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

 

[Lazybones]

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 an logical and rational discussion of the facts of the impeachment investigation.

I’m not sure how your response coincides with the post you quoted.

 

[Beach Friends]

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?

Wikileaks denies that any state actor was its source, and I am sure you know that there are some questions about Crowdstrike.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Wikileaks denies that any state actor was its source, and I am sure you know that there are some questions about Crowdstrike.

And the FBI has said that Russia was behind the hacks. I've seen source data, and while I'm far from a forensic expert, the analysis looked pretty thorough.

So, from a credibility standpoint we've got an organization that deals in stealing information illegally founded by a man accused of rape in Sweden. Or our FBI and my own basic analysis of the data.

I'll go with option B.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I’m not sure how your response coincides with the post you quoted.

I'll gladly explain, but I need you to be more specific, so I know what you want me to explain. What specifically about my statement are unsure that it coincides with specifically what in the statement I quoted?

 

[LA - L.A.]

Wikileaks denies that any state actor was its source, and I am sure you know that there are some questions about Crowdstrike.

And there are questions about the credibility and honesty of Wikileaks.

 

[Beach Friends]

the person is probably a MI6 asset

Well yeah, I think that he is an agent of some Western intelligence agency was the entire point. Are you not seeing the significance of that?

In any event, you may want to remember his name, Joseph Mifsud.

 

[Dragon]

Well yeah, I think that he is an agent of some Western intelligence agency was the entire point. Are you not seeing the significance of that?

In any event, you may want to remember his name, Joseph Mifsud.

Well Allies share intelligense about threats. That's what friends do. And since Cambridge Analytica is a british company and was a suspected "player" in the russian interference in the Brexit election as well, it makes a world of sense that a british agent could have stubled upon vital information about a similar threats against the US.

 

[Beach Friends]

And the FBI has said that Russia was behind the hacks. I've seen source data, and while I'm far from a forensic expert, the analysis looked pretty thorough.

So, from a credibility standpoint we've got an organization that deals in stealing information illegally founded by a man accused of rape in Sweden. Or our FBI and my own basic analysis of the data.

I'll go with option B.

Hmmmm, unless you can get Pamela Anderson to vouch for you I will go with Julian.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Well yeah, I think that he is an agent of some Western intelligence agency was the entire point. Are you not seeing the significance of that?

In any event, you may want to remember his name, Joseph Mifsud.

Why do you think it's important we remember his name in regards to the impeachment investigation?

Share with us what you think is important about this person, your sources that support what you think, and how it connects directly to the impeachment investigation.

If it doesn't connect directly to the impeachment investigation, then start a thread about him.

 

[Beach Friends]

Well Allies share intelligense about threats. That's what friends do. And since Cambridge Analytica is a british company and was a suspected "player" in the russian interference in the Brexit election as well, it makes a world of sense that a british agent could have stubled upon vital information about a similar threats against the US.

Is that what he was doing? Sharing information about a threat?

How does that make sense?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Why do you think it's important we remember his name in regards to the impeachment investigation?

Share with us what you think is important about this person, your sources that support what you think, and how it connects directly to the impeachment investigation.

If it doesn't connect directly to the impeachment investigation, then start a thread about him.

Because he's supposedly key to their belief that everything was a deep state plot to entrap Trump from the very beginning. And if there is a deep state conspiracy, everything afterwards becomes suspect.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

The conspiracy goes something like this I think.

Josef Mifsud was a western intelligence asset who insinuated himself into Trump circles, namely Papadoulous, and then fished for them to try to establish links with the Russians. That then created the justification to investigate Trump even though it was the Western Intelligence agencies who were the instigators.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Of course, the conspiracy also goes on that this super secret conspiracy was doing this against a campaign that they also simultaneously didn't take seriously and thought that there was no way they could win, so that is why they didn't do anything to actually effect the election ahead of time, but instead did all of this to derail a presidency they didn't think would actually happen. A presidency that would actually align politically with many of the key players beliefs (lower taxes, pro-second amendment, increase defense spending and more money for their own agencies).

They did all this because of reasons which remain really unclear. They conspired to subvert a presidency that they could have derailed during the election but chose not to, instead they set all of this up to discredit a presidency they didn't think would happen because even though many of them have the same political beliefs, the just didn't like Trump for other reasons. apparently.

 

[Lazybones]

The conspiracy goes something like this I think.

Josef Mifsud was a western intelligence asset who insinuated himself into Trump circles, namely Papadoulous, and then fished for them to try to establish links with the Russians. That then created the justification to investigate Trump even though it was the Western Intelligence agencies who were the instigators.

You really can’t make this stuff up. Do you really think it’s all in tom Clancy’s head?

 

[Lazybones]

Of course, the conspiracy also goes on that this super secret conspiracy was doing this against a campaign that they also simultaneously didn't take seriously and thought that there was no way they could win, so that is why they didn't do anything to actually effect the election ahead of time, but instead did all of this to derail a presidency they didn't think would actually happen. A presidency that would actually align politically with many of the key players beliefs (lower taxes, pro-second amendment, increase defense spending and more money for their own agencies).

They did all this because of reasons which remain really unclear. They conspired to subvert a presidency that they could have derailed during the election but chose not to, instead they set all of this up to discredit a presidency they didn't think would happen because even though many of them have the same political beliefs, the just didn't like Trump for other reasons. apparently.

You almost had me.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Everyone who thinks the procedures that the House used in the impeachment investigation was unfair, please check this list to see if your representative voted for those procedures. If they did, then please direct your complaints to them.

http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2015/roll006.xml

 

[Dragon]

Is that what he was doing? Sharing information about a threat?

How does that make sense?

Because that is what intelligence services do. At least friends do.

Funny that you're more ok with an organisation who along with hackers created at major security break AND broke multiple laws (WIKILEAKS/Russia) but getting critical information about enemy interference in your countrys national elections from a friend and ally gives you pause ?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

You almost had me.

LOL... I couldn't resist.

But my point remains. Is it possible this was all a deep state plot? I mean I guess, lots of things are possible. But is it probable? As you can see above, I clearly don't think it's probable. It makes little sense from a motivation standpoint as well as in execution.

As I said, I'm more than fine with an open investigation. At this point public trust in our institutions have been eroded, and the best way to restore them is to have a thorough and public investigation.