The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (7 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

 

[Dragon]

That's another thing some folks are going to have to come to grips with - all of this is related. There are some people who desperately need Trump impeached in the hopes they can stop Barr and company.

Why don't you try to deal with what Trump has done. You never do that -only attack the process again and again.

Trump holds the highest office in the US and he is using it to enrich himself and calls your constitution phony

He don't care if anyone is loyal to their oaths as long as they are loyal to him aka "trumpsters"

Anyone who says or do something he doesn't like are called "never-trumpsters".

Doesn't it bother you that he puts personal loyalty over the law of the land?

 

[Beach Friends]

Why don't you try to deal with what Trump has done. You never do that -only attack the process again and again.

Trump holds the highest office in the US and he is using it to enrich himself and calls your constitution phony

Actually, that's not true. I have been critical of Trump in this very thread. In fact, several conservatives were very openly discussing their concerns just yesterday.

In contrast, I don't see recall seeing anyone on the other side of the aisle breaking ranks. Heck, I don't even remember seeing you breaking ranks and, as you emphatically stated earlier, you are completely neutral.

 

[Dragon]

Actually, that's not true. I have been critical of Trump in this very thread. In fact, several conservatives were very openly discussing their concerns just yesterday.

In contrast, I don't see recall seeing anyone on the other side of the aisle breaking ranks. Heck, I don't even remember seeing you breaking ranks and, as you emphatically stated earlier, you are completely neutral.

I am one of those stupid people who never just take a link or a quote and reply based on that. I always find multiple sources and even lookup and try to go deeper. That video link posted earlier asked about an english source and Mueller would/could not reply. As it is clear from several sources that MI6 has been involved and maybe even warned the US about several players, I suspect the real reason why Mueller would not answer that question lies in the fact that the person is probably a MI6 asset and that question was asked in an open forum.

I will also admit that I am very biased when it comes to fascism and abuse of power - regardless of if being on the right or on the left (Alt-right/Stalinism). I will stand up against both any day. My grandfather spend more than a year in a german KZ camp so believe me - I know the price of hate and the way it destroys people and countries. My best friend aside from my husband was with the danish international brigade and drove a truck with relief workers to Srebrenica after the massacre.

I am a strong believer in standing up for what is right - not any political agenda. My grandfather often quoted a german priest when I spoke to him as a young girl

First they came for the Communists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Communist

Then they came for the Socialists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Socialist

Then they came for the trade unionists
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a trade unionist

Then they came for the Jews
And I did not speak out
Because I was not a Jew

Then they came for me
And there was no one left
To speak out for me

So yes - I will speak up if I feel something is wrong. I will speak up for those who can't do it themself - I will speak up for the environment and our childrens heritage. But don't put me in a box as either left or right because that is not what I am.

 

[Farb]

You do know that people have been convicted and served time for crimes committed right?

You do know the Trump Jr thought the meeting with the russians was to get "dirt" on Clinton right? ? but did not report it to the authorities as he should have - And even wrote "he loved it" - Yes Mueller declined to procecute him due to ignorance of the laws (would definitely NOT have worked here)



https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-04-18/donald-trump-jr-mueller-report

Got it. Thanks.
Ignorance of the law is not a defense in this country either. There are specific intent crimes and it would be up to the state to prove without doubt that the suspect intended to break the law. So you if you can't prove intent in this case, you can't prove criminal law breaking.

And that gets us to the real question, is getting political dirt, even from a foreign entity, on your opponent illegal and unprecedented? I am not 100% certain it is illegal. I am 100% certain it is not unprecedented.

To bring this back to the Trump impeachment thread: I think that is also what will be brought up in impeachment hearing on the Ukraine thingy as well. Is this whole thing illegal? Probably not and it has been done before.

 

[Nebaghead]

Got it. Thanks.
Ignorance of the law is not a defense in this country either. There are specific intent crimes and it would be up to the state to prove without doubt that the suspect intended to break the law. So you if you can't prove intent in this case, you can't prove criminal law breaking.

And that gets us to the real question, is getting political dirt, even from a foreign entity, on your opponent illegal and unprecedented? I am not 100% certain it is illegal. I am 100% certain it is not unprecedented.

To bring this back to the Trump impeachment thread: I think that is also what will be brought up in impeachment hearing on the Ukraine thingy as well. Is this whole thing illegal? Probably not and it has been done before.

Yes it is illegal to have a foreign country open an investigation on a political opponent. I would entertain they had info on an opponent but this is leveraging another governments judiciary powers to investigate an opponent. Even then, they were asked under the pretense of holding back aid.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Yes it is illegal to have a foreign country open an investigation on a political opponent. I would entertain they had info on an opponent but this is leveraging another governments judiciary powers to investigate an opponent. Even then, they were asked under the pretense of holding back aid.

I think he was referring to the issue with Don Jr and the Russians offering dirt on Hillary.

The point should be that Trump supporters are now pinning their hopes on the idea that they were entrapped by a wily shadow group that set this elaborate snare and the Trump campaign was stupid or corrupt enough to fall for it, all the while the people who set the snare inexplicable did not do anything to take advantage of this trap by like you know announcing an investigation before the election like they did for Hillary. And for some reason, the totally innocent Trump campaign/adminstration decided to lie to investigators and the public about their contacts with Russians and so on, and in fact explicitly ordered people to lie to investigators. Because that's exactly what totally innocent people do.

The simplest explanation is that Russia preferred Trump over Hillary and used various legal and illegal means to help him win. Trump either has less hostility to Russia or has a preference for Russia over NATO allies, and his campaign was willing to accept that help, and had various meetings with them. When investigators came knocking, either being embarrassed over accepting help from Russia even if it was legal, or not knowing what was legal and what wasn't, tried to hide their connections by lying. Trump not liking being questioned (either because he was guilty and knew it, or just didn't believe he deserved to be investigated) fired Comey over his investigation, which directly lead to the Mueller investigation. And Trump directed his people not to cooperate and in at least one case directly lie to the Mueller investigation.

And when people lie about things that we have evidence for, it makes people believe they are guilty over what they're being accused of.

But if you want to investigate the investigators, knock yourself out. Just publish all the information when your done.

 

[Lazybones]

I think he was referring to the issue with Don Jr and the Russians offering dirt on Hillary.

The point should be that Trump supporters are now pinning their hopes on the idea that they were entrapped by a wily shadow group that set this elaborate snare and the Trump campaign was stupid or corrupt enough to fall for it, all the while the people who set the snare inexplicable did not do anything to take advantage of this trap by like you know announcing an investigation before the election like they did for Hillary. And for some reason, the totally innocent Trump campaign/adminstration decided to lie to investigators and the public about their contacts with Russians and so on, and in fact explicitly ordered people to lie to investigators. Because that's exactly what totally innocent people do.

The simplest explanation is that Russia preferred Trump over Hillary and used various legal and illegal means to help him win. Trump either has less hostility to Russia or has a preference for Russia over NATO allies, and his campaign was willing to accept that help, and had various meetings with them. When investigators came knocking, either being embarrassed over accepting help from Russia even if it was legal, or not knowing what was legal and what wasn't, tried to hide their connections by lying. Trump not liking being questioned (either because he was guilty and knew it, or just didn't believe he deserved to be investigated) fired Comey over his investigation, which directly lead to the Mueller investigation. And Trump directed his people not to cooperate and in at least one case directly lie to the Mueller investigation.

And when people lie about things that we have evidence for, it makes people believe they are guilty over what they're being accused of.

But if you want to investigate the investigators, knock yourself out. Just publish all the information when your done.

Why didn’t the Obama administration get involved with the “election tampering”?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Why didn’t the Obama administration get involved with the “election tampering”?

The investigation began under the Obama administration. And I would guess they didn't want to appear like they were trying to sabotage Trump's campaign by announcing the investigation before it was completed.

Why did you put it under quotes? The Russians hacked the DNC's server and released it them through Wiki Leaks. That isn't tampering?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So, the FBI concluded that Russia was responsible for the DNC hack and leak in early October 2016, and Obama announced sanctions against Russia in December of 2016. What else do you think he should have done?

 

[Lazybones]

So, the FBI concluded that Russia was responsible for the DNC hack and leak in early October 2016, and Obama announced sanctions against Russia in December of 2016. What else do you think he should have done?

Well, I don’t know. They are trying to put a billion dollar plan together after already spending 380 million. The country is up in arms to the point the president was investigated for 2 years.

And you are insinuating the most The Obama administration could have done and remained impartial was to put sanctions on Russia?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Well, I don’t know. They are trying to put a billion dollar plan together after already spending 380 million. The country is up in arms to the point the president was investigated for 2 years.

And you are insinuating the most The Obama administration could have done and remained impartial was to put sanctions on Russia?

Probably. There was only a month between concluding that Russia was responsible and the election, and at that point most of the Russian efforts were completed.

Now, are you asking if the Obama administration should have been more on top of this from the beginning? Yes, absolutely. It's another thing that the Obama administration failed at.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

None of which were for the Trump campaign colluding with Russia to alter the election.

I’m assuming you threw In “altering the election” because you are wise enough to recognize Flynn pled guilty to lying to investigators about his back channel communications that undermined the sitting administration’s foreign policy.

But I think we need some honest clarity from you all, because simply put, the arguments you all are simultaneously offering are not currently reconcilable without some clarification, and as is comes off like mental crawfishing.

You all continue defending Trump on the Mueller front by claiming his innocence premised on the notion that no evidence of a quid pro quo between the foreign government of Russia and Trump could be established to form the basis for a legal conspiracy, which was the necessary line needed to be crossed to condemn Trump’s behavior formally. To justify the Mueller probe. That without doing so Dems failed. Therefore It constitutes a nothing burger, a witch hunt, yada yada(correct me where my characterization is incorrect).

Now you all are presented with a situation where Trump explicitly established a quid pro quo with a foreign government to garner personal and political benefit. Which has been corroborated in transcripts, public admissions, and first-hand testimony of people on the call. Only now the threshold for condemnation has magically shifted. But if the logic of the earlier argument was an honest one, this is well past that line in the sand, and yet...

So we need some reconciliation here, because on the surface it would appear that either you, and those mirroring your arguments and upvoting your responses, aren't exactly being intellectually honest about where your moral line in the sand was with regards to the Mueller investigation, or, you all are now moving goalposts around because you all know this recent impropriety has blown past the goalposts from before and those earlier arguments were never and still aren't genuine. Perhaps even both. Throw on the constant deflections toward Democrats for supposedly committing the same crimes you refuse to condemn Republicans for, and other than base politics as team sports, the scrambled logic is hard to reconcile.

So help me out with this.

 

[LA - L.A.]

No, but it was cool with the former white house as they knew there was interference. They assumed the interference would help Hillary.

A claim like this should be followed by a source showing the truthfulness of the claim. Otherwise, it should be considered just empty rhetoric.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

The investigation began under the Obama administration. And I would guess they didn't want to appear like they were trying to sabotage Trump's campaign by announcing the investigation before it was completed.

Why did you put it under quotes? The Russians hacked the DNC's server and released it them through Wiki Leaks. That isn't tampering?

Obama went to McConnell and the Republicans and wanted to show a unified front on publicly addressing this matter. They wanted to summarize the unclassified intelligence they had and sign a bi-partisan non-binding resolution condemning the efforts and pledging to combat them.

McConnell told Obama he would not do that, that if Obama did go public he would spin it as a partisan smear to damage Republicans.

I have no problem blaming Obama for not being more courageous under this situation, and not being more prepared or forceful about the manner, but McConnell was the defacto congressional leader of a co-equal branch of government that holds enormous power both through their pulpit and their pen to address this and not only did nothing, but threatened to muddy the waters if Obama attempted to honestly inform the American public, all while refusing to do anything of substance on this matter.

 

[LA - L.A.]

He should've also investigated how the Clinton campaign and the DNC colluded with Russia and other foreign governments during the election but of course we know he never did that.

This is unsupported rhetoric since no sources are provided.

 

[Dragon]

Well, I don’t know. They are trying to put a billion dollar plan together after already spending 380 million. The country is up in arms to the point the president was investigated for 2 years.

And you are insinuating the most The Obama administration could have done and remained impartial was to put sanctions on Russia?

Well - one of the first things Trump did after taking office was to try to remove those sanctions....

resident Donald Trump's administration moved quickly to try and lift economic sanctions on Russia and other punishments former President Barack Obama had put in place as soon as it took office in January, according to multiple sources who have spoken with Yahoo News.

"There was serious consideration by the White House to unilaterally rescind the sanctions," according to Dan Fried, who retired in February as Coordinator for Sanctions Policy at the State Department.

Fried told veteran investigative journalist Michael Isikoff, a former national investigative correspondent for NBC News and Newsweek alumnus, that in the early weeks of the administration he got several "panicky" calls from U.S. officials. They asked: "Please, my God, can't you stop this?"

The sanctions in question included those imposed by Obama for Russia's annexation of Crimea in 2014 and others inflicted late last year to punish Moscow for its suspected efforts to interfere in the 2016 election. The plans Trump's administration considered early on included returning diplomatic compounds seized from Russia in late 2016—recent reports say Trump is currently working to put this plan into action.

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-white-house-secret-efforts-lift-russia-sanctions-putin-619508

WASHINGTON — The White House is quietly lobbying House Republicans to weaken a bill overwhelmingly passed by the Senate last week that would slap tough new sanctions on Russia for its meddling in the 2016 election and allow Congress to block any future move by President Trump to lift any penalties against Moscow.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/21/world/asia/trump-russia-sanctions.html

 

[LA - L.A.]

That's another thing some folks are going to have to come to grips with - all of this is related. There are some people who desperately need Trump impeached in the hopes they can stop Barr and company.

One could just as easily argue that the support of Trump is because there are people who desperately defend Trump to avoid admitting they were fooled by him and to protect Republican political power.

Both are just wildly speculative and unprovable opinions. Neither serve a productive role in a logical and rational discussion of the facts of the impeachment investigation.

 

[Beach Friends]

I’m assuming you threw In “altering the election” because you are wise enough to recognize Flynn pled guilty to lying to investigators about his back channel communications that undermined the sitting administration’s foreign policy.


So help me out with this.

We will see what happens with Flynn's case, but I think there are people within the DOJ who wish they had never touched that case.