The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (9 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 10 (members: 0, guests: 10)
    Andrus

    Andrus

    Admin
    Staff member
    Joined
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages
    2,268
    Reaction score
    944
    Age
    65
    Location
    Sunset, Louisiana
    Offline
    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
     
    Lazybones said:
    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)
    Click to expand...

    I don't disagree with this. I hope I'm wrong, but I think this doesn't win any votes or lose him any votes. It just gets his folks fired up.
     
    Saint by the Bay said:
    I don't disagree with this. I hope I'm wrong, but I think this doesn't win any votes or lose him any votes. It just gets his folks fired up.
    Click to expand...

    I think it does. He will play the victim hood and the base will appreciate it. I will and I don’t even like him.
     
    Lazybones said:
    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.”
    Click to expand...
    That is because the DoJ has shown themselves to be a tool of the POTUS. They did not even investigate the claim, they made an assumption about the claim and dismissed the claim saying it did not violate any campaign finance laws. The CIA referred the case to the DoJ and if they actually did their job and investigated the claim they would have learned that it was more than campaign finance violations.

    Then again, maybe that was the whole point in the first place. They knew what the had and Barr did what a good consigliere does and fixed the problem.
     
    DJ1BigTymer said:
    That is because the DoJ has shown themselves to be a tool of the POTUS. They did not even investigate the claim, they made an assumption about the claim and dismissed the claim saying it did not violate any campaign finance laws. The CIA referred the case to the DoJ and if they actually did their job and investigated the claim they would have learned that it was more than campaign finance violations.

    Then again, maybe that was the whole point in the first place. They knew what the had and Barr did what a good consigliere does and fixed the problem.
    Click to expand...

    I’m sure it will be great in theater. Think of the money to be made off of these stories. Clinton had his share (loved wag the dog), but this will be off the charts.
     
    Saint by the Bay said:
    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".
    Click to expand...

    It's brilliant fascistic logic used throughout though: These are bad things, but not impeachable.

    Why?

    - Because the DOJ didn't think it was.

    - Because it should be bi-partisan.

    A DOJ head that by default thinks nothing a president can do is impeachable(and seemingly has exposure himself in many of these abuses). A Republican Congress that under no circumstance feels space to publicly state actions Trump takes are impeachable because they fear losing the base. They fear losing the base because gatekeepers like Carlson are the shield and sword for Trump's base. Telling them this isn't impeachable by pointing to a corrupt DOJ and congressional intransigence Carlson and his friends help sow as the evidence for why they shouldn't break from the president and support the thing that would change Republican's sense of permissible space in impeaching the president.
     
    Saint by the Bay said:
    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".
    Click to expand...
    I don't think anyone other than Trump thinks the call was a good thing or proper. Where we vehemently disagree is on the impeachability of the impropriety. Many look at the transcript and see no crime while others see a crime on every page. I say the House should charge him with a specific crime if they think one was committed, otherwise move along and focus on other matters of national interest that they get paid to address. Bring the impeachment to the floor for a vote and let every member go on record if they think a crime was committed.
     
    yuyi64 said:
    I don't think anyone other than Trump thinks the call was a good thing or proper. Where we vehemently disagree is on the impeachability of the impropriety. Many look at the transcript and see no crime while others see a crime on every page. I say the House should charge him with a specific crime if they think one was committed, otherwise move along and focus on other matters of national interest that they get paid to address. Bring the impeachment to the floor for a vote and let every member go on record if they think a crime was committed.
    Click to expand...
    So several lawyers on Lawfare brought up a brilliant point that I have yet to hear a refutation of.

    The constitution specifically lists bribery as an impeachable offense. However, no federal statute existed to tie criminality to bribery, which on one hand further dispels the notion that impeachment need be tied to criminal statute, but furthermore, the lack of a statute defaults the definition of bribery to that of English law, and English law at the time pretty clearly articulates bribery to be an officeholder’s abuse of the power of an office to obtain a private benefit rather than for the public interest.

    And it's pretty hard to argue that an administration that saw a call with no obvious national security implications as necessitating a code level classification that wasn't even used on post 9-11 discussions as anything but an implicit acknowledgment that what transpired was not in service of official US business or the public interest.

    So, you have an administration that clearly understood the president's behavior was not in accord with official duty, a constitution that spells out bribery in the context of an abuse of power outside of the pursuit of the public interest...then you have you all claiming thats not an impeachable offense. It's not adding up?


    All before getting into the fact that it is criminally explicit that soliciting a foreign government to interfere in our electoral process is illegal. Or that the cover-up constitutes obstruction. Or that the president was already named as a co-conspirator in a felony.
     
    N.O.Bronco said:
    So several lawyers on Lawfare brought up a brilliant point that I have yet to hear a refutation of.

    The constitution specifically lists bribery as an impeachable offense. However, no federal statute existed to tie criminality to bribery, which on one hand further dispels the notion that impeachment need be tied to criminal statute, but furthermore, the lack of a statute defaults the definition of bribery to that of English law, and English law at the time pretty clearly articulates bribery to be an officeholder’s abuse of the power of an office to obtain a private benefit rather than for the public interest.

    And it's pretty hard to argue that an administration that saw a call with no obvious national security implications as necessitating a code level classification that wasn't even used on post 9-11 discussions as anything but an implicit acknowledgment that what transpired was not in service of official US business or the public interest.

    So, you have an administration that clearly understood the president's behavior was not in accord with official duty, a constitution that spells out bribery in the context of an abuse of power outside of the pursuit of the public interest...then you have you all claiming thats not an impeachable offense. It's not adding up?


    All before getting into the fact that it is criminally explicit that soliciting a foreign government to interfere in our electoral process is illegal. Or that the cover-up constitutes obstruction. Or that the president was already named as a co-conspirator in a felony.
    Click to expand...
    What's not adding up is that if the Democrats believe all of this is true then go ahead and impeach. They need to stop dancing around the issue of what is impeachable and bring the charge to the floor of the House for a vote. Lets get all this grandstanding over with and put your vote where your mouth is.
     
    yuyi64 said:
    What's not adding up is that if the Democrats believe all of this is true then go ahead and impeach. They need to stop dancing around the issue of what is impeachable and bring the charge to the floor of the House for a vote. Lets get all this grandstanding over with and put your vote where your mouth is.
    Click to expand...

    I'll take this deflectionary response as an admission you don't really have an answer for it either.
     
    GMRfellowtraveller said:
    what if they are 1/10th or 1/20th into the evidence gathering phase?
    shouldn't all evidence be gathered?
    especially since the senate is going to need all evidence AND R Kelly's grandma as proof?
    Click to expand...
    Innocent people tend to think an investigation will help exonerate them, guilty people tend to dread the digging.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom