The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (2 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

 

[samiam5211]

The only reason Impeachment failed in the Senate is because Republican Senators (and House members) are complicit with the President in covering up his crimes. Well, not really covering them up, since the House managers did such and effective job of uncovering it all. More like completely ignoring all evidence and not caring what comes as a result of not removing Trump. But whatever, on to the election.

One day we will learn what he has on Linsey Graham.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

But why is that?

If Romney is invincible in Utah what does he have to lose by going against Trump?

Is it not so much the reaction in Utah but the response in Washington from fellow republicans he’d be worried about?

It is the latter:

CPAC declares Mitt Romney 'NOT invited' after Senate impeachment witness vote

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) made clear on Friday that Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, who formerly won the event's straw poll in 2012, would not be welcome at the conference in February -- an apparent response to the senator's refusal to follow his party in the ongoing Senate...

www.foxnews.com

You're either with trump or you're their enemy.

 

[MT15]

David Harsanyi echoes my previous sentiments.

The End of Impeachment | National Review

House Democrats rushed through a botched process and then complained bitterly and endlessly that Senate Republicans wouldn’t do their work for them.

www.nationalreview.com

Okay, there are some kernels of truth in there. But to line up all those points, you have to completely ignore that Trump did everything the democrats said he did. He’s more corrupt than Nixon ever dreamed of being and more psychologically unfit for office as well.

He used the presidential power for political gain, involving a putative ally by withholding aid to try to force them to announce a sham investigation. There was no corruption involving Joe Biden in Ukraine, and everyone knows it. There was no involvement of Ukraine with the so-called “server” and Crowd Strike. He sent Giuliani and some goons on the payroll of a Russian mobster to Ukraine to try to sic a foreign government on an American citizen who broke no laws. A very well respected career diplomat was recalled due to the shenanigans of Rudy and Frick and Frack.

So while you guys celebrate, what really happened is that Republicans used these points to give themselves permission to avoid doing their own duty to the country and the Constitution. The thing is, this information will continue to come out, through FOIA requests and House subpoenas, and it will be worse than we imagined, IMO. I could be wrong, but my gut says that we don’t know exactly what Rudy has done yet, and Bolton will lay out Trump’s corruption in great detail. It will include countries other than Ukraine as well.

It will be politically damaging to the Republican party and their elected officials who have participated in this waste of time and money in the Senate. They will have been exposed.

 

[TaylorB]

Democrat leadership is stupid.

I have some news for them. They did it to themselves. They built the strength Trump now enjoys.

And here we are witnessing the political harvest of the seeds of stupidity sown.

Yeah, its the Republicans fault. We are evil. Good luck campaigning on that, again.

When you say Dems previously campaigned on Rs being evil for supporting Trump, what campaign(s) are you referring to? The 2018 midterms? In 2018 there was a rather measured Dem strategy of making the message about voter-specific issues as opposed to focusing only on Trump's corruption, and that strategy ended up working really well. So the notion that Dem leadership's approach to Trump is helping him is contradicted by the best data point we have -- the only nationwide election since he took office.

As for impeachment, best I can tell, Plan A for Dems was the unlikely prospect of convincing enough R Senators to convict Trump; Plan B was, in the much more likely event of a vote by Rs not to remove Trump, to demonstrate to voters in 2020 that Republican leadership was entirely unwilling to hold a corrupt president accountable, even as additional information pertaining to his corruption continues to trickle out after the trial. What we're likely to see from Dems is a measured approach to this strategy, as in 2018, as opposed to them accusing R voters as being evil. That strategy is not going to be impacted by their views of an opinion article in Salon about R leadership no matter how much you want to ascribe the writer's comments to all Dems. The strategy could play out well if stories continue to trickle out about Ukraine, tax returns, Deutsche bank, emoluments, etc. It could also backfire.

From a legal standpoint, my honest opinion about Rs impeachment defense was that it bordered on clownish (particularly in the House), but it clearly wasn't stupid politically. Likewise, the fact that you haven't been persuaded by the Dems strategy with respect to impeachment, or Trump more broadly, doesn't mean it has been stupid politically. There likely wasn't much Dems could've done that you didn't disagree with. Yet Trump's favorability is still low and has been mostly stagnant through impeachment, support for removal outweighed or equaled support for acquittal toward the end of the trial, and the R vote not to hear witnesses or obtain documents was unpopular according to the polls. We'll see how it plays out in 2020, but considering that the polling is not telling a clear story yet, to say in February that "we are witnessing the political harvest of the seeds of stupidity sown" when the "harvest" is nine months away is like dumping the gatorade cooler on your coach's head in the second quarter of a close football game.

 

[Saintamaniac]

It is the latter:

CPAC declares Mitt Romney 'NOT invited' after Senate impeachment witness vote

The Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) made clear on Friday that Sen. Mitt Romney, R-Utah, who formerly won the event's straw poll in 2012, would not be welcome at the conference in February -- an apparent response to the senator's refusal to follow his party in the ongoing Senate...

www.foxnews.com

You're either with trump or you're their enemy.

At this point, Romney should just declare himself an Independent. Republicans now punish their own for doing the right thing. It seems that Republicans and Scientologist are not that different from each other.

 

[SaintForLife]

I'm sure our Ukrainian allies would find the word "fleeting" to be offensive, considering how many long days and nights they spent on the front lines of a hot war against our global superpower enemy not knowing if, much less when, security assistance was ever coming:

The Cost of Trump’s Aid Freeze in the Trenches of Ukraine’s War (Published 2019)

As President Trump froze military aid to Ukraine and urged it to investigate his rivals, the country was struggling in a bare-bones fight against Russian-backed separatists.

www.nytimes.com

I don't remember Obama's decisions about lethal aid being directly contrary to a bipartisan congressional appropriation bill explicitly enacted "to protect the national security of the United States," nor do I remember there being any component of secrecy or personal gain attached to the decisions, which were publicly discussed and which were responsive to the exigencies of the Ukraine-Russia situation as they existed at that time.

It's impossible to quantify the impact of government decisions on our national security. Presidents are entitled to make strategic mistakes when making those decisions and shouldn't be impeached every time a decision is made that turns out to harm national security more than it helps it. But minimizing the potential impact of the decision to our national security and ignoring the illegitimate motivation behind the decision misses the entire point.

Trump may have exceeded his constitutional authority by ordering the strike on Soleimani, and it could ultimately have a negative impact on national security, possibly even more than withholding Ukraine aid. If it turned out that the strike was motivated by, say, Trump wanting to distract from the impeachment trial, then to me that would be impeachable, whether or not it had a net positive / negative impact on national security, and whether or not it violated the AUMF or some other specific law. Without significant evidence of that sort of motive, impeachment would be highly inappropriate.

It's exceedingly hard to prove someone's primary motivations, but in the case of Ukraine, it was clear to everyone that the withholding was motivated by personal political gain. It's fundamentally anti-democratic behavior for which there's a Constitutional remedy; but at a minimum, even the minority of legal minds who disagree with the legality of impeachment in this case seem to acknowledge it's something over which reasonable minds can differ. In that sense we've come a long, long way from all the "witch hunt" nonsense we've been hearing for four months. This is a moral victory that certainly won't change the Senate removal vote, but the polls don't show impeachment to have been the political blunder we were told it would be, and I'm still hopeful the 2020 elections will bear that out for both the presidency and the Senate.

You are vastly overestimating Russia's threat by claiming they are our global superpower enemy. What exactly are the main threats from Russia? Their election interference where we are vastly superior to their efforts?

If the aid to Ukraine is such a vital national security issue, why did Obama refrain from providing lethal aid to Ukraine? Who is responsible for setting foreign policy? The president or congress?

 

[samiam5211]

You are vastly overestimating Russia's threat by claiming they are our global superpower enemy. What exactly are the main threats from Russia? Their election interference where we are vastly superior to their efforts?

If the aid to Ukraine is such a vital national security issue, why did Obama refrain from providing lethal aid to Ukraine? Who is responsible for setting foreign policy? The president or congress?

Russia is a threat because they are willing to exploit the weaknesses of our open society like no other has before.

Russia is not really an open society with respect to information and elections are controlled by Putin and his allies. In some ways Putin has more authority than the old Soviet premiers because he is still cloaked in a shroud of glasnost. They are not as susceptible to foreign election interference as we are.

The USSR was forced to maintain satellite states despite its nuclear parity because Russia was not set up to have economic parity with the US and eventually it would be worn down. The fall of the Soviet Union was a reset, but Russia has just started the game over. They took Georgia and Crimea so far, and Putin probably thinks he can take the rest of Ukraine and at least one of the Baltic States before he has to face meaningful consequences.

China needs our Money. Russia does not depend on the stability of our society the way the rest of any world power does.

We are our greatest threat, and Russia is the only one capable who is willing to use us against us.

 

[TaylorB]

You are vastly overestimating Russia's threat by claiming they are our global superpower enemy. What exactly are the main threats from Russia? Their election interference where we are vastly superior to their efforts?

If the aid to Ukraine is such a vital national security issue, why did Obama refrain from providing lethal aid to Ukraine? Who is responsible for setting foreign policy? The president or congress?

I wasn’t claiming Russia was our #1 enemy. I meant it as “our enemy Russia, which is a global superpower.” Russia is those things.

As far as the threat Russia presents: they hate us, they have more nukes than us, and they are engaged in active cyber warfare against us. They hate democracy and are actively working to fracture western democratic alliances. They are a physical threat to allies of ours and to countries that provide a buffer between Russia and our strongest European allies. They are 55 miles away from Alaska. They are aligned with Iran and North Korea. They assassinate journalists. They meddle in other democratic elections. They are a threat.

Foreign policy is set by the President and by Congress. In this particular situation, it was set by Congress. I didn’t say Ukraine aid was vital to national security; I said that a bipartisan Congress said that aid to Ukraine was in our national security interests. The bill said:

To protect the national security of the United States and fulfill the ironclad commitment of the United States to its obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty, it is the policy of the United States to pursue ... an integrated approach to strengthening the defense of allies and partners in Europe as part of a broader, long-term strategy backed by all elements of United States national power to deter and, if necessary, defeat Russian aggression.

“it is the sense of Congress that in order to strengthen the defense of the US allies and partners in Europe, the Secretary of Defense should… support robust security sector assistance for Ukraine, including for defensive lethal assistance… develop and implement a comprehensive security cooperation strategy that integrates support for allies and partners most directly threatened by Russian aggression and malign influence...”

If Obama had secretly withheld javelins because he wanted dirt from Ukraine on McCain to help him politically, I’d have supported his impeachment. Instead he publicly explained that at the time, we did not want to escalate the conflict with Russia by giving lethal aid. That was a foreign policy decision that was not concealed from public view and that wasn’t in conflict with bipartisan law. That was why I said the Soleimani strike was potentially different than withholding aid. Trump’s people pushed back against the RNC trying to remove lethal aid for Ukraine from its platform; that wasn’t impeachable as long as it was a publicly discussed policy position and done through proper channels.

I’ve never lost sleep at night wondering whether Ukraine gets military aid from us. I didn’t even realize we sent them that much money until I found out Trump withheld it and wouldn’t disclose why. What I’m most concerned about is the idea that the people whose job it is to decide what’s in our national security interests are being secretly undermined by and on behalf of people who care about their own interests more than the country’s.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Russia is a threat because they are willing to exploit the weaknesses of our open society like no other has before.

Russia is not really an open society with respect to information and elections are controlled by Putin and his allies. In some ways Putin has more authority than the old Soviet premiers because he is still cloaked in a shroud of glasnost. They are not as susceptible to foreign election interference as we are.

The USSR was forced to maintain satellite states despite its nuclear parity because Russia was not set up to have economic parity with the US and eventually it would be worn down. The fall of the Soviet Union was a reset, but Russia has just started the game over. They took Georgia and Crimea so far, and Putin probably thinks he can take the rest of Ukraine and at least one of the Baltic States before he has to face meaningful consequences.

China needs our Money. Russia does not depend on the stability of our society the way the rest of any world power does.

We are our greatest threat, and Russia is the only one capable who is willing to use us against us.

You have been duped.

Russia is a poor country run by a kleptocracy.

The greatest achievement of Russia's 2016 disinformation campaign was convincing the Democrats/Washington establishment/Media to engage in a campaign of destabilization for them.

It exceeded Putin's wildest expectations to be sure. Three years of the Russia hoax snowballing into an actual impeachment attempt.

It did backfire quite a bit as the relationship between Russia and the US is at a post Cold War low and US sanctions are quite unwelcome.

Lethal military aid to Ukraine, provided by the TRUMP administration, is a serious check on Russia operations in the Donbass.

Militarily, China is a MUCH bigger threat and the next big war will have the United States and China as adversaries, either directly or via proxies although we are probably a generation or more away from direct Chinese challenges that could result in armed hostilities.

Many countries are happy to try to put a hand on the tiller of our elections. Russia is certainly not alone in using social media campaigns for disinformation.

If the Democrats would grow up and get over Trump winning 4 years ago, they might realize they are playing into Russia's hand. I won't hold my breath.

 

[JimEverett]

Gallup has Trump approval at 49%

He was sitting around 40% at the start of the impeachment

 

[Optimus Prime]

The time of rationalization has begun.

Consider Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who is retiring and was therefore thought by many to be capable of mustering enough courage to stand up to President Trump by allowing witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial.

Alexander appeared on “Meet the Press” on Sunday and expressed his view that while what the president did was wrong, it wasn’t bad enough to merit removal.

Asked whether Trump will now feel emboldened to commit even more misdeeds, Alexander said this:

I don’t think so. I hope not. I mean, enduring an impeachment is something that nobody should like. Even the president said he didn’t want that on his resume. I don’t blame him. So, if a call like that gets you an impeachment, I would think he would think twice before he did it again.

Somehow managing to keep his jaw from dropping clear off his face, host Chuck Todd asked the obvious question: “What example in the life of Donald Trump has he been chastened?”

In other words, has Trump ever gotten away with something (hiring undocumented workers? cheating on his taxes?) and then decided not to do it again?

To that, Alexander meekly said, “I haven’t studied his life that close.” Trump, did you say? Not that familiar with him...............

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/03/republicans-try-desperately-rationalize-their-coverup/

 

[insidejob]

The time of rationalization has begun.

Consider Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who is retiring and was therefore thought by many to be capable of mustering enough courage to stand up to President Trump by allowing witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial.

Alexander appeared on “Meet the Press” on Sunday and expressed his view that while what the president did was wrong, it wasn’t bad enough to merit removal.

Asked whether Trump will now feel emboldened to commit even more misdeeds, Alexander said this:

I don’t think so. I hope not. I mean, enduring an impeachment is something that nobody should like. Even the president said he didn’t want that on his resume. I don’t blame him. So, if a call like that gets you an impeachment, I would think he would think twice before he did it again.

Somehow managing to keep his jaw from dropping clear off his face, host Chuck Todd asked the obvious question: “What example in the life of Donald Trump has he been chastened?”

In other words, has Trump ever gotten away with something (hiring undocumented workers? cheating on his taxes?) and then decided not to do it again?

To that, Alexander meekly said, “I haven’t studied his life that close.” Trump, did you say? Not that familiar with him...............

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/03/republicans-try-desperately-rationalize-their-coverup/

I actually caught that segment on Meet the Press this weekend and was just as exasperated as Chuck Todd was (who I don't particularly care for but do agree with a lot of the time).

 

[Beach Friends]

Senator Rand Paul, he's channeling his inner honey badger here.

 

[samiam5211]

Senator Rand Paul, he's channeling his inner honey badger here.

Rand is just doing his best Lindsey Graham impression.



None of you who demand the whistle blower's testimony, will list any relevant questions he should be asked and explain why they are relevant.

Rand Paul is just another of the president's pathetic prostitutes.

 

[wardorican]

The time of rationalization has begun.

Consider Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-Tenn.), who is retiring and was therefore thought by many to be capable of mustering enough courage to stand up to President Trump by allowing witnesses to testify in the impeachment trial.

Alexander appeared on “Meet the Press” on Sunday and expressed his view that while what the president did was wrong, it wasn’t bad enough to merit removal.

Asked whether Trump will now feel emboldened to commit even more misdeeds, Alexander said this:

I don’t think so. I hope not. I mean, enduring an impeachment is something that nobody should like. Even the president said he didn’t want that on his resume. I don’t blame him. So, if a call like that gets you an impeachment, I would think he would think twice before he did it again.

Somehow managing to keep his jaw from dropping clear off his face, host Chuck Todd asked the obvious question: “What example in the life of Donald Trump has he been chastened?”

In other words, has Trump ever gotten away with something (hiring undocumented workers? cheating on his taxes?) and then decided not to do it again?

To that, Alexander meekly said, “I haven’t studied his life that close.” Trump, did you say? Not that familiar with him...............

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/02/03/republicans-try-desperately-rationalize-their-coverup/

 

[TaylorB]

You have been duped.

Russia is a poor country run by a kleptocracy.

The greatest achievement of Russia's 2016 disinformation campaign was convincing the Democrats/Washington establishment/Media to engage in a campaign of destabilization for them.

It exceeded Putin's wildest expectations to be sure. Three years of the Russia hoax snowballing into an actual impeachment attempt.

It did backfire quite a bit as the relationship between Russia and the US is at a post Cold War low and US sanctions are quite unwelcome.

Lethal military aid to Ukraine, provided by the TRUMP administration, is a serious check on Russia operations in the Donbass.

Militarily, China is a MUCH bigger threat and the next big war will have the United States and China as adversaries, either directly or via proxies although we are probably a generation or more away from direct Chinese challenges that could result in armed hostilities.

Many countries are happy to try to put a hand on the tiller of our elections. Russia is certainly not alone in using social media campaigns for disinformation.

If the Democrats would grow up and get over Trump winning 4 years ago, they might realize they are playing into Russia's hand. I won't hold my breath.

I'm struggling with what you think Russia was trying to achieve by "duping" Dems/media/establishment into believing this "Russia hoax." Mueller's report said Russia wanted Trump to win because Russia perceived it could benefit from a Trump presidency. Whether or not you believe Trump is actively participating in a conspiracy with Russia, there are numerous reasons Russia would have wanted Trump to become POTUS, and remain in that position as long as possible. There are few reasons Russia would want half the country to buy into a hoax about what they did, leading us to investigate their election meddling, sanction them for it, indict numerous Russian nationals for digital interference, indict Russians for infiltrating the NRA, publicly expose the psy-ops they deploy on other democracies, and impeach the president they spent untold millions trying to help get into office.

Sowing discord on both political sides has been a bi-product of Russians' efforts that they have certainly welcomed, but to say that the whole point of what Russia did was to just to bait the left into believing a hoax about their election meddling is completely illogical. It's hard for Trump defenders to acknowledge the simple fact that Russia wanted Trump to win, because they assume the whole goal has been to delegitimize his election victory, when the true goal all along has just been to ensure that Trump is acting in our country's best interests notwithstanding the fact that our enemy wanted him to win, and to address it when he doesn't.

Also - you're touting "TRUMP providing lethal aid" as "a serious check on Russian operations in the Donbass" while also criticizing Dems for being angry over Trump trying to withhold this "serious check on Russia" until he got a personal favor from an ally?

 

[Beach Friends]

Senator Rand Paul, he's channeling his inner honey badger her

Rand is just doing his best Lindsey Graham impression.



None of you who demand the whistle blower's testimony, will list any relevant questions he should be asked and explain why they are relevant.

Rand Paul is just another of the president's pathetic prostitutes.

Actually, I have answered that question several times. First, he said he decided to file his complaint after speaking to 6 people. I would have liked to have known who those 6 people were and the details of those conversations. Really, that's enough right there.

But I would also like to know whether he intentionally left the box blank that asked whether he had previously reported the subject matter of his complaint. I would like to know if anyone advised him to do that.

I would like to know the extent to which he coordinated with other people before he made his complaint.

I would like to know if everything in his complaint was true and accurate.

I would.like to know whether in 2017 he had a conversation with the guy who now serves on Schiff's staff during which they discussed the need to find a way to get Trump out of office.

I would like to know the extent of his knowledge about Biden's involvement in the Ukraine as it might relate to Burisma.

I would like to ask him a lot of questions about the January 19, 2017 WH meeting with officials from the Ukraine, which supposedly was for the purpose of those officials to explore whether an investigation into Burisma would cause tensions in the relationship between our nations given the fact that Hunter was Burisma's board.

Those are just a few of the areas I can think of off the top of my head. I am sure that if I had the knowledge of those who have lived with this issue for some time I could spend the rest of the evening discussing questions I would like to ask.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Senator Rand Paul, he's channeling his inner honey badger her


Actually, I have answered that question several times. First, he said he decided to file his complaint after speaking to 6 people. I would have liked to have known who those 6 people were and the details of those conversations. Really, that's enough right there.

But I would also like to know whether he intentionally left the box blank that asked whether he had previously reported the subject matter of his complaint. I would like to know if anyone advised him to do that.

I would like to know the extent to which he coordinated with other people before he made his complaint.

I would like to know if everything in his complaint was true and accurate.

I would.like to know whether in 2017 he had a conversation with the guy who now serves on Schiff's staff during which they discussed the need to find a way to get Trump out of office.

I would like to know the extent of his knowledge about Biden's involvement in the Ukraine as it might relate to Burisma.

I would like to ask him a lot of questions about the January 19, 2017 WH meeting with officials from the Ukraine, which supposedly was for the purpose of those officials to explore whether an investigation into Burisma would cause tensions in the relationship between our nations given the fact that Hunter was Burisma's board.

Those are just a few of the areas I can think of off the top of my head. I am sure that if I had the knowledge of those who have lived with this issue for some time I could spend the rest of the evening discussing questions I would like to ask.

You want to ask the following question:

"I would like to know if everything in his complaint was true and accurate."

If the answer to this is 'yes', does that not make every other question on your list irrelevant?