The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (28 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 29 (members: 0, guests: 29)
    Andrus

    Andrus

    Admin
    Staff member
    Joined
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages
    2,298
    Reaction score
    952
    Age
    65
    Location
    Sunset, Louisiana
    Offline
    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 said:
    as I was reading this, it reminded me of the scene in “a few good men”. When asked where code red was in the sop manual, after the witness didn’t have an answer, the attorney walked back with a smile.

    then the defense grabbed the book and asked the witness if the mess hall location was in the book, the witness said no. Well how do you know where to eat, he asked. I just follow the crowd he answered.

    Just because it hasn’t been brought up in an attempted coup doesn’t mean that it’s not part of the norm.
    Click to expand...
    I found this interesting.

    www.britannica.com

    Britannica Money

    Foreign aid, the international transfer of capital, goods, or services from a country or international organization for the benefit of the recipient country or its population. Aid can be economic, military, or emergency humanitarian (e.g., aid given following natural disasters).
    www.britannica.com www.britannica.com

    “Foreign aid also may be used to achieve a country’s diplomatic goals, enabling it to gain diplomatic recognition, to garner support for its positions in international organizations, or to increase its diplomats’ access to foreign officials.”
     
    JimEverett said:
    Because the whistleblowers complain formed the basis for the latter testimony. It was the initial complaint that laid out the claim that there was pressure put on Ukraine to interfere with a US election. So that initial charge can be argued as to alter interpretations of the anyone else testifying on the matter.

    That is one possible way.
    Click to expand...

    Maybe I’m being obtuse, but I’m not following that logic. The whistleblower said that multiple people have told them that they are concerned that the President improperly pressured Ukraine to investigate a political rival. Since then we’ve heard that multiple people have testified that they are concerned that the President improperly pressured Ukraine to investigate a political rival.

    Walk me through this, let’s say it’s Biden’s drinking buddy that is the whistleblower, how does that alter the testimony we’ve heard? Or to be more precise the opening statements that have been released.

    JimEverett said:
    Existing law does not protect a whistleblower from being outed by the press. It only applies to the IG - and the IG has the power, under the law, to disclose the identity.
    But why should a free press withhold the identity of someone whose charge was the initial domino in trying to remove a sitting U.S. President?
    Click to expand...

    Isn’t one of the most valuable tools of a free press the ability to develop anonymous sources to keep a check on the State?

    If the press starts outing whistleblower’s don’t you think that will prevent future people from risking their career to prevent corruption?


    JimEverett said:
    As I wrote above, I don't think is like a normal trial on a criminal matter. This is a case of trying to remove an elected PResident from office The idea that the identity of the person making the charge that operates and framed the basis for that action a secret strikes me as being something a totalitarian state would do, with the help of a compliant "press" - not an open and transparent democracy.
    Click to expand...

    Now you seem to be going over the top. Trump is part of the state. A free press is not beholden to the state to exact retribution on someone reporting corruption.
     
    Lazybones said:
    I found this interesting.

    www.britannica.com

    Britannica Money

    Foreign aid, the international transfer of capital, goods, or services from a country or international organization for the benefit of the recipient country or its population. Aid can be economic, military, or emergency humanitarian (e.g., aid given following natural disasters).
    www.britannica.com www.britannica.com

    “Foreign aid also may be used to achieve a country’s diplomatic goals, enabling it to gain diplomatic recognition, to garner support for its positions in international organizations, or to increase its diplomats’ access to foreign officials.”
    Click to expand...

    What do you find interesting about it? That’s the basis for international aid.
     
    Archies Ghost said:
    This is the part where I provide examples of president’s engaging in foreign affairs activities that are both in the national interest and politically expedient...
    Click to expand...
    That would sincerely be appreciated.
    Archies Ghost said:
    ...and you reply that none are EXACTLY the same as the incident in question..,
    Click to expand...
    It doesn't have to be "EXACTLY" the same. It just has to be an example that is as suspect on the claims of being in the national interest as what Trump has done.

    Do you have an example of another president doing something that clearly benefited them on a personal political level, but the claims of being in the national interests are suspect?
    Archies Ghost said:
    You aren’t the teacher, this isn’t a classroom and this isn’t a test where you get to demand answers.
    Click to expand...
    I know, I know and I didn't demand any test answers.

    I simply asked you what is the factual or historical basis of your opinion?

    What historical examples are you basing your opinion on that other presidents have done the equivalent of what the evidence suggests Trump did?
     
    Last edited:
    Lazybones said:
    i guess we will see.
    Click to expand...

    I guess. Although I suspect if we don’t agree at this point, I’m not sure what evidence can come out to change either of our minds.

    I asked a question a while back that no one answered. What standard of evidence are you applying to allow a president to directly go after a political rival? And are you ok with that happening outside the DOJ with no oversight?

    I used as an example the next Democratic president going after Jared Kushner because he was part of the US siding with Saudi Arabia against Qatar after Qatar denied him a loan? And further the Democratic president doesn’t open an internal investigation but has their private lawyer pressure Qatar to announce their investigation during the Republican primary in which a leading candidate who was polling better than the Democrat is a close Trump associate. Does that seem like normal business? Are you ok with that?

    And for
     
    UncleTrvlingJim said:
    I guess. Although I suspect if we don’t agree at this point, I’m not sure what evidence can come out to change either of our minds.

    I asked a question a while back that no one answered. What standard of evidence are you applying to allow a president to directly go after a political rival? And are you ok with that happening outside the DOJ with no oversight?

    I used as an example the next Democratic president going after Jared Kushner because he was part of the US siding with Saudi Arabia against Qatar after Qatar denied him a loan? And further the Democratic president doesn’t open an internal investigation but has their private lawyer pressure Qatar to announce their investigation during the Republican primary in which a leading candidate who was polling better than the Democrat is a close Trump associate. Does that seem like normal business? Are you ok with that?

    And for
    Click to expand...
    the Kushner example really doesn’t move my needle. Politics is a nasty business. I thought the Steele dossier was out of line and according to the media and the left, it’s totally legit.

    So, I’m not sure what the threshold is, but I don’t think this is it. I guess it’s like pornography, you know it when you see it. At best this is Bo Derek in 10.
     
    Lazybones said:
    the Kushner example really doesn’t move my needle. Politics is a nasty business. I thought the Steele dossier was out of line and according to the media and the left, it’s totally legit.

    So, I’m not sure what the threshold is, but I don’t think this is it. I guess it’s like pornography, you know it when you see it. At best this is Bo Derek in 10.
    Click to expand...

    I think I missed something here. Are you saying you’re ok with a Democratic president pressuring Qatar to open an investigation against Kushner outside of any oversight or not?
     
    UncleTrvlingJim said:
    I think I missed something here. Are you saying you’re ok with a Democratic president pressuring Qatar to open an investigation against Kushner outside of any oversight or not?
    Click to expand...

    I’m saying it wouldn’t surprise me. And no it wouldn’t move my needle. I don’t see any difference in the Steele dossier or swift boat veterans for that matter. What difference does it make who is doing the digging?
     
    Lazybones said:
    I’m saying it wouldn’t surprise me. And no it wouldn’t move my needle. I don’t see any difference in the Steele dossier or swift boat veterans for that matter. What difference does it make who is doing the digging?
    Click to expand...

    I think that would be very dangerous. Using the powers of the US government to damage your opponent for political purposes should be a non-starter.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom