The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (6 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

 

[Intensesaint]

It already has been.

And not just liberals who believe this...

Judge Andrew Napolitano: Trump’s call with Ukraine president manifests criminal and impeachable behavior

Can the president put his own needs and wants above the nation's? In a word: No.

www.foxnews.com

That must be the only time you have ever agreed with anything Napolitano has said. Also, if you are talking about the call? The left is seriously trying to gaslight everyone by saying that call is impeachable. There was no quid pro quo in that call. Hell, what Biden bragged about was FAR worse than that call.

 

[yuyi64]

And if something is brought forward that is impeachable, then he should be impeached. And conversely, when it is shown to be a witch hunt, democrats will pay a severe price in the 2020 election.

Fixed it for you Intensesaint, to ensure future accuracy. Looking forward to 2020.

 

[Lazybones]

This is why you gotta love what trump is doing. He is playing chess while they are playing checkers.

John Roberts at Fox. “What exactly did you hope Zelensky would do about the Biden phone call?”

THE PRESIDENT: “Start a major investigation into the Bidens. Likewise, China should start an investigation into the Bidens, because what happened to China is just about as bad as what happened with Ukraine. So I would say that President Zelensky, if it were me, I would recommend that they start an investigation into the Bidens because nobody has any doubt that they weren’t crooked. That was a crooked deal, a hundred percent. I’m sure that President Xi does not like being under that kind of scrutiny where billions of dollars is taken out of his country by a guy that just got kicked out of the Navy. He got kicked out of the Navy; all of the sudden he’s getting billions of dollars! You know what they call that? They call that a payoff.“

 

[wardorican]

Thanks for all of the interaction. I see things haven’t changed for some of you.

At least tell me what makes the difference in you applying the sad emoji vs the mad emoji. I want to decipher the 10 or so that you gave me and focus on one of them so I can help get your emotions in-line.

You're really gonna take a negative reaction that personal bruh?

Being passive aggressive isn't going to get you far with other people.

 

[V Chip]

That must be the only time you have ever agreed with anything Napolitano has said. Also, if you are talking about the call? The left is seriously trying to gaslight everyone by saying that call is impeachable. There was no quid pro quo in that call. Hell, what Biden bragged about was FAR worse than that call.

No, it’s not the only time. I disagree with him often but at least he is mostly level-headed and can argue his points with reasoning.

The call, Trumps comments since, his statements today — heck there’s loads to choose from. It’s not if they’ll find something impeachable, but which ones will be included in the impeachment.

 

[wardorican]

The Guy Who Wrote the Book on Impeachment Says Trump Clears the Bar for Removal from Office

Frank O. Bowman, author of legal history of impeachment, calls out Donald Trump's abuses of power as impeachable offenses

www.rollingstone.com

Help me understand the president’s alleged behavior in this case, soliciting election interference from a foreign government, in the context of high crimes and misdemeanors.
One of the classes of behavior that, for centuries, has been understood as impeachable is abuse of power. That’s an abuse of authority and power that the office holder legitimately has as part of holding office, but that power is being used wrongfully for an illegitimate purpose.
In this case, there are at least two kinds of power that the president has, either directly from the Constitution or by long practice. The first is the president’s authority over domestic law enforcement. The abuse of this power was among the things that Richard Nixon was impeached for. (Nixon left before he was impeached by the full House, but there were articles of impeachment that came out of the House Judiciary Committee.) The second article of impeachment was about exactly this. It’s a complex set of allegations, but it boiled down to that Nixon had misused the FBI, the IRS, the CIA, and this small group of folks he hired inside the White House, the “plumbers,” to get dirt on political enemies. And when that threatened to be exposed he misused those agencies or tried to cover it up. It was a classic abuse of power. He had the power to command those agencies to engage in lawful activities, but he misused it.
The analogy to Trump is the part of that phone call [to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky] about getting the attorney general directly involved in getting Ukraine to get dirt on Biden. And also, by the way, this weird conspiracy theory that Trump seems to have bought into — the whole Crowdstrike conspiracy theory — about the supposed disappearance of the Hillary Clinton server, and supposedly it’s in Ukraine. There doesn’t appear to be any basis for any of that. In any case, he talks about having the official law enforcement agencies of the United States get involved with Ukraine to get dirt on both his former and potential future presidential electoral opponents. That’s abuse of power number one.


The other one, of course, that everyone’s talking about has to do with the second power, foreign policy matters — also military. The president is the commander-in-chief and he is the principal diplomat. And both of those authorities are given to him expressly or impliedly by the Constitution. But what he’s saying to the president of this other country is: We provide a lot of aid to you, some of it military, some of it diplomatic support. And we have the context of Ukraine being on the border of a very aggressive Russia, which has already gobbled up its territory in Crimea. And the obvious demand is, We give you all of stuff, but I need a favor. He says, We give you all this stuff but it’s not “reciprocal.” Trump thinks in terms of bilateral transactions. He’s a very transactional guy. He’s saying, We need something in return. But the thing he wants in return is not something that benefits the United States. It’s something of private benefit to him, electorally. You have classic abuses of two core powers that a president gets by virtue of his office. It’s as plain a case of abuse of power as one can easily imagine.

 

[Lazybones]

You're really gonna take a negative reaction that personal bruh?

Being passive aggressive isn't going to get you far with other people.

Thanks for the life advice. I think I’m good with where I am with people.

I was being sincere. I would do my best to keep the mad emojis coming. I’m not a fan of making people sad.

 

[wardorican]

Thanks for the life advice. I think I’m good with where I am with people.

I was being sincere. I would do my best to keep the mad emojis coming. I’m not a fan of making people sad.

I'm just saying that attitude may not do well for you on this site.

Just because it is a new spot and we have some areas to "go hide", it doesn't mean the site is meant to allow people to get under each others skin and cause issues. It's to intelligently discuss matters.

 

[Taurus]

That must be the only time you have ever agreed with anything Napolitano has said. Also, if you are talking about the call? The left is seriously trying to gaslight everyone by saying that call is impeachable. There was no quid pro quo in that call. Hell, what Biden bragged about was FAR worse than that call.

Napolitano himself just spent a few pages explaining exactly why it's impeachable behavior.
A judge. A Republican judge. Just said Trump's call is impeachable.
What in the name of Azathoth's left nut do you need?

 

[Saint by the Bay]

With the release of the texts we’re almost to the “yes, he did it, but that’s OK” stage of the scandal. It’s like clockwork.

 

[JimEverett]

With the release of the texts we’re almost to the “yes, he did it, but that’s OK” stage of the scandal. It’s like clockwork.

Maybe for some, but I think there are a substantial amount of Trump supporters who have concerns.
I am not a Trump supporter even though it may seem like I defend him a lot, but I have 1 big question/concern and then another general point:

I don't think what Trump said in the phone call (at least what has been transcribed) is illegal or, perhaps, even exceptional. But I don't understand why Giulliani has played and is playing such a prominent role. Giuliani's role suggests to me impropriety at best. I mean its almost, although I guess it is still different, like having a lawyer for Trump 2020 taking an active role.

And in general, there is the quid pro quo thing. But even that doesn't strike me as illegal on its face: we are going to withhold aid until you investigate Biden's role in this company or whatever. as long as it is done in an official capacity I really think it is on the up and up.
But that is not what we have here. We have a mingling of President Trump and candidate/businessman Trump as evidenced by Giuliani's role.
It will be interesting to see how they defend this.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Maybe for some, but I think there are a substantial amount of Trump supporters who have concerns.
I am not a Trump supporter even though it may seem like I defend him a lot, but I have 1 big question/concern and then another general point:

I don't think what Trump said in the phone call (at least what has been transcribed) is illegal or, perhaps, even exceptional. But I don't understand why Giulliani has played and is playing such a prominent role. Giuliani's role suggests to me impropriety at best. I mean its almost, although I guess it is still different, like having a lawyer for Trump 2020 taking an active role.

And in general, there is the quid pro quo thing. But even that doesn't strike me as illegal on its face: we are going to withhold aid until you investigate Biden's role in this company or whatever. as long as it is done in an official capacity I really think it is on the up and up.
But that is not what we have here. We have a mingling of President Trump and candidate/businessman Trump as evidenced by Giuliani's role.
It will be interesting to see how they defend this.

I would love to meet or hear from some of the Trump supporters with concerns. It might restore a little bit of my faith in people which is currently non-existent. So far all I've seen is the normal pattern of deflect, defend and obfuscate.

I stated on the other board that Giuliani's participation is the biggest concern in all this. However, just having a President using investigations into his political opponents as leverage for foreign aid sets a terrible precedent. As if the power on incumbency isn't strong enough already now we are weaponizing foreign aid? I'm not sure if it's illegal. People smarter than me, like you, will have to figure that out. I do know that I'm really uncomfortable with it UNLESS it can actually be shown that he did it with others as well and not just a political rival.

That to me is the real kicker. If we had a President generally concerned with corruption that was using US foreign aid as a carrot to force countries to fix it, I'd be good. By all the facts that seems like what Biden did in Ukraine. I'm on record in immigration debates as saying that's what we should be doing in Central and South America. However, this was a laser-guided missile at one and only one person. That to me is an issue.

 

[JimEverett]

Yeah - I can understand that SBTB. I do think though if Giuliani were not involved it would be far easier to gloss over the quid pro quo thing, especially in this hyper-partisan environment

 

[Dadsdream]

Honestly, I've been too focused on work completing end of Fiscal Year 2019 requirements before deadline to even begin to unravel this ongoing saga. I've glanced at the headlines and watched one or two newscasts. That's it. Rest, recovery, Saints, and maybe a nice seafood buffet, that's what's on my mind now.

 

[wardorican]

I think this is an example of terms we would like to see less of, or not at all on here. You aren't attacking a poster, but "the orange dipwad" doesn't encourage intelligent/rational dialogue.

 

[Saint by the Bay]

‘No way to spin this as a good idea’: Tucker Carlson says Trump wrong to ask Ukraine president to investigate Bidens - Washington Examiner

Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Daily Caller founder Neil Patel penned an article together in which they chided President Trump for trying to get Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. "Donald Trump should not have been on the phone with a foreign head of state encouraging another country to...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

When Tucker Carlson can't spin it...

 

[Lazybones]

‘No way to spin this as a good idea’: Tucker Carlson says Trump wrong to ask Ukraine president to investigate Bidens - Washington Examiner

Fox News host Tucker Carlson and Daily Caller founder Neil Patel penned an article together in which they chided President Trump for trying to get Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. "Donald Trump should not have been on the phone with a foreign head of state encouraging another country to...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

When Tucker Carlson can't spin it...

Did you read the article or just the headline?

“While chastising Trump for the call, however, Carlson and Patel stated that it's "hard to argue" that the president's mistake was "an impeachable offense." They point to the Justice Department not considering Trump to have broken any laws.”

 

[Saint by the Bay]

Did you read the article or just the headline?

“While chastising Trump for the call, however, Carlson and Patel stated that it's "hard to argue" that the president's mistake was "an impeachable offense." They point to the Justice Department not considering Trump to have broken any laws.”

I didn't say he wanted impeachment. He just said you can't spin the call as a good thing and that it was improper. Same with Toni Lohren who thinks he's hurting himself with his behavior but shouldn't be impeached.

The gap tends to be on what people consider impeachable but other than The Base we are seeing some cracks in the armor that admits the call and behavior is "wrong".

 

[Lazybones]

I didn't say he wanted impeachment. He just said you can't spin the call as a good thing and that it was improper. Same with Toni Lohren who thinks he's hurting himself with his behavior but shouldn't be impeached.

The gap tends to be on what people consider impeachable but other than The Base we are seeing some cracks in the armor that admits the call and behavior is "wrong".

I not saying it’s morally or ethically correct either. But the chances of impeachment imo are slim. I think it assures 4 more years. The old cut off the nose despite the face (which I never understood)