The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (20 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

 

[Beach Friends]

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.

I get the argument.

On the other hand, people were also pointing to the testimony of the LTC and others and trying to buttress their credibility by portaying them as career servants of the nation with no axe to grind.

Maybe that's true, maybe it isn't.

You don't really know if you don't explore what they have been doing behind the scenes - and that includes possibly plotting with a Brennan plant.

You can't really say their motives don't matter if you are also going to point to their neutrality as evidence that they are hyper credible.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

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.

I'll go a step further, the WB is irrelevant now because they now have 1st hand testimony as to the phone call in question. In addition to that, they have background evidence regarding the influence campaign against Ukraine's President from Marie Yovanovitch, William Taylor, Fiona Hill, George Kent, Michael McKinely, LTC Alexander Vindman and even Gordon Sondland. They all have, in one or another, confirmed that there was an effort to get Ukraine to announce an investigation in Joe Biden.

At this point, Congress doesn't even need the testimony of the WB.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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.

A. I did nothing of the sort, so saying "some of you" is inaccurate.

B. Nobody is asking for twelve paragraphs. PEople are asking for the courtesy of participating in a discussion when utilizing a discussion board.

C. If you want to reply to this, I ask that you please do so privately so we stop derailing the thread.

 

[Burtifus]

If it turns out that this guy is indeed a clear partisan it clouds the issue.

I don't understand that logic. Even if the whistle blower is Hillary Clinton's first cousin, the facts that have resulted from the ensuing investigation are still the facts. If I witness my worst enemy robbing a bank and call the police on him, he's not going to be convicted off on my 911 call. They're going to pull the surveillance footage, interview bank tellers, get fingerprints, etc. If we were still sitting at just a whistle blower's report with no corroborating facts, I'd be with you 100%.

 

[reubenray]

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.

We did enjoy it there. We were in Fries, VA at a RV campground. The roads getting to Fries are not too RV friendly in a 41' motorhome pulling a car.

 

[BobE]

We did enjoy it there. We were in Fries, VA at a RV campground. The roads getting to Fries are not too RV friendly in a 41' motorhome pulling a car.

if you see a guy dressed like this in Va....

Don't worry it's just our Governor.

 

[yuyi64]

Spoken like a true Conservative.

Speaking of platitudes and drive-by posting, see exhibit A.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Take this a step further. If the police get a tip that a local restaurant was a front to launder money for drug sales and gives enough info that the police find it credible. The police open an investigation and tail someone from the restaurant and find them picking up a shipment of drugs. They arrest that person who then testifies against the owners of the restaurant. The police raid that restaurant and find evidence that it was a front for selling drugs.

Does it matter that the tipster only made the original tip because he was sleeping with the restaurant owners wife and he wanted him out of the way?

 

[JimEverett]

Take this a step further. If the police get a tip that a local restaurant was a front to launder money for drug sales and gives enough info that the police find it credible. The police open an investigation and tail someone from the restaurant and find them picking up a shipment of drugs. They arrest that person who then testifies against the owners of the restaurant. The police raid that restaurant and find evidence that it was a front for selling drugs.

Does it matter that the tipster only made the original tip because he was sleeping with the restaurant owners wife and he wanted him out of the way?

In order to give the defendant the best defense possible - yes, the identity of the tipster can help. Do you not think it matters in that respect?

But more importantly, impeaching a sitting, duly-elected President is not on par with stopping a money laundering-scheme.
I think the process of trying to remove a sitting PResident should make everything out in the open. It should be completely transparent. The idea of it not being so is somewhat scary.

 

[Beach Friends]

Take this a step further. If the police get a tip that a local restaurant was a front to launder money for drug sales and gives enough info that the police find it credible. The police open an investigation and tail someone from the restaurant and find them picking up a shipment of drugs. They arrest that person who then testifies against the owners of the restaurant. The police raid that restaurant and find evidence that it was a front for selling drugs.

Does it matter that the tipster only made the original tip because he was sleeping with the restaurant owners wife and he wanted him out of the way?

Did they tell the judge that the informant may have reason to want to get hubby out of the way? Or did they kinda fib about that?

 

[crosswatt]

if you see a guy dressed like this in Va....

Don't worry it's just our Governor.

Or Attorney General.

 

[crosswatt]

We did enjoy it there. We were in Fries, VA at a RV campground. The roads getting to Fries are not too RV friendly in a 41' motorhome pulling a car.

Yeah. It's nice for a car. Not so much RV's.

 

[yuyi64]

Does it matter that the tipster only made the original tip because he was sleeping with the restaurant owners wife and he wanted him out of the way?

Depends on what she looks like. You would have to show your work and provide pics.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

In order to give the defendant the best defense possible - yes, the identity of the tipster can help. Do you not think it matters in that respect?

Yes, it does matter in that respect, but help me understand how it helps if none of the whistleblower’s testimony is used in trial? Or specifically in this case if all of the information the whistleblower reported on is backed by the testimony of others.

Let’s go worst case and say the whistleblower is Biden’s drinking buddy. How do you use that to discredit the information we have through the testimony of others?

But more importantly, impeaching a sitting, duly-elected President is not on par with stopping a money laundering-scheme.
I think the process of trying to remove a sitting PResident should make everything out in the open. It should be completely transparent. The idea of it not being so is somewhat scary.

I guess I’m not seeing how keeping the whistleblower’s identity a secret as being a breach of transparency. Whistleblower identity protection is standard practice right? So, to go against that, particularly when the whistleblower reported based on existing laws that would protect their identity.

I’m not familiar of any other case where a whistleblower or informant was outed against their will in a trial by the defense unless the whistleblower’s testimony was entered as evidence in the trial, are you?

Did they tell the judge that the informant may have reason to want to get hubby out of the way? Or did they kinda fib about that?

In the scenario above the informant’s testimony was never entered as evidence as all.

 

[LA - L.A.]

If we are not allowed to put them here, what is the fun of it?

First, I just checked and neither of these mention the word fun.

https://madaboutpolitics.com/General_Posting_Rules_Guidelines.html

https://madaboutpolitics.com/Community_Discussion_Board__Posting_Rules_Guideline

I don't think this site is intended to be a rhetorical fight club where people come to have fun by bloodying and beating each other into submission with barbed comments and baseless opinions. There's plenty of other places on the internet for people to do that. I'm pretty sure Andrus wants this board to be above that fray.

The word that is mentioned repeatedly throughout the links above is discussion. A discussion is not a fight. Even a passionate and heated discussion is not a fight. Someone genuinely seeking a discussion has a different mindset and intention from someone seeking a fight. Someone looking for a discussion is not looking for a fight, and a someone looking for a fight is not looking for a discussion.

Second, this is relevant to the impeachment of Trump. Trump is always looking for a fight. He has no interest in having any discussions. Most of the evidence so far indicates that trying to rhetorically bloody Biden is what drove Trump to pressure Ukraine to publicly announce they were going to investigate Biden for corruption. It seems that Trump wanted to publicly embarrass Biden so badly, that he misused and overstepped his presidential power to do so. If Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, or Obama had done what the evidence indicates that Trump had done, then I'd want them impeached as well.

If it had been discovered that any of them had done what the evidence indicates Trump has done, then I have no doubt that they would have been investigated and probably impeached by the House.

 

[Lazybones]

First, I just checked and neither of these mention the word fun.

https://madaboutpolitics.com/General_Posting_Rules_Guidelines.html

https://madaboutpolitics.com/Community_Discussion_Board__Posting_Rules_Guideline

I don't think this site is intended to be a rhetorical fight club where people come to have fun by bloodying and beating each other into submission with barbed comments and baseless opinions. There's plenty of other places on the internet for people to do that. I'm pretty sure Andrus wants this board to be above that fray.

The word that is mentioned repeatedly throughout the links above is discussion. A discussion is not a fight. Even a passionate and heated discussion is not a fight. Someone genuinely seeking a discussion has a different mindset and intention from someone seeking a fight. Someone looking for a discussion is not looking for a fight, and a someone looking for a fight is not looking for a discussion.

Second, this is relevant to the impeachment of Trump. Trump is always looking for a fight. He has no interest in having any discussions. Most of the evidence so far indicates that trying to rhetorically bloody Biden is what drove Trump to pressure Ukraine to publicly announce they were going to investigate Biden for corruption. It seems that Trump wanted to publicly embarrass Biden so badly, that he misused and overstepped his presidential power to do so. If Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, or Obama had done what the evidence indicates that Trump had done, then I'd want them impeached as well.

If it had been discovered that any of them had done what the evidence indicates Trump has done, then I have no doubt that they would have been investigated and probably impeached by the House.

I will wait to see if you keep up the same energy when the rolls are reversed. so far, I have seen numerous 1 liners that are slights to conservatives and I haven’t seen you white light for them.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Kind of concerning if the same standard is used before employing an investigation into the president.

The investigation began as investigation into Page. Page's interactions with the president's campaign is what brought the president into the investigation. The investigators didn't go looking for the president, Page brought the president to the attention of the investigators.

There's is no credible evidence of any conspiracy against Trump.

 

[Beach Friends]

Yes, it does matter in that respect, but help me understand how it helps if none of the whistleblower’s testimony is used in trial? Or specifically in this case if all of the information the whistleblower reported on is backed by the testimony of others.

Let’s go worst case and say the whistleblower is Biden’s drinking buddy. How do you use that to discredit the information we have through the testimony of others?



I guess I’m not seeing how keeping the whistleblower’s identity a secret as being a breach of transparency. Whistleblower identity protection is standard practice right? So, to go against that, particularly when the whistleblower reported based on existing laws that would protect their identity.

I’m not familiar of any other case where a whistleblower or informant was outed against their will in a trial by the defense unless the whistleblower’s testimony was entered as evidence in the trial, are you?




In the scenario above the informant’s testimony was never entered as evidence as all.

The worst case scenario is not just that he was Biden's drinking buddy. What if turned out that he was closely connected with a certaim former Director of the CIA who may be, coincidentally enough, the center of an investigation himself? What if the whistleblower had a history of leaking to the media?

I know your answer may be that it doesn't matter, we have independent witnesses who actually heard the call.

Well, if you are going to rely on those witnesses, and prop them up as non partisan patriots, I think we need to see just how true that is. And that includes delving into conversations they were having with this guy and in turn who this individual was working with, to include folks in Schiff's office.

I don't think that the narrative that these were all people who were motivated simple by love of country can go untested.