The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (21 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]

To get back to the Ukraine issue

Here is a very nice timeline and description of what went down with regards to the aid to Ukraine.

https://www.justsecurity.org/66767/...-ignored-pentagon-warning-on-ukraine-funding/

If not for last minute actions taken by congress Ukraine could have lost all or most of the aid congress approved previously.
Something I'm sure Russia would really have liked.

there is one constant theme in the above article. If the money isn’t released, we can’t spend it before the fiscal year is over! Classic government catastrophe.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I have posted many times my dislike for him as a human being going back to the 80’s. but I have been paying attention to elections since bush gore. I saw how the sensationalized news treated gore, Kerry, Clinton/Obama, Clinton vs Bush, McCain, Romney, trump.

the biggest difference is that bush McCain and Romney took the beatings and bullying and acted “presidential”. Trump sticks it in their face, which makes them come back stronger at him and he swings back harder and the cycle perpetuates until we get here at impeachment.
I think it would have been different, but much of the same if it were president Cruz.

I mostly agree. People go after Presidents and people in power. They get made fun of, criticized (fairly or unfairly), their words are twisted out of context, and so on. Trump himself did this to Obama (you can easily go back and look at his Twitter record). That's kind of the deal you sign up for if you want to be President. As you said, previous Presidents pretty much modeled the behavior we want from Presidents. Calm, measured, rational, etc. Trump instead gets right back in the mud and starts flinging poo with the best of them.

I mean, ok, it's his right, but then he starts whining like a hormonal teenager when people criticize him. It sort of epitomizes the "he can dish it out, but can't take it" mentality. I look at someone like that and think "wow, what a really weak and insecure man". It baffles me that some people think this means he's strong.

All that aside. Trump has been viewed as a vain, corrupt, mean, immoral, incompetent buffoon since the 80's. He's been viewed this way since he was a Democrat. This isn't a partisan dislike of the man. He's objectively a pretty terrible person. This doesn't mean he can't do something good, every now and again. He's still human, and humans are wonderfully complex mix of traits and behaviors. But on the whole - he's an butt crevasse.

So, when you have a person that is widely disliked as a human being, people treat him the way he treats others. There's less sympathy. Less benefit of the doubt.

Which comes to why people like me challenge Trump supporters. And by Trump supporters, I mean people who will vote for him without criticizing his objectively terrible behaviors. Politicians respond to pressure from "their side". And Trump is no different. He desperately wants to be liked, and he'll respond to his base. But here's where I get annoyed at his base -- I think his behavior, attitude, and so on is exactly what his base likes. There is nothing unique about Trump other than his behavior. You can find plenty of politicians who will lower taxes and be tough on illegal immigration and appoint conservative judges. You certainly can find more competent people to fill the role. But you won't find people who will act like Trump -- which is why he'll win the Republican nomination again.

Which is why comments like DD's about being forced to vote for Trump because they don't like the policies of Democrats ring hollow. There's a primary coming up... push for a candidate who will advocate for the policies you want that isn't an butt crevasse and a buffoon. But that isn't happening, which leads us to believe that his behavior is something you actually like (and by you I mean the Republican primary voters).

 

[crosswatt]

This is the main reason for the impeachment the Democrats know they cannot win in 2020.

Throwing out some overly declarative and dubious copy and paste job is not an example of quality participation in a debate.

Add some details as to why you think it's true. Pull some numbers or supporting documents or opinions. Maybe even quote the person who wrote this talking point. Just something. Anything to make this look like you're capable of actual engagement here.

 

[Intensesaint]

Throwing out some overly declarative and dubious copy and paste job is not an example of quality participation in a debate.

Add some details as to why you think it's true. Pull some numbers or supporting documents or opinions. Maybe even quote the person who wrote this talking point. Just something. Anything to make this look like you're capable of actual engagement here.

Because this thread is about the impeachment and not the 2020 election why ask(or tell in the tone of the post) to go even more off topic?

 

[crosswatt]

there is one constant theme in the above article. If the money isn’t released, we can’t spend it before the fiscal year is over! Classic government catastrophe.

Because this thread is about the impeachment and not the 2020 election why ask(or tell in the tone of the post) to go even more off topic?

His copypasta was giving a false cause to the reasons for impeachment. Or a true cause. We'll never know because he dropped the statement and bolted.

Why this is happening or how this is being conducted is pretty much the only really debatable part of all of this, because the action that started it all is universally seen as inappropriate.

 

[Dragon]

there is one constant theme in the above article. If the money isn’t released, we can’t spend it before the fiscal year is over! Classic government catastrophe.

Who do you think would benefit most if Ukraine did not get that critical help? Maybe the presidents "best friend" ?

And how do you feel about the Trump administration breaking the law ?

The very act of holding the money in the first place could have also violated the Impoundment Control Act, because the White House did so without congressional approval or notification.

“The Trump administration did not follow the Impoundment Control Act’s notification requirements when they held up Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative funding, and actions to delay this and other international assistance funding appear to be clear violations of the law,” Hollander said.

 

[reubenray]

Throwing out some overly declarative and dubious copy and paste job is not an example of quality participation in a debate.

Add some details as to why you think it's true. Pull some numbers or supporting documents or opinions. Maybe even quote the person who wrote this talking point. Just something. Anything to make this look like you're capable of actual engagement here.

If you are referring to my post I did not copy and paste it. I gave my opinion and I have a right to give my opinion. Your post sounds a lot like the "show me your work". I don't have the patience to debate, but I can give my opinions whether you like them or not.

 

[Beach Friends]

Throwing out some overly declarative and dubious copy and paste job is not an example of quality participation in a debate.

Add some details as to why you think it's true. Pull some numbers or supporting documents or opinions. Maybe even quote the person who wrote this talking point. Just something. Anything to make this look like you're capable of actual engagement here.

His post was succinct and, in my opinion, accurate. I look forward to hearing more of his opinions. Hopefully he will stick around.

 

[JRad]

What exactly is that opinion even based on? It's like ya'll keep forgetting Trump lost the popular vote, he's not exactly an overwhelming favorite.

 

[Intensesaint]

What exactly is that opinion even based on? It's like ya'll keep forgetting Trump lost the popular vote, he's not exactly an overwhelming favorite.

But he won the required amount of electoral votes, that is what counts.

 

[superchuck500]

Democrats: Impeachment is the proper constitutional process.
GOP: You can't undo the will of the people!
Democrats: The will of the people? Trump lost by 3 million votes.
GOP: The electoral college is the proper constitutional process.

 

[JRad]

But he won the required amount of electoral votes, that is what counts.

That margin was hardly “Democrats can’t win” wide. That’s quite a leap.

Edit: Margin meaning the popular vote gap in some of those swing areas.

 

[Lazybones]

I mostly agree. People go after Presidents and people in power. They get made fun of, criticized (fairly or unfairly), their words are twisted out of context, and so on. Trump himself did this to Obama (you can easily go back and look at his Twitter record). That's kind of the deal you sign up for if you want to be President. As you said, previous Presidents pretty much modeled the behavior we want from Presidents. Calm, measured, rational, etc. Trump instead gets right back in the mud and starts flinging poo with the best of them.

I mean, ok, it's his right, but then he starts whining like a hormonal teenager when people criticize him. It sort of epitomizes the "he can dish it out, but can't take it" mentality. I look at someone like that and think "wow, what a really weak and insecure man". It baffles me that some people think this means he's strong.

All that aside. Trump has been viewed as a vain, corrupt, mean, immoral, incompetent buffoon since the 80's. He's been viewed this way since he was a Democrat. This isn't a partisan dislike of the man. He's objectively a pretty terrible person. This doesn't mean he can't do something good, every now and again. He's still human, and humans are wonderfully complex mix of traits and behaviors. But on the whole - he's an butt crevasse.

So, when you have a person that is widely disliked as a human being, people treat him the way he treats others. There's less sympathy. Less benefit of the doubt.

Which comes to why people like me challenge Trump supporters. And by Trump supporters, I mean people who will vote for him without criticizing his objectively terrible behaviors. Politicians respond to pressure from "their side". And Trump is no different. He desperately wants to be liked, and he'll respond to his base. But here's where I get annoyed at his base -- I think his behavior, attitude, and so on is exactly what his base likes. There is nothing unique about Trump other than his behavior. You can find plenty of politicians who will lower taxes and be tough on illegal immigration and appoint conservative judges. You certainly can find more competent people to fill the role. But you won't find people who will act like Trump -- which is why he'll win the Republican nomination again.

Which is why comments like DD's about being forced to vote for Trump because they don't like the policies of Democrats ring hollow. There's a primary coming up... push for a candidate who will advocate for the policies you want that isn't an butt crevasse and a buffoon. But that isn't happening, which leads us to believe that his behavior is something you actually like (and by you I mean the Republican primary voters).

My support for trump comes for a couple reasons not necessarily in this order

1. He is breaking up what had become a far to comfortable group of politicians
2. Judges
3. Abortion
4. Opposite of Romney and the establishment. Tired of republicans being pushovers. I’m a white conservative Christian male. I’m not a racist or homophobe and I was tired of it being ok to be classified this way.

Throwing out some overly declarative and dubious copy and paste job is not an example of quality participation in a debate.

Add some details as to why you think it's true. Pull some numbers or supporting documents or opinions. Maybe even quote the person who wrote this talking point. Just something. Anything to make this look like you're capable of actual engagement here.

I tend to disagree with you. He/stated what he felt. This isn’t a graduate class in college. People have a right to opinions. I don’t need a pundit to tell me what my opinion is either. If we are not allowed to put them here, what is the fun of it?

 

[superchuck500]

The FISA report will come out first, and I think you will see there was some real shady crap going on. There is so much going on that it's easy to lose track of some of the crap that was pulled, like the use of the Steele Dossier.

Here's the question I have with this insistence that the inclusion of information from the Steele Dossier is the smoking gun on the allegations that Russia was a political hit job on the Trump Campaign attempted by the Obama FBI/DOJ to aid Hillary Clinton. The original FISA application was 66 pages, and was renewed three times (material offered in support grew from 66 pages to 101 pages by the third renewal). The information from the dossier was just a fraction of the evidence offered in support of the warrants - and each renewed detailed new evidence obtained from surveillance . . . mostly about Page's activities and contacts in Russia. The subsequent renewal applications also included material demonstrating that (some of) the dossier claims had been refuted.

Had the initial application focused heavily on the dossier, you'd have a 'fruit of the poisoned tree' argument, but I don't think that's the case - there were a number of areas of support offered that did not rely on or reference the dossier. Of course, we only have the redacted versions that I know of (despite Trump's promise, has a less redacted copy been released?).

But if the Page FISA application continues to be one of the pillars of this entire viewpoint, I don't think its terribly persuasive.

 

[Beach Friends]

Here's the question I have

You tricked me.

 

[Lazybones]

Here's the question I have with this insistence that the inclusion of information from the Steele Dossier is the smoking gun on the allegations that Russia was a political hit job on the Trump Campaign attempted by the Obama FBI/DOJ to aid Hillary Clinton. The original FISA application was 66 pages, and was renewed three times (material offered in support grew from 66 pages to 101 pages by the third renewal). The information from the dossier was just a fraction of the evidence offered in support of the warrants - and each renewed detailed new evidence obtained from surveillance . . . mostly about Page's activities and contacts in Russia. The subsequent renewal applications also included material demonstrating that (some of) the dossier claims had been refuted.

Had the initial application focused heavily on the dossier, you'd have a 'fruit of the poisoned tree' argument, but I don't think that's the case - there were a number of areas of support offered that did not rely on or reference the dossier. Of course, we only have the redacted versions that I know of (despite Trump's promise, has a less redacted copy been released?).

But if the Page FISA application continues to be one of the pillars of this entire viewpoint, I don't think its terribly persuasive.

chuck from what you know and your experiences, how is it that the Steele dossier was used at all?

 

[superchuck500]

You tricked me.

Haha. Touche'

 

[Dragon]

Here's the question I have with this insistence that the inclusion of information from the Steele Dossier is the smoking gun on the allegations that Russia was a political hit job on the Trump Campaign attempted by the Obama FBI/DOJ to aid Hillary Clinton. The original FISA application was 66 pages, and was renewed three times (material offered in support grew from 66 pages to 101 pages by the third renewal). The information from the dossier was just a fraction of the evidence offered in support of the warrants - and each renewed detailed new evidence obtained from surveillance . . . mostly about Page's activities and contacts in Russia. The subsequent renewal applications also included material demonstrating that (some of) the dossier claims had been refuted.

Had the initial application focused heavily on the dossier, you'd have a 'fruit of the poisoned tree' argument, but I don't think that's the case - there were a number of areas of support offered that did not rely on or reference the dossier. Of course, we only have the redacted versions that I know of (despite Trump's promise, has a less redacted copy been released?).

But if the Page FISA application continues to be one of the pillars of this entire viewpoint, I don't think its terribly persuasive.

There are reports from multiple sources that the first FISA warrant on Carter Page was issued already in 2013 - which is long before the dossier and long before Trump announced he would run for president

On Feb. 2, 2018, FOX News’ Dana Perino said, “if Carter Page is under a FISA warrant starting in 2013. You have to go to the FISA court every 90 days in order to keep up that warrant. We don’t know if there was a lapse in the warrant between 2013 and 2015.”

In Feb. 4, 2018, TIME published a piece on Carter Page’s 2013 letter to an academic press declaring, “Over the past half year, I have had the privilege to serve as an informal advisor to the staff of the Kremlin.” The TIME story also said, “According to published reports, the FBI obtained a first FISA warrant to eavesdrop on Page’s electronic communications during 2013.” Note: that line in the TIME story linked to a Washington Post report, at least the current version of which does not say Page was subject to a 2013 FISA warrant.

More here: https://www.justsecurity.org/59837/reports-carter-page-subject-fisa-warrant-2013-2014/