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

 

[Farb]

Yep, once again the aphorism holds, if you have the facts on your side, pound the facts, if you have the law on your side, pound the law, if you have neither, pound the table.

Republicans(many of which could have been in the hearing) screaming about process and storming a bi-partisan closed door hearing, a process they defended the legitimacy of for 6 years investigating Benghazi a dozen times, to have a pizza party in a desperate ploy, is pounding the table about as hard as you can.

I tend to agree about the pizza party and all is a desperate ploy and not a great look by the reps. I will say that they found a open opportunity on this particular witness because the subpoena was not classified, no link, just heard it on the radio on my drive yesterday.

Benghazi was not a impeachment inquiry. It was an investigation. If the Dems needed closed door hearings, they should have left it as an investigation and not have Pelosi make the declaration it was an impeachment inquiry.

 

[MT15]

There’s no rule that they have to have open hearings during the investigation phase of this inquiry, as has been repeated here many times. This impeachment is different because there was no investigation by an independent counsel, like there was for the last two. Thus the House committees have to do their own investigation, during which the Republicans get equal time for questions and can bring in their own outside counsel.

As Lindsay Graham, Trey Gowdy and other Republicans have said, it makes more sense and is more efficient when these types of hearings are closed. The schedule they are trying to meet has them having open testimony by mid-November.

 

[wardorican]

I tend to agree about the pizza party and all is a desperate ploy and not a great look by the reps. I will say that they found a open opportunity on this particular witness because the subpoena was not classified, no link, just heard it on the radio on my drive yesterday.

Benghazi was not a impeachment inquiry. It was an investigation. If the Dems needed closed door hearings, they should have left it as an investigation and not have Pelosi make the declaration it was an impeachment inquiry.

Which one? There were, 6, right?

 

[BobE]

Which one? There were, 6, right?

I stopped counting after tree fitty

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Which one? There were, 6, right?

Actually, there were 10 separate investigations and 33 congressional hearings.

 

[st dude]

Keep an eye on the testimony of Colonel Vindman, a decorated veteran who was on the WH staff and registered concerns about Trump squeezing Ukraine for political purposes.

This will put pressure on Republicans who will have a harder time creating a political motive for a soldier. There are a few Republicans that might even be swayed by Vindman.

I don’t know why the media isn’t making a bigger deal of this. Vindman’s testimony is going to be the most damaging yet.

 

[yuyi64]

I don’t know why the media isn’t making a bigger deal of this. Vindman’s testimony is going to be the most damaging yet.

See, this is the reason why impeachment fatigue is beginning to set in with a large segment of the public. Before every witness testifies we're told by those favoring impeachment that the witness will provide "the most damaging testimony yet" against the President. Trump will then be asked about the witness and he will say it was a perfect conversation and he's not worried about the witness. Then after the testimony Schiff and his fellow Democrats come out and say what they always say after each witness, that the individual provided "shocking and devastating" testimony against the President. The MSM then runs with the talking points and start their newscasts with "Shocking bombshell testimony by witness provides devastating evidence against President Trump". The hyperbole act goes on and on similarly after each witness, yet nothing that we didn't already know or believe was said by the witness. Half the voters already believe the President needs to be impeached and the other half doesn't believe there's sufficient reason for impeachment even if everything the witnesses said is true. You can drag this repetitive daily show and grandstanding on for months and no minds on either side are going to be changed. That's why the committee members need to stop commenting daily on each witness, finish their investigation, present the evidence to the full House, and vote on impeachment. We've heard the overused words "shocking", "explosive", "damaging", and "devastating" enough times in the last two months to last a lifetime and they're getting really old and tiresome.

 

[st dude]

See, this is the reason why impeachment fatigue is beginning to set in with a large segment of the public. Before every witness testifies we're told by those favoring impeachment that the witness will provide "the most damaging testimony yet" against the President. Trump will then be asked about the witness and he will say it was a perfect conversation and he's not worried about the witness. Then after the testimony Schiff and his fellow Democrats come out and say what they always say after each witness, that the individual provided "shocking and devastating" testimony against the President. The MSM then runs with the talking points and start their newscasts with "Shocking bombshell testimony by witness provides devastating evidence against President Trump". The hyperbole act goes on and on similarly after each witness, yet nothing that we didn't already know or believe was said by the witness. Half the voters already believe the President needs to be impeached and the other half doesn't believe there's sufficient reason for impeachment even if everything the witnesses said is true. You can drag this repetitive daily show and grandstanding on for months and no minds on either side are going to be changed. That's why the committee members need to stop commenting daily on each witness, finish their investigation, present the evidence to the full House, and vote on impeachment. We've heard the overused words "shocking", "explosive", "damaging", and "devastating" enough times in the last two months to last a lifetime and they're getting really old and tiresome.

So when a career decorated army colonel who was a current White House official corroborates the whistle blower and testifies he was so concerned he reported the call to his superiors, that’s just no big deal. Is there really no witness you would believe? Do you not believe Trump held up military aid to Ukraine for political purposes or just not care that he did?

Army officer who listened to Trump Ukraine says he raised concerns

Lt. Col. Alex Vindman is expected to be the first current White House official to testify to the House impeachment inquiry Tuesday.

www.kgw.com

 

[yuyi64]

So when a career decorated army colonel who was a current White House official corroborates the whistle blower and testifies he was so concerned he reported the call to his superiors, that’s just no big deal. Is there really no witness you would believe? Do you not believe Trump held up military aid to Ukraine for political purposes or just not care that he did?

Army officer who listened to Trump Ukraine says he raised concerns

Lt. Col. Alex Vindman is expected to be the first current White House official to testify to the House impeachment inquiry Tuesday.

www.kgw.com

You're missing the point. It's not about believing the witness or not; I think most people that have read the call transcript and read the Volker texts believe there was quid pro quo involved. The difference of opinion arises with respect to whether whatever happened is reason enough for impeachment and removal of a President. Those that want the President impeached believe that what he did is reason for enough for impeachment and removal, and those that don't support impeachment don't see quid pro quo with respect to dishing out foreign aid as anything warranting impeachment. Neither side is going to convince the other one that their position is wrong. That's why dragging this out will only exacerbate the division in our country and cause each side to harden their position even more. Let's bring it to a vote and move on.

 

[BobE]

Speaking of voting. Can some one smarter then me (that would be basically everyone) tell me what they are voting for Thursday?

 

[barbar]

You're missing the point. It's not about believing the witness or not; I think most people that have read the call transcript and read the Volker texts believe there was quid pro quo involved. The difference of opinion arises with respect to whether whatever happened is reason enough for impeachment and removal of a President. Those that want the President impeached believe that what he did is reason for enough for impeachment and removal, and those that don't support impeachment don't see quid pro quo with respect to dishing out foreign aid as anything warranting impeachment. Neither side is going to convince the other one that their position is wrong. That's why dragging this out will only exacerbate the division in our country and cause each side to harden their position even more. Let's bring it to a vote and move on.

I agree with your point that no one's mind will be changed. But isnt that the problem? That people are so entrenched on their "side" that they cannot be moved even by credible information? The pace of the process is not the problem.

People just need to chill out and wait a bit and be patient.

 

[Dragon]

You're missing the point. It's not about believing the witness or not; I think most people that have read the call transcript and read the Volker texts believe there was quid pro quo involved. The difference of opinion arises with respect to whether whatever happened is reason enough for impeachment and removal of a President. Those that want the President impeached believe that what he did is reason for enough for impeachment and removal, and those that don't support impeachment don't see quid pro quo with respect to dishing out foreign aid as anything warranting impeachment. Neither side is going to convince the other one that their position is wrong. That's why dragging this out will only exacerbate the division in our country and cause each side to harden their position even more. Let's bring it to a vote and move on.

Since you do believe that he did was using the office of the president and the aid approved by the congress for personal political gain what do you believe is cause enough for impeachment ? He has already broke his oath of office by calling an article in the constitution "phony" and multiple close associates of his has been CONVICTED and is SERVING time for campaign financing crimes in connection with his election.

Where do you draw the line? What would he need to do?

 

[samiam5211]

The only people who have impeachment fatigue are those who are exhausted from defending Trump.

 

[yuyi64]

The only people who have impeachment fatigue are those who are exhausted from defending Trump.

Not so. I've had Hillary voters tell me that this is all for nothing and they can't wait until November 2020 to cast their vote to remove Trump. Even Trump supporters are not denying what Trump did or defending him; they just don't see enough reason for impeachment. With the election only a year away we're wasting precious legislative time focusing on impeachment instead of more pressing issues.

 

[samiam5211]

Not so. I've had Hillary voters tell me that this is all for nothing and they can't wait until November 2020 to cast their vote to remove Trump. Even Trump supporters are not denying what Trump did or defending him; they just don't see enough reason for impeachment. With the election only a year away we're wasting precious legislative time focusing on impeachment instead of more pressing issues.

There are quite a few bills passed by the house waiting to [Mitch McConnell - Mod Edit ] to act.

If the Senate catches up with the house, maybe the "wasting precious legislative time" argument would hold water.

 

[yuyi64]

There are quite a few bills passed by the house waiting to [Mitch McConnell - Mod Edit ] to act.

If the Senate catches up with the house, maybe the "wasting precious legislative time" argument would hold water.

So how many immigration bills has the House passed in the last few months?

 

[Beach Friends]

So when a career decorated army colonel who was a current White House official corroborates the whistle blower and testifies he was so concerned he reported the call to his superiors, that’s just no big deal. Is there really no witness you would believe? Do you not believe Trump held up military aid to Ukraine for political purposes or just not care that he did?

Army officer who listened to Trump Ukraine says he raised concerns

Lt. Col. Alex Vindman is expected to be the first current White House official to testify to the House impeachment inquiry Tuesday.

www.kgw.com

On the other hand, the Lt.Col. is a Ukrainian American who expressed a concern that if the Ukraine became involved in investigating Democratic corruption that it would cost the Ukraine the bilateral support the Ukraine currently enjoys.

It was, in his view, a no win proposition for the Ukraine.

 

[samiam5211]

So how many immigration bills has the House passed in the last few months?

I haven't heard any congressmen from either side nor the president talk about immigration proposals.

Impeachment isn't the reason we don't have immigration reform.