from a young age. There was no "faux outrage" as you put it. There was only an illustration of the incorrectness of the usage of the term "lynching" compared to "railroading". Why get so defensive at someone correcting an obvious misuse of a term?

because I didn’t misuse the term and my comments were not offensive unless someone was looking to be offended. and who is he to correct my vernacular. I’m not going to say “my bad” when I didn’t do anything bad.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

See previous reaction to lynching.

Nah, I’m done taking suggestions from supporters of tyranny
Please note there not a shred of hyperbole in that previous sentence

 

[B4YOU]

It was well written, I appreciate that he took the time to explain his reasoning. I think all House Democrats should read this and reflect upon not only his words, but their own actions.

Well written but poorly reasoned. Rubio is admitting that the President’s actions rise to the level of justifying impeachment. His argument is that removal would enflame partisan divides while voting not to remove the President based on partisan divisions is justified. It can’t be both.

The President’s actions are either corrupt, endanger American principles, and he should be removed; or he is innocent and should remain in power. Rubio is saying the President is guilty and Rubio will do nothing about it because he fears Republicans will not understand and accept his decision.

The ignorant are forgivable, but those who know better and do nothing are complicit.

 

[FullMonte]

I understand Rubio's statement, and I agree with his rationale for why to vote for removal.

However, I strongly disagree with his ultimate conclusion. As I understand his statement, he is saying that if the president did what he is accused of, it doesn't warrant removal, because if he does it again, there are other options on how to stop him.

This leaves two questions:

1) Will he do it again?
Anyone who doesn't think he'll do it again if he has the opportunity is lying to themselves. He tried to get dirt on his opponent from a foreign government during the 2016 election. During an interview after that investigation, he stated plainly that he would do it again. He did it again, and got caught. The first thing he did after getting caught was go out onto the White House lawn, and asked two countries to do it again. So, yeah, he will do it again if he can.

2) What can congress do to stop him?
This is where his argument falls apart. Before congress can do something to stop him, they have to know what he did. The only reason congress found out about this time was because an individual received a readout of a monitored call, and took advantage of the anonymity provided by the Whistleblower Protection Laws, and filed a complaint. Since then, supporters of Trump have done everything they can to identify the whistleblower. Based on that, what are the chances that a future whistleblower will report wrongdoing? Also, the question is, will Trump do this over a monitored phone call, or will he do it in a private conversation, or do it through Rudy and his goons?

At the end of the day, Trump will likely try this again, and he'll do it in a manner that makes it harder for anyone to find out about it. So, these ideas that congress can do something to check Trump don't seem likely to me.

 

[wardorican]

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.

Is it that hard to just take a polite suggestion to not use that term right before black history month?

I do agree with the point that faux racism arguments mute out real racism, but FTP wasn't going that far. I think you're reading into it too hard.

Then your next post just shows that you're being a tool.

 

[wardorican]

See previous reaction to lynching.

Dude. Really?

 

[Archies Ghost]

Dude. Really?

Each is equally hyperbolic and ridiculous.

And certainly millions have paid with their lives under actual tyranny.

Do you want pictures? We can probably find some that work for both lynching and tyranny.

 

[Lapaz]

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.

I’m hoping that Democrats keep investigating and subpoenaing witnesses and then another article of impeachment with the explicit crimes called out. I would also include the Mueller report, and emoluments. I also think anything else this president does to undermine the election going forward and any new information needs to be included.

Obviously there are a lot of dense Republicans that need to see more evidence to be convinced, because a majority are still not convinced. Alexander is in the minority of Republicans. What most intelligent people realized was overwhelming evidence, still needed to be augmented for those slow Republicans. Democrat should get those first hand witnesses to testify.

 

[t_rav_82]

Those are lynchings and I dont think any person can look at those pictures and not be disturbed in some way. I guess the correct term for a sham court hearing that passes a sentence on a person without due process would be lynch law although they are interchangeable and not unique to our country.

Someone walk me through why due process is relevant in impeachment proceedings? Being removed from office (fired from ones job) doesn't deprive one of life, liberty, or property, so what am I missing here?

 

[Lapaz]

I don't understand what the Democrats are doing at this point.

Several of the more moderate Republican Senators have come out, stated that the House Managers have proven their case but they don't feel it rises to the level of impeachment (or it does but with an election so close it's better left to the electorate). It's over and the results are about the best the Democrats could have hoped for. Absent gross malfeasance and/or crimes they were never going to remove the President. More witnesses aren't necessary if you have some Republicans already willing to admit to the offense. At some point you have to pivot to the ballot box and try to convince voters why this was an abuse of power.

A few Republicans have admitted that Trump was guilty, but the problem is that the vast majority still claim that the evidence is not strong enough because it is second hand, although Sondland's was supposedly first hand. The people with the vast majority of the knowledge still haven't testified. As long as the majority of Republicans don't admit that Trump was guilty, Democrats have to continue to pursue subpeonas to convince the Republicans that can't connect the dots.

 

[Lapaz]

I understand Rubio's statement, and I agree with his rationale for why to vote for removal.

However, I strongly disagree with his ultimate conclusion. As I understand his statement, he is saying that if the president did what he is accused of, it doesn't warrant removal, because if he does it again, there are other options on how to stop him.

This leaves two questions:

1) Will he do it again?
Anyone who doesn't think he'll do it again if he has the opportunity is lying to themselves. He tried to get dirt on his opponent from a foreign government during the 2016 election. During an interview after that investigation, he stated plainly that he would do it again. He did it again, and got caught. The first thing he did after getting caught was go out onto the White House lawn, and asked two countries to do it again. So, yeah, he will do it again if he can.

2) What can congress do to stop him?
This is where his argument falls apart. Before congress can do something to stop him, they have to know what he did. The only reason congress found out about this time was because an individual received a readout of a monitored call, and took advantage of the anonymity provided by the Whistleblower Protection Laws, and filed a complaint. Since then, supporters of Trump have done everything they can to identify the whistleblower. Based on that, what are the chances that a future whistleblower will report wrongdoing? Also, the question is, will Trump do this over a monitored phone call, or will he do it in a private conversation, or do it through Rudy and his goons?

At the end of the day, Trump will likely try this again, and he'll do it in a manner that makes it harder for anyone to find out about it. So, these ideas that congress can do something to check Trump don't seem likely to me.

This is exactly right. Trump will continue to do anything and everything he can to subvert the next election, regardless of the legality, but he will be careful to hide his tracks better.

 

[Beach Friends]

The good news is there are rumblings that the Ukraine is going to investigate the Bidens after all. I know a lot of people here, on both sides, said they would welcome this.

 

[V Chip]

Cool, so tyranny

See previous reaction to lynching.

That says tyranny, not tranny.

 

[Lapaz]

The good news is there are rumblings that the Ukraine is going to investigate the Bidens after all. I know a lot of people here, on both sides, said they would welcome this.

As long as they aren't doing it due to political pressure, and they should also investigate Guilianni and others associated with Trump so that it doesn't give the appearance of a political witch hunt.

 

[Intensesaint]

I guess there is some salt in the Peach Mints.

 

[samiam5211]

The good news is there are rumblings that the Ukraine is going to investigate the Bidens after all. I know a lot of people here, on both sides, said they would welcome this.

Of course they are. The quid quo pro is back on.

Trump is bringing corruption back to Ukraine.

If there was anything shady going on involving Joe Biden, our government would be investigating. They would have investigated years ago.

 

[Saintamaniac]

In all fairness, a "sense of decency" is not necessarily enough to avoid giving offense. Do you think Mayor Pete's sin of using the term "heartland" was due to a lack of decency? Should we all now capitulate and never use the term again because some people were offended or acted as though they were?

I had to do a google search to see what you referenced and I'm glad I did because otherwise, I would not have known about Mayor Pete using the term "Heartland Values" as opposed to what you quoted him as saying the word "Heartland" by itself. The context in which Mayor Pete used "Heartland Values" pretty much invalidates the values of every where else in the country as if heartland values are the only set of values that matter. So in this case, while the term Heartland Values is in and of itself inherently not offensive, the IDEA that the values of one particular place in the country is better than all the other values is myopic and demonstrates a candidates ability to pander to the area of the country that they are campaigning. The offense was taken to the IDEA and not the term.

You can use heartland values all you want and no one will care. When you try to pass off heartland values as the only set of values that matter then yeah, people are going to take exception to that. There's no capitulation needed. IMO, heartland values don't mean shirt to me. Heartland values put an amoral, bigoted, philandering, heathen criminal in the white house.

 

[Saintamaniac]

because I didn’t misuse the term and my comments were not offensive unless someone was looking to be offended. and who is he to correct my vernacular. I’m not going to say “my bad” when I didn’t do anything bad. ✌

You simply are wrong. I'm sorry you aren't big enough of a person to simply accept that fact. You can double down all you want and you are still wrong. Everyone can see it.