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

 

[SaintForLife]

Well, the first law I mentioned makes it illegal for a US person to solicit opposition research from a foreign national. According to the articles of impeachment President Trump "corruptly solicited the government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into (A) a political oppoent, for Vice President Joseph R Biden."

So asking for an investigation(the investigation that never happened and is within the Presidents power) is opposition research? Sounds like a reach to me.

Article II of the articles of impeachment spell out mulitiple instances where President Trump endeavoured to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the congress.

Aren't the President, Congress, and the Judiciary equal branches of Government? What about separation of powers? Congress didn't even get the courts involved to compel testimonies and in the one instance where they did they withdrew it. Once again. Big stretch.

 

[Dadsdream]

And your response makes it seem like you're ok with a career officer being publicly humiliated for testifying under oath by the person who is supposed to stand for all that is good with our form of government.

No, I'm OK with him getting transferred out of a position at the White House to a position at the Pentagon while keeping his rank and pay.
Serving at the White House is a duty position, held only so long as the appointing authority wants to keep you there.
Out-processing a person from the White House and in-processing them at the Pentagon will follow a very strict and well-documented series of steps which are intended to keep secure information secure. I don't think public humiliation comes into that equation.

 

[SaintForLife]

And your response makes it seem like you're ok with a career officer being publicly humiliated for testifying under oath by the person who is supposed to stand for all that is good with our form of government.

Your post seems like you are okay with the issues that were talked about by Vindman's boss.



Are all career officers exempt from being escorted off the grounds of the White House just like all of the people running for president are exempt from investigations?

 

[MT15]

No, I'm OK with him getting transferred out of a position at the White House to a position at the Pentagon while keeping his rank and pay.
Serving at the White House is a duty position, held only so long as the appointing authority wants to keep you there.
Out-processing a person from the White House and in-processing them at the Pentagon will follow a very strict and well-documented series of steps which are intended to keep secure information secure. I don't think public humiliation comes into that equation.

My objection is the public nature of the firing and the firing of his brother as well.

But what makes you think Trump will stop at this reassignment? When has he ever shown restraint before? IMO, he won’t rest until he ruins Vindman’s life. They’ve already started making up lies about him, just like they are doing to Romney and Bolton and Joe Biden.

 

[Dadsdream]

My objection is the public nature of the firing and the firing of his brother as well.

But what makes you think Trump will stop at this reassignment? When has he ever shown restraint before? IMO, he won’t rest until he ruins Vindman’s life. They’ve already started making up lies about him, just like they are doing to Romney and Bolton and Joe Biden.

Because of the media spotlight on him, transferring him to the Pentagon would be "public in nature" regardless.
Tours of duty for Army officers are normally 2 to 3 years. He was appointed in 2018. He was about due for rotation anyway.
He wasn't stripped of his rank. He wasn't sent to a remote outpost in Alaska. He's being sent to the Pentagon.

So, he's a 20-year Purple Heart veteran. He retires at $80K per year and takes up a six-figure job as a CNN analyst.

What's so bad about that?

 

[MT15]

Your post seems like you are okay with the issues that were talked about by Vindman's boss.



Are all career officers exempt from being escorted off the grounds of the White House just like all of the people running for president are exempt from investigations?

You‘re seriously giving all this weight to an obvious fishing expedition about small conflicts and hearsay (gossip really) about Vindman, some of which was from years before? What did Fiona Hill say about Vindman? She shot down Morrison’s recollection of their talk.

Fiona Hill testified that she was surprised by Morrison’s testimony and that her thoughts about Vindman were said in a meeting where she and Morrison discussed every employee’s strengths and weaknesses. She gave Vindman an exemplary job rating and said he was an excellent analyst. She said he was extremely good in his job and his knowledge about Russia and Ukraine was unmatched. If I am not mistaken, she said he was a top 1% in his field.

This is just more twisting of the truth by an administration that is desperate to discredit anyone who tells the truth about what they are doing. They will smear anyone and everyone who crosses them, and truth means nothing to them.

 

[Beach Friends]

It would be interesting to see how Vindman does with his peers at the War College.

Words you will never hear, "hey Vindman, you have plans for lunch?

 

[FullMonte]

Where are you getting that from?

Both Articles of Impeachment against Clinton were for violations of statutory criminal law:
1 - Perjury
2- Obstruction of Justice

I'm getting it from the articles of impeachment. Here is a link to them. Nowhere in the articles of impeachment does it state any law that was broken by the president.

Article I does state that he had made "prior perjurious" testimony, but at no time does it mention any criminal act or codified law. In fact, it simply says that by lying he "undermined the integrity of his office, has brought disrepute on the Presidency, has betrayed his trust as President, and has acted in a manner subversive of the rule of law and justice, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States." Article II makes almost the identical claim.

https://www.congress.gov/105/bills/hres611/BILLS-105hres611enr.pdf

 

[FullMonte]

So asking for an investigation(the investigation that never happened and is within the Presidents power) is opposition research? Sounds like a reach to me.

Now you are making the claim that because you don't think that the president's conduct was a violation of the law, that means that the article of impeachment matched the law?

The article of impeachment clearly accused the President of (and, again, I quote directly from the bill) "corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigatons into-- (A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden, Jr...."

Whether or no you agree that his motivation was political, the article clearly states that the president took an action that violates 52 USC 30121, which prohibits a US person from soliciting opposition research from a foreign national."

Aren't the President, Congress, and the Judiciary equal branches of Government? What about separation of powers? Congress didn't even get the courts involved to compel testimonies and in the one instance where they did they withdrew it. Once again. Big stretch.

Again, that's a completely different argument. I never stated anything about the process or whether or not anything should have been done. I simply responded to your claim that the articles of impeachment never mentioned any broken laws by showing that the article of impeachment do, quite clearly, describe violations of laws. They don't codify the laws in the articles because impeachment is not a criminal trial.

 

[not2rich]

Where are you getting that from?

Both Articles of Impeachment against Clinton were for violations of statutory criminal law:
1 - Perjury
2- Obstruction of Justice

Clinton was impeached for getting a BJ from an intern and then lying about it - thus, perjury.

At least he didn't get impeached for abuse of power, which the impeachment managers pretty clearly proved.

 

[MT15]

And so it begins, the smear of a decorated war hero, a non-political person who just knows right from wrong and tells the truth, unforgivable to Trump and his minions.


are you guys all just fine with this?

 

[not2rich]

And so it begins, the smear of a decorated war hero, a non-political person who just knows right from wrong and tells the truth, unforgivable to Trump and his minions.


are you guys all just fine with this?

Do you have to ask?

If Trump grabbed a child to shield himself from an assassin's bullet, they would somehow smear the child's character.

 

[MT15]

it’s all surreal. It’s like the majority of the GOP and people who support Trump have taken on his personality disorders.

This is a sitting US Senator spouting crazy talk.

 

[Beach Friends]

And so it begins, the smear of a decorated war hero, a non-political person who just knows right from wrong and tells the truth, unforgivable to Trump and his minions.


are you guys all just fine with this?

Fine with it? I love it. Lindsey spoke the truth. Here is an even better clip:

[Mod Edit - Let's try to avoid using conspiracies, even if not the focus of your point. Here is a link to the full interview with Lindsey Graham, that doesn't use a Twitter page mentioning QAnon silliness.... Sledgehammer]



If you have any trouble seeing the video, it is at https : // video . foxnews . com/v/6130895866001

without the spaces...

 

[SaintForLife]

Fine with it? I love it. Lindsey spoke the truth. Here is an even better clip:

[removed twitter post]

I'm not a fan of Graham, but I support what he's saying as far as what should be looked into.

 

[SaintForLife]

My objection is the public nature of the firing and the firing of his brother as well.

But what makes you think Trump will stop at this reassignment? When has he ever shown restraint before? IMO, he won’t rest until he ruins Vindman’s life. They’ve already started making up lies about him, just like they are doing to Romney and Bolton and Joe Biden.

Can we at least wait until Trump actually does something before getting outraged? Are we now to the point of being outraged by imagining what he might or might not do? Vindman still has a job. His kids won't starve. How do you think Trump could have fired him without it being public?

 

[not2rich]

Lindsey Graham is an appeasing coward. It's funny that his appeasing cowardice makes him a "truth teller" for the Trump crowd.

 

[not2rich]

Can we at least wait until Trump actually does something before getting outraged?

Is this a serious question?