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]

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.

I actually think he brings up some good points, but we are on opposite sides and I don’t want to argue.

I do think he make a salient point in snowden. What are your thoughts? (Not just you, anyone)

 

[cuddlemonkey]

First, his merely stating that he stands by his allegations would not prove them. But, more importantly the specifc issues he raised does not exhaust the issues he needs to be questioned about. If you go back and look at the areas I mentioned I think that should come through.

I tend to think this guy has information on the Bidens that he neglected to mention in this complaint, and more importantly did not raise earlier.

Let's look at the questions you asked:

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.

Does the identity of the 6 people matter if the complaint is shown to be true and accurate?

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.

Does a box being checked vs left unchecked matter if the complaint is shown to be true and accurate?

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

Does it matter if he coordinated with anyone if the complaint is shown to be 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.

Do his feelings on Trump matter if the complaint is shown to be true and accurate?

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

Does the whistleblower's knowledge of Biden and Ukraine have any bearing if the complaint is shown to be true and accurate?

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.

Does speculation of what might have been said in a meaning matter if the complaint is shown to be true and accurate?

 

[Beach Friends]

Let's look at the questions you asked:



Does the identity of the 6 people matter if the complaint is shown to be true and accurate?



Does a box being checked vs left unchecked matter if the complaint is shown to be true and accurate?



Does it matter if he coordinated with anyone if the complaint is shown to be true and accurate?



Do his feelings on Trump matter if the complaint is shown to be true and accurate?



Does the whistleblower's knowledge of Biden and Ukraine have any bearing if the complaint is shown to be true and accurate?



Does speculation of what might have been said in a meaning matter if the complaint is shown to be true and accurate?

Thanks for the response, I really don't have time to read.and respond fully. Plus, I was really just giving Sam an idea of the questions Eric might be asked.

 

[Lazybones]

Thanks for the response, I really don't have time to read.and respond fully. Plus, I was really just giving Sam an idea of the questions Eric might be asked.

Let me sum up the questioning.

Does it matter ..........

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Thanks for the response, I really don't have time to read.and respond fully. Plus, I was really just giving Sam an idea of the questions Eric might be asked.

Sure. If you have time, I'd be curious to hear your

Let me sum up the questioning.

Does it matter ..........

Correct. Do the answers to any of those individual questions matter if the whistleblower's complaint is shown to be true and accurate. Do you want to take a crack at it?

 

[FullMonte]

What is the actual accusation against J. Biden regarding Burisima? Is it similar to this?

The allegation is quite clear. Joe Biden was Vice President. His son got a high paying job with a foreign gas company. Somethingsomethingsomethingsomething corruption by Joe Biden.

 

[FullMonte]

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.

When you say you need to know this information, can you explain why you need to hear it directly from him? The IG took his complaint and investigated it, and spoke with other individuals (presumably those 6 people included), and determined that the complaint was credible. If the IG knows who those 6 people are, and said that the whistleblower's complaint accurately reflected what those individuals told him, why do you need the whistleblower to confirm it?

 

[FullMonte]

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/

That's so laughable, I am in physical pain. He literally said that he doesn't have a reason to believe that Trump will do it again because being impeached will make him think twice, and then he said that he has no proof otherwise because "I haven't studied his life that close."

Seriously? Who cares about studying his life? Let's stick with the sample size of him being president:

--Trump was elected in November of 2016
--For the first two years of his presidency, he was investigated for soliciting aid with his election from a foreign government.
--Now, let's be honest, this could be explained by saying that they were political neophytes who had no clue that what they were doing was wrong; but the investigation and two years of news reports should have made it clear to everyone that it was illegal.
--Trump was interviewed, and fed a softball question, "If you were approached by a foreign government who offered you dirt on your opponent, would you notify the FBI?" Of course, he was smart enough to answer, "Yes, I would immediately contact the FBI, as I now fully understand how wrong that is." But, seriously, no, he stated quite clearly that he would accept that help.

Yep...he was investigated for two years for soliciting aid from a foreign government, and said that he would do it again.

--In July of 2019, Trump, during a phone call with a foreign leader, solicited aid with his election.
--When it was reported that he did so, he was asked what he wanted that country to do. Again, with that softball question, he was smart enough to explain that he wanted that country to work with our justice department to ensure that one of our elected officials had not broken the law. No...seriously, he said publicly that he wanted that country, and another country to announce an investigation into his political opponent.

So..to sum up.

Trump solicited aid from a foreign government in 2016.
He said he would do it again.
Trump solicited aid from a foreign government in 2019
He did it publicly.

But yeah....we haven't investigated his life enough to determine if he'll do it again. After all, he was investigated for it this time.

 

[Thanos]

Sooo is this thread going to be closed at 3:05 CST ??

Or maybe we can change it to a infrastructure thread!

 

[BobE]

Romney a yes to impeach

 

[bdb13]

Romney a yes to impeach

I'm surprised but thought there was a chance he would.

 

[bdb13]

 

[Thanos]

Will be interesting if he gets recalled in Utah since he went into business for himself and potentially not the people he represents.

 

[Nebaghead]

Will be interesting if he gets recalled in Utah since he went into business for himself and potentially not the people he represents.

Recalls are incredibly difficult. Doubt anything will come of it. Trump isn't that popular with mormons. They do have some integrity with their religious beliefs.

 

[Thanos]

Recalls are incredibly difficult. Doubt anything will come of it. Trump isn't that popular with mormons. They do have some integrity with their religious beliefs.

That’s factually incorrect.

He won the state popular vote by almost 200k over Hillary* in 2016.

Mormons love Trump

 

[BobE]

Will be interesting if he gets recalled in Utah since he went into business for himself and potentially not the people he represents.

He won't get recalled and will win reelection with ease

 

[Thanos]

He won't get recalled and will win reelection with ease

he isn’t up for reelection until 2024.

 

[B4YOU]

Romney’s full statement.

READ: Sen. Mitt Romney explains why he voted to convict Trump | CNN Politics

Utah Sen. Mitt Romney became the first Republican on Wednesday to vote to convict President Donald Trump on one of the charges in his impeachment trial. Read his statement on the Senate floor below:

www.cnn.com