The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (1 Viewer)

[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

 

[Sandman]

If a person feels strongly enough about it and is willing to accept the repercussions, they are free to pursue whatever course of action they deem appropriate.

This is where you are missing the boat. Vindman wasn't "free" to choose whether to report or not. He had an obligation to report. His failure to report would have been a violation of his oaths and obligations and would have had repercussions themselves.

 

[SaintForLife]

Leaving aside the insulting condescension, which is not a good look for you, honestly, I’m not claiming that Graham is speaking directly to QAnon, they are. This is exactly how the whole pizza conspiracy played out, and that was such a success they’re reprising the crazy, only now with the whole federal government. Graham is just pandering to Trump, like he always does. Trump is so amoral that he actually encourages the crazy because they support him. You‘re being sucked in as collateral damage with your “red flags”. You scoffed at actual suspicious behavior from the Trump campaign, and called that investigation illegitimate, yet you want a full on investigation now over no facts at all?

Just so I'm clear who are you claiming that is speaking to QAnon? What I scoffed at was declaring that Trump was colluding with Russia until we had actual proof and not multiple articles from anonymous sources that turned out not to be true under closer examination and more time. I'm being "sucked in" for the red flag like the illegal spying on the Trump campaign, FBI officials altering documents and gaming the FISA process. Those are proven facts from the IG report. It's pretty silly that you would compare that to the stupid pizzagate.

That BF had this particular twitter source on his feed presumably, or at least at the ready, speaks volumes. It really does. These are dangerously crazy people. And that isn’t some random mention, it’s a guy who is, as far as I can tell, in the middle of promoting the conspiracy theory. He doesn’t just pop up randomly on someone’s twitter feed, if you know how twitter works.

Are you aware that you can search Twitter for a video clip like Graham's and random Twitter accounts come up? You don't have to be following someone to easily come across an account like the one above.

But this is a bit different. This isn’t some alternate philosophy. These people are seriously advocating for massive imprisonments for political reasons. They are bat shirt insane. Nobody should be advancing their cause, they are dangerous.

Graham is saying there should be investigations for what appears to be illegal activities. There were 3 years of non stop investigations where we were told we needed to know everything about what Trump was doing. It's ironic now that many on the left are all of the sudden saying there shouldn't be investigations even though there are plenty signs and evidence that illegal or corrupt actions were taken by the Obama administration's FBI and possibly others.

 

[FullMonte]

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.

Yes, Clinton's actions (that he was impeached for) included conduct that would be considered against the law of perjury. The point is, the articles of impeachment never mention that law or claim that he broke the law.

In the same vein, the actions that Trump was impeached for included conduct that would be against the law against foreign campaign donations and obstruction of congressional committees. The articles of impeachment never mention those laws or claim he broke those laws.

 

[Dadsdream]

This is where you are missing the boat. Vindman wasn't "free" to choose whether to report or not. He had an obligation to report. His failure to report would have been a violation of his oaths and obligations and would have had repercussions themselves.

I'm sure we both recall Lt. Col. North's testimony with regard to shredding documents.
He wasn't "free" to choose whether or not to shred the documents, because he had a presidential order to do so.
He felt it was his duty and obligation to continue destroying documents, even with people pounding on the door trying to stop him.
To him, failure to shred the documents would have been a violation of his oaths and obligation and would have had repercussions themselves.
Depending on whom you ask, North was either a hero or a scoundrel.
So it is with Vindman as well.

 

[MT15]

Just so I'm clear who are you claiming that is speaking to QAnon? What I scoffed at was declaring that Trump was colluding with Russia until we had actual proof and not multiple articles from anonymous sources that turned out not to be true under closer examination and more time. I'm being "sucked in" for the red flag like the illegal spying on the Trump campaign, FBI officials altering documents and gaming the FISA process. Those are proven facts from the IG report. It's pretty silly that you would compare that to the stupid pizzagate.

Are you aware that you can search Twitter for a video clip like Graham's and random Twitter accounts come up? You don't have to be following someone to easily come across an account like the one above.

Graham is saying there should be investigations for what appears to be illegal activities. There were 3 years of non stop investigations where we were told we needed to know everything about what Trump was doing. It's ironic now that many on the left are all of the sudden saying there shouldn't be investigations even though there are plenty signs and evidence that illegal or corrupt actions were taken by the Obama administration's FBI and possibly others.

Ah, I see the disconnect, I think. I’m saying that QAnon is claiming that Graham is talking to them, that’s what they do, they assume there are code words and phrases that Trump especially, but also his cronies are using to communicate with them the progress on getting rid of all the opposition to Trump. By imprisoning them, BTW.

And as for the investigation, I am saying the allegation that Vindman is/was working with a broad conspiracy against Trump is baseless and there’s nothing that rises to the level of probable cause to investigate him. In fact the idea that there is a broad government conspiracy against Trump doesn’t really have any facts behind it. But they are already investigating that, so whatever.

I thought you were advocating an investigation into Vindman, which is what Graham and I think BF and maybe DD are fine with. It’s pretty clear that Vindman’s only crime is believing America’s press releases about truth and honor. He has an almost naive belief that if he tells the truth he will be fine. And Trump has a buzzsaw full of lies and gossip that will ruin his life if people don’t stand up for him. The far right is smearing him as we speak, facts be damned.

As for that tweet coming up randomly in a search by BF, I may have a bridge for sale, lol. Why don’t you flat out ask him by pm how that particular tweet came up?

 

[Dadsdream]

I thought you were advocating an investigation into Vindman, which is what Graham and I think BF and maybe DD are fine with.

Please point out where I said I was fine with this.

 

[MT15]

I said maybe because I am not sure, but your labeling of him in such a negative way gives me the idea you think he did something wrong. So how do you feel about investigating him?

 

[Dadsdream]

I said maybe because I am not sure, but your labeling of him in such a negative way gives me the idea you think he did something wrong. So how do you feel about investigating him?

I listed all the possible things he could be called, including "patriot."
But I did leave out:
Fink
Rat-Fink

He's going to the War College this summer, the equivalent of a military Master's Degree.
He won't get promoted and he'll retire at his current rank unless he passes the War College.
Best wishes to him. It's not an easy task.
I really don't care whether he gets investigated or not.
Nobody in Washington is immune from investigation.
He knew what could happen if the President stayed in office.

Impeachment witness Alexander Vindman coming to Carlisle after White House ouster

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who testified in the House investigation that led to President Donald Trump's impeachment trial, was escorted from the White House on Friday -- days after the president's acquittal. Vindman will attend the U.S. Army War College in July.

www.pennlive.com

 

[MT15]

Rewriting your history.

At first you only called him a rat and a tattler. Two very negative comments.

 

[Dadsdream]

Rewriting your history.

At first you only called him a rat and a tattler. Two very negative comments.

I also omitted:
sell-out
backstabber

 

[MT15]

What basis would there be for investigating him do you think? Since you don’t mind him being investigated.

Did you see where someone on Fox, Lou Dobbs IIRC, went after Esper for saying Vindman would be welcomed back to the DOD and that DOD protects all their military members from retribution? Evidently that was a bridge too far for Lou. He wants Trump to get his blood revenge, apparently.

What do you think of Oliver North? Was his fealty supposed to be to the President or to his country?

 

[Sandman]

I'm sure we both recall Lt. Col. North's testimony with regard to shredding documents.
He wasn't "free" to choose whether or not to shred the documents, because he had a presidential order to do so.
He felt it was his duty and obligation to continue destroying documents, even with people pounding on the door trying to stop him.
To him, failure to shred the documents would have been a violation of his oaths and obligation and would have had repercussions themselves.
Depending on whom you ask, North was either a hero or a scoundrel.
So it is with Vindman as well.

LOL. This is a perfect example of deflection. You are losing the argument on Vindman, and you have no grounds to stand on regarding your opinion that he is a rat. Rather than address Vindman, you try to lure me into a Oliver North debate where you think you have better arguing points.

No thanks. Oliver North was in the 80s. This is 2020. The President is Trump, and Vindman is an officer that was following the orders of his oath and the duties of his office. You think that makes him a rat.

 

[Beach Friends]

Just so I'm clear who are you claiming that is speaking to QAnon? What I scoffed at was declaring that Trump was colluding with Russia until we had actual proof and not multiple articles from anonymous sources that turned out not to be true under closer examination and more time. I'm being "sucked in" for the red flag like the illegal spying on the Trump campaign, FBI officials altering documents and gaming the FISA process. Those are proven facts from the IG report. It's pretty silly that you would compare that to the stupid pizzagate.

Are you aware that you can search Twitter for a video clip like Graham's and random Twitter accounts come up? You don't have to be following someone to easily come across an account like the one above.

I really don't want to think this, but there is at least an appearance that MT15 does not really care as long as she can throw out disparaging (or at least what she thinks are disparaging) comments about the character of someone she disagrees with.

BTW, if I actually had a "Twitter feed" or whatever I might very well follow whatever it is she thinks I followed. I have no idea.

 

[Dadsdream]

LOL. This is a perfect example of deflection. You are losing the argument on Vindman, and you have no grounds to stand on regarding your opinion that he is a rat. Rather than address Vindman, you try to lure me into a Oliver North debate where you think you have better arguing points.

No thanks. Oliver North was in the 80s. This is 2020. The President is Trump, and Vindman is an officer that was following the orders of his oath and the duties of his office. You think that makes him a rat.

No, I was not losing an argument about Vindman, because I wasn't arguing.
He meets the definition of a rat.
But, one person's rat is another person's patriot, to take a common idiom and apply new terms to it.

 

[Dadsdream]

What basis would there be for investigating him do you think? Since you don’t mind him being investigated.

Did you see where someone on Fox, Lou Dobbs IIRC, went after Esper for saying Vindman would be welcomed back to the DOD and that DOD protects all their military members from retribution? Evidently that was a bridge too far for Lou. He wants Trump to get his blood revenge, apparently.

What do you think of Oliver North? Was his fealty supposed to be to the President or to his country?

I have no clue. I haven't watched Fox in over a week.
Yes, the DOD does tend to close ranks and take care of its own.
Both.

 

[MT15]

Oh come on, DD, take a stand. He can’t obey both, he has to choose in this case. In normal times, your duty to country doesn’t contradict your orders from superior officers, or the CIC.

But I think the military provides guidance for officers when they contradict, right? At least I am of the impression that it does. What does the military say about that situation?

 

[Dadsdream]

Oh come on, DD, take a stand. He can’t obey both, he has to choose in this case. In normal times, your duty to country doesn’t contradict your orders from superior officers, or the CIC.

But I think the military provides guidance for officers when they contradict, right? At least I am of the impression that it does. What does the military say about that situation?

It's up to each person to make that call and deal with the repercussions.
Yes, there's all kinds of instructions about lawful orders and unlawful orders.
The bottom line is that it comes down to the individual to make the decision.
Vindman saw it as his duty to report his boss.
North saw it as his duty to carry out the president's orders.
Both of them ended up in a media spotlight.
Both of them ended up testifying before congress.
Ollie has landed a cushy job with Fox and sold millions of dollars in books.
We'll see how Vindman does.

 

[Sandman]

No, I was not losing an argument about Vindman, because I wasn't arguing.
He meets the definition of a rat.
But, one person's rat is another person's patriot, to take a common idiom and apply new terms to it.

You keep saying "rat" when shown evidence upon evidence that he was loyal to the United States, followed the law, and betrayed no trust. I just gave you the definition of a rat, and he most definitely did not meet it. He is a "rat" to you because he went against your team. My guess is if he did the same thing to Hillary if she were President, you would say he was doing his duty and would call out anyone calling him a rat.

The only thing you "offer" is that "one person's patriot is another person's rat." That isn't an argument. So in that much, you are correct. You aren't arguing. Instead, you are just making proclamations without a basis.