The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (4 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

 

[Archies Ghost]

I ask myself the same basic question with a President I do view more favorably than Trump and I'm confident I'd still feel that impeachment and removal from office are appropriate.

My standard for removal from office might be too low because I think Clinton should have been removed from office because of his relationship with a subordinate, but I don't view Trump's quid pro quo as a close call.

Admittedly I can't stand Trump but I think I'm pretty good at taking a step back and attempting to look at things fairly objectively, but ultimately I do think that this is a big deal and I don't believe this is something I would be giving any President a pass on. I'll say that without the quid pro quo it's probably borderline, but with it the level of corruption is too high for me to ignore.

If that is your honest belief, more power to you.

As to Bill Clinton, his impeachable offense wasn't the affair. Actually, given his known history at the time, I don't think anyone was actually surprised about it. His unforced error was lying under oath and directing others to do the same. Had he been candid, especially publicly, it would have been a story for a few weeks but nothing would have come of it.

 

[Burtifus]

As I said, looks like a pretty normal exchange, one I am sure has been duplicated many times in the past by every president there ever was. That is why this is all a bit silly.

If this has happened many times in the past, where are the whistle blowers and leakers from the Obama, Bush and Clinton administrations? This call generated immediate shock and action from several, independent, administration-appointed individuals. That doesn't make you pause at all?

 

[V Chip]

The question was whether what was asked was in the national interest. It clearly was

It clearly wasn't.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

This is a discussion forum that reuberay is posting on, not a debate forum. The debate forum on this site hasn't even been activated yet. He is welcomed to post his opinion if it's honestly believed. You in turn can post your honest opinion about his opinion without ridicule or condescension. Let's not turn this Community Discussion Forum into another PDB echo chamber.

And drive by posting is not discussing. He offered up nothing in support of his opinion. I don't see a problem in expecting people to actually discuss and give context to their posts in order to foster discussion instead of letting drive by posting go unchecked.

 

[samiam5211]

The question isn't whether there was anything more than just the official interest of the United States. The question was whether what was asked was in the national interest. It clearly was so the fact that it was also politically helpful to DJT is incidental. As I said, looks like a pretty normal exchange, one I am sure has been duplicated many times in the past by every president there ever was. That is why this is all a bit silly.

why do you think Trump required a public announcement of the investigation by the leader of Ukraine?

Do you think that part matters?

Wouldn’t any national interest be served by the investigation being kept secret to prevent those involved from preparing to be investigated?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

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.

Do you think the breaking up of politicians is happening? What does that mean to you? It seems to me Republicans and Democrats are becoming more unified along their party lines, which doesn't seem like a good thing to me.

Is Donald Trump the only Republican that would support the judges and pro-life stances you prefer?

This is where I really don't understand. What do you mean by Republicans being pushovers? From where I sit they haven't really compromised on much in several years before Trump. What were they being pushovers on? Does compromise mean being a pushover in your opinion? Should politicians pursue an all or nothing strategy on everything? On most things?

I find it the idea of not compromising to be really damaging. There are 300 million Americans, and they have lots of different opinions. Going for an all or nothing strategy seems wrong to me.

I'm also a white male Christian with white Christian children and I've never felt attacked for being white or male or Christian in any meaningful sort of way. Do you think might be overly sensitive? And I'm really not trying to be rude with that question and I can see how it can be read that way, but from I sit a lot of white male Christians seem to view disagreement or a wish to address problems related to racism and sexism in the past as an attack and aren't willing to discuss the issue at all. I think this is a mistake and will lead to the situation you're trying to avoid.

I also don't see calling out people who hold positions because they are racist or homophobic is the same thing as calling everyone who holds those positions as racist and homophobic.

Being a Christian, one of the lessons of Christ that I hold dear is to try remove the log from my eye before trying to remove the speck from my brother's. Which is why I'm more critical of myself first, then the people closest to me, and then the groups that are closest to me. It seems more productive to clean house first before I worry about others. Which is why I would think if white nationalists are openly saying that Trump is speaking their language and black Americans are really worried about Trump's language, I think if I were a Trump supporter and I work super hard to criticize Trump's language in the hopes that he would not give cover to groups that are objectively terrible.

And yes, I'm very much aware that as I become more associated with liberals, I'll need to focus more on the way they message things. There is a very strong growing intolerance within the left that needs to be addressed, and other liberals are the best to do that. There are some pushing back but not enough.

 

[crosswatt]

If Trump spoke those words two weeks ago I did not hear them. I do not watch the news and I don't read anything political on the web. I hate politics, but I do see headlines. My comment were based solely on these. Two weeks ago I was in the Virginia mountains where I could even get the news or internet. I figured I would try this board instead of the PDB being it was to one sided.

I live in Virginia, and the mountains are lovely. And I hope you do stick around. And participate. And articulate your opinions a bit more. Because it's difficult to discuss platitudes.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

If that is your honest belief, more power to you.

As to Bill Clinton, his impeachable offense wasn't the affair. Actually, given his known history at the time, I don't think anyone was actually surprised about it. His unforced error was lying under oath and directing others to do the same. Had he been candid, especially publicly, it would have been a story for a few weeks but nothing would have come of it.

Do you think it will clearly be in the national interest for the next Democrat president to pressure say China to open an investigation into Ivanka Trump's business dealings in China, and to have the Chinese work with that Democrat's personal lawyer with no government oversight? Or Kushner's foreign business dealings?

I really hope you aren't, and I hope I'm not if it comes to that.

 

[crosswatt]

This is a discussion forum that reuberay is posting on, not a debate forum. The debate forum on this site hasn't even been activated yet. He is welcomed to post his opinion if it's honestly believed. You in turn can post your honest opinion about his opinion without ridicule or condescension. Let's not turn this Community Discussion Forum into another PDB echo chamber.

Would you care to explain to me how my asking a poster to participate more fully is somehow turning this into an echo chamber?

 

[Lazybones]

Spoken like a true Conservative.

What is that supposed to mean?

 

[Lazybones]

And drive by posting is not discussing. He offered up nothing in support of his opinion. I don't see a problem in expecting people to actually discuss and give context to their posts in order to foster discussion instead of letting drive by posting go unchecked.

This may surprise you, but some folks don’t like typing or reading 12 paragraphs. If some of you didn’t follow up by beating the poster up, maybe you could actually get them to open up about their opinion.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Do you think it will clearly be in the national interest for the next Democrat president to pressure say China to open an investigation into Ivanka Trump's business dealings in China, and to have the Chinese work with that Democrat's personal lawyer with no government oversight? Or Kushner's foreign business dealings?

I really hope you aren't, and I hope I'm not if it comes to that.

For example, is this article enough evidence for the next Democrat to go outside normal DOJ procedures and pressure Qatar and Saudi Arabia to open an investigation into Kushner?

The troubling overlap between Jared Kushner's business interests and US foreign policy | Mohamad Bazzi

A congressional inquiry has raised the possibility that Kushner supported a blockade of a US ally as payback because it would not fund his family’s business

www.theguardian.com

 

[JimEverett]

If this has happened many times in the past, where are the whistle blowers and leakers from the Obama, Bush and Clinton administrations? This call generated immediate shock and action from several, independent, administration-appointed individuals. That doesn't make you pause at all?

The problem for me with that line of thinking is that I have never seen an Administration have to battle so many leaks from its own ranks and from the ranks of career bureaucrats in DC. It is unprecedented.
Which also goes some way in justifying the criticism over hiding the name of the whistleblower. If it turns out that this guy is indeed a clear partisan it clouds the issue. Which is why it is important for Democrats to get guys like the Lieutenant who testified and have them raise similar concerns.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

The problem for me with that line of thinking is that I have never seen an Administration have to battle so many leaks from its own ranks and from the ranks of career bureaucrats in DC. It is unprecedented.
Which also goes some way in justifying the criticism over hiding the name of the whistleblower. If it turns out that this guy is indeed a clear partisan it clouds the issue. Which is why it is important for Democrats to get guys like the Lieutenant who testified and have them raise similar concerns.

Could the reason for all the leaks be because so many people are genuinely alarmed by Trump’s behavior?

 

[Beach Friends]

The problem for me with that line of thinking is that I have never seen an Administration have to battle so many leaks from its own ranks and from the ranks of career bureaucrats in DC. It is unprecedented.
Which also goes some way in justifying the criticism over hiding the name of the whistleblower. If it turns out that this guy is indeed a clear partisan it clouds the issue. Which is why it is important for Democrats to get guys like the Lieutenant who testified and have them raise similar concerns.

I am assuming we have all seen the name of the guy who is purported to be the blower by now. He was in the photo of the grim looking Obama staffers taken on election day.

From what I am hearing, he is 100% resistance.

I honestly dont know how any POTUS in the future is going to be able to conduct business if his every conversation is scrutinized by people who have it out for him.

What head of state is ever going to speak candidly with a US president again?

There are some real concerns here.

 

[Beach Friends]

Could the reason for all the leaks be because so many people are genuinely alarmed by Trump’s behavior?

I wish I could post that picture of the Obama staffers that he is supposedly in. All posed with arms crossed and mean mugging for the camera.

That's unreal to me that someone with that much contempt for the President, on inauguration day, could find his way into a position close to the President.

 

[Nebaghead]

I am assuming we have all seen the name of the guy who is purported to be the blower by now. He was in the photo of the grim looking Obama staffers taken on election day.

From what I am hearing, he is 100% resistance.

I honestly dont know how any POTUS in the future is going to be able to conduct business if his every conversation is scrutinized by people who have it out for him.

What head of state is ever going to speak candidly with a US president again?

There are some real concerns here.

No reputable source has confirmed that is the whistleblower. The whistleblower is almost irrelevant at this point since witnesses have corroborated what was given in his report. You don't need the CI in a police investigation once eye witnesses give their testimony.

 

[Lazybones]

Could the reason for all the leaks be because so many people are genuinely alarmed by Trump’s behavior?

Or they are such partisans they can’t help themselves.