The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (5 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

 

[wardorican]

Whataboutism is nothing but calling out hypocrisy. Whether that hypocrisy is willful or not, I don't know, but it is what it is.

I'm not defending qanon. Don't even know who they are to be honest. You can be blind to evidence all you want, just understand that you are doing the same thing that you are accusing Trump supporters of doing.

I'm pretty sure her commentary has nothing to do with Trump. Odd that you made it about supporting him or not.

 

[MT15]

Whataboutism is nothing but calling out hypocrisy. Whether that hypocrisy is willful or not, I don't know, but it is what it is.

I'm not defending qanon. Don't even know who they are to be honest. You can be blind to evidence all you want, just understand that you are doing the same thing that you are accusing Trump supporters of doing.

usually you are better than this, FFS. Show me where I have defended what was said in that video, spoiler, you can’t, because I haven’t ever defended talk like that.

You have just misrepresented me, and shown yourself to be gullible about what you have seen. project Veritas is famous for “creative” editing, setting people up and making videos that misrepresent people. That’s what they do. For example, it would be their style to go in, ingratiate themselves, and start joking around with naive young people. Then do some creative editing and put out a totally bogus “expose”.

There is nothing other than rumor and innuendo to be said against Vindman at this point. A lot of it comes from people who believe in nonsense like QAnon. Google it, and then go take a shower because you’ll want one.

at this point any “investigation” of Vindman would be predicated not on facts or evidence, but rather on crazy conspiracy theories. If you think giving credence to that stuff is ignoring evidence, then you and I have a very different view of what evidence is. Correction, crazy theories and the overwhelming desire of Trump to “punch down” at people he knows cannot hurt him. He’s a classic bully.

I usually enjoy your contributions but this one is off the mark. Oh, and equating what a couple of Sanders supporters may or may not have said on Twitter is in no way the same as QAnon. Just because they were saying crap on Twitter doesn’t mean they are serious about it. It would also be nice to see another source than the Washington Examiner just to be sure. They should have to answer some questions, though, and I expect they will. It will be a test to see how serious Bernie is about transparency.

 

[Beach Friends]

It's fine, but just don't cry when people assume you're a follower of Q and passing on those crazy conspiracies.

Just like the other videos you tend to share, the phrasing you use... it gives people a certain impression. If you're cool with it, then ok.

It sure seems like you are stirring the pot while pretending to be trying to help.

 

[SFIDC3]

Truth or lying has nothing to do with it.
Did he rat on his boss? Yes.
OK, he's a rat.
Did he tattle on his boss? Yes.
OK, he's a tattle-tale.
Simple enough.

Checks and balances be damned....

 

[Saintamaniac]

Checks and balances be damned....

Checks and balances are for when a Democrat is in office.

 

[not2rich]

Why would I take time to do that? There is nothing wrong with the video.

I didn't pay any attention to some comment about Q, I never do. But, if I had I would not have cared enough to go track down another source for the exact same video. The "OMG, sauces" crowd can get over it. Or not.

You don't care enough to track down another source, yet you care enough to get your panties in a wad with multiple posts when people point out it's indicative of the virtual spaces you inhabit. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

 

[Beach Friends]

You don't care enough to track down another source, yet you care enough to get your panties in a wad with multiple posts when people point out it's indicative of the virtual spaces you inhabit. Methinks the lady doth protest too much.

LOL, same old tired tricks. You guys need to update your playbook.

 

[Dadsdream]

Checks and balances be damned....

The system of checks and balances are between entire branches of government - Executive, Legislative, Judicial - not between the Chief Executive and a staffer he appointed within his own office.

 

[not2rich]

LOL, same old tired tricks. You guys need to update your playbook.

Whatever man. Why don't you just own that you follow a QAnon adherist on Twitter?

 

[wardorican]

It sure seems like you are stirring the pot while pretending to be trying to help.

 

[wardorican]

So yeah, Impeachment is over, right?

He was impeached. He was acquitted...

 

[Beach Friends]

I think images like that are discouraged by the moderators on this site.

 

[Sledge Hammer]

No.
Someone inside an organization who reports the activities of their boss to authorities outside of the organization is, by definition, a rat.
We can quibble over etymology, semantics, and connotations all we want.
Call him a "rat."
Call him a "tattle-tale.
Call him a "spy."
Call him an "informant."
Call him a "stool pigeon.'
Call him "two-faced."
Call him a "patriot."
It doesn't really matter to me.

He was placed in a position of trust and he "dropped a dime" on his boss, who had trusted him.
Regardless of his motivations, any or all of the above descriptions apply, depending on your perspective.

Another potential word is "Ethical"

His duty is to the country and to the office of President, not necessarily to the occupant (outside of following direct orders).

"I, (NAME), do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God. "

 

[Sledge Hammer]

Why would I take time to do that? There is nothing wrong with the video.

I didn't pay any attention to some comment about Q, I never do. But, if I had I would not have cared enough to go track down another source for the exact same video. The "OMG, sauces" crowd can get over it. Or not.

I found a better source and edited your post. Let's use sources that don't add potentially inflammatory commentary when possible.

 

[SFIDC3]

The system of checks and balances are between entire branches of government - Executive, Legislative, Judicial - not between the Chief Executive and a staffer he appointed within his own office.

I agree, but sometimes unethical and illegal acts committed by those in power that the checks and balances are designed to protect our country against are initiated by those who swore an oath to the Constitution and the office of the President (not necessarily The current president - thanks Sledge).

I also think it is no coincidence that the oath to the Constitution is stated first (and foremost)....

 

[First Time Poster]

Trump suggests military should consider additional discipline for Vindman

President Trump on Tuesday suggested the military should consider additional disciplinary action against Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who provided damaging testimony against&nbsp…

www.google.com

President Trump on Tuesday suggested the military should consider additional disciplinary action against Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who provided damaging testimony against Trump in the impeachment inquiry and was reassigned from his White House job last week.

"We sent him on his way to a much different location, and the military can handle him any way they want," Trump told reporters in the Oval Office. "Gen. Milley has him now. I congratulate Gen. Milley. He can have him."

Asked specifically if the Pentagon should pursue further action against Vindman, Trump said it would be "up to the military."

"But if you look at what happened, they're going to certainly, I would imagine, take a look at that," he said.

Yeah...

 

[MT15]

What a shocker!

Seriously, though, anyone who has been an apologist or a cheerleader for Trump’s firing of Vindman should really reevaluate either their value systems or their Twitter follows. Because this is indefensible.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I guess this is what the GOP senators meant when they said Trump learned a lesson from all this
===================

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Thursday that he might end the long-running practice of letting other administration officials listen in on presidential calls with foreign leaders.

That’s after Trump’s impeachment was triggered by his July phone call with the president of Ukraine.

“I may end the practice entirely,” Trump told Geraldo Rivera in a radio interview that aired Thursday.

Records experts said that was a bad idea, for multiple reasons...........

Trump says he might keep others from listening in on calls

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Thursday that he might end the long-running practice of letting other administration officials listen in on presidential calls with foreign leaders.

apnews.com