The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (6 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]

there is literally no point of discussing with you. Everything the dems have done is made up and no evidence to support yet all GOP investigations are fully justified. Wasn’t part of the Steele Dossier proven true?
This is just like the hypocrisy of closed door investigations even though the GOP did it for Benghazi and in 2017 when they investigated the Russian interference.

I’m sorry have we conversed prior? If you would like to, I would suggest taking a different approach.

“Everything the dems have done is made up and no evidence to support yet all GOP investigations are fully justified.”

You said it not me.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

how is it damaging if he’s not guilty of anything (Biden). He’s not looking for someone to make things up like the Steele dossier. For me, when you guys are up here beating the moral and ethical drum, yet support things like the mueller investigation, it comes off as very partisan.

If Ukraine announces an investigation during the Democratic primary and it isn’t disclosed that it came at the President’s behest it likely diminishes Biden’s chances to win the nomination, right?

The difference between this and the Russia investigation is, the Russia investigation was done through standard DOJ procedures with standard oversight and not the President’s lawyer. It was not announced during the election, so it’s hard to claim it was done to influence the election.

There’s now an investigation into that investigation because it’s been alleged that it was done for political purposes which means at least some people in Trump administration believe investigations can’t be done for political purposes.

Look, there are laws and regulations that are created to keep our political leaders from abusing their position. That is not new to Trump. This new line of thought that’s been presented is way worse in my opinion than believing that Trump was mainly acting in the interest in the United States.

 

[Lazybones]

If Ukraine announces an investigation during the Democratic primary and it isn’t disclosed that it came at the President’s behest it likely diminishes Biden’s chances to win the nomination, right?

The difference between this and the Russia investigation is, the Russia investigation was done through standard DOJ procedures with standard oversight and not the President’s lawyer. It was not announced during the election, so it’s hard to claim it was done to influence the election.

There’s now an investigation into that investigation because it’s been alleged that it was done for political purposes which means at least some people in Trump administration believe investigations can’t be done for political purposes.

Look, there are laws and regulations that are created to keep our political leaders from abusing their position. That is not new to Trump. This new line of thought that’s been presented is way worse in my opinion than believing that Trump was mainly acting in the interest in the United States.

you keep skirting my point. The Steele dossier was bought and paid for by the DNC to dig up dirt on a political opponent.
Is your point that the DNC different than a sitting president? And at the time wasn’t the president a democrat?
I’m not trying to argue with you. I’m just trying to clarify your point.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

you keep skirting my point. The Steele dossier was bought and paid for by the DNC to dig up dirt on a political opponent.
Is your point that the DNC different than a sitting president? And at the time wasn’t the president a democrat?
I’m not trying to argue with you. I’m just trying to clarify your point.

Yes, that is the point. The DNC isn’t using government power solely to harm a political power.

If Giulianni on his own tried to dig up dirt on Biden that isn’t illegal. Even if he name drops the President, that would fall close enough to what is usually done.

 

[Ayo]

So, you’re saying Presidents can open up an investigation against any political opponent at any time, because everything they do is political?

President Trump deliberately used the resources of the government to damage a political opponent. If you’re ok with that then why is anyone complaining about FISA abuses, or witch hunts or anything else? It appears that you don’t really think that’s ok but it’s all you have left now. If you’re ok with no effective limits in executive power, then we really don’t have anything to discuss.

the employment of false equivalencies (it might be that another logical fallacy as related to generalizing is more accurate) is apparent. The answer to your initial question is, of course, no. I think it would be better, and result in a more credible argument, if the poster would apply the standards to this specific instance. What's happening instead is that, instead of treating it as a case, we're treating the generalization. As if the generalization is some sort of absolute, and it isn't. But it does provide cover, however specious.

 

[Lazybones]

the employment of false equivalencies (it might be that another logical fallacy as related to generalizing is more accurate) is apparent. The answer to your initial question is, of course, no. I think it would be better, and result in a more credible argument, if the poster would apply the standards to this specific instance. What's happening instead is that, instead of treating it as a case, we're treating the generalization. As if the generalization is some sort of absolute, and it isn't. But it does provide cover, however specious.

I find it telling that there is no real attempt to explain, justify this specific incident, on the established grounds. Instead, the defense is a retreat into the general and politically aphoristic.

the answer of course is no to his first question. But to say that he “any political opponent at anytime” isn’t what happened here.

False equivalent? You guys have asked for exact examples, many similar events have been posted and brushes off with this argument. None of us in this board are privileged to the happenings in the history of the White House. To speakers woth such absolutes ad you guys are doing, in my opinion isn’t prudent.


I appreciate your very nice insult. Ayo, do you not think it is reasonable for one to have a different stance on this event? You are a free thinker and a smart guy. Why would you want everyone to conform to one way of thinking?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

the employment of false equivalencies (it might be that another logical fallacy as related to generalizing is more accurate) is apparent. The answer to your initial question is, of course, no. I think it would be better, and result in a more credible argument, if the poster would apply the standards to this specific instance. What's happening instead is that, instead of treating it as a case, we're treating the generalization. As if the generalization is some sort of absolute, and it isn't. But it does provide cover, however specious.

I find it telling that there is no real attempt to explain, justify this specific incident, on the established grounds. Instead, the defense is a retreat into the general and politically aphoristic.

I agree with some of this but I don’t think it’s productive to discuss another persons motivations in front of them or behind their back. Lazybones has been good about trying to answer my questions.

 

[Beach Friends]

I agree with some of this but I don’t think it’s productive to discuss another persons motivations in front of them or behind their back. Lazybones has been good about trying to answer my questions.

Lazynones is a good egg. (Yes, I am drinking again).

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Lazynones is a good egg. (Yes, I am drinking again).

I agree, he’s engaged with me honestly and respectfully.

 

[Taurus]

Cursory examinations. As I said, it would require years of background study to fully comprehend all the implications.

Further, the great majority of our presidents have been lawyer/politicians. They would use proxies rather than personally dirty their own hands. They have circles within circles around them who do such things.

Any politicians who have aspired to be president, save perhaps Jimmy Carter, could be deemed a criminal, in my opinion. Carter simply proved to be honest, but inept when it came to foreign policy.

Among the items found in Howard Hughes' storage vaults was a $250,000 Tiffany crystal football. It was a gift to Hughes from a presidential candidate who had received millions from Hughes, completely off the books, literally in brown paper bags delivered by a nondescript courier.

The candidate? Hubert Humphrey, touted as the most honest politician of his day. Of course, Hughes also donated millions to Nixon. But, Nixon won, so Hughes expected different things from him than a stupid glass football.

What I wish to impart is that while people may decry the current president as corrupt or inept, there's no shortage of presidents who have gotten a pass for far worse things than trying to submarine a political rival.

Except this one is rubbing our noses in it and daring America to do something about it.

 

[Taurus]

what does that have to do with the price of tea in China?

It throws out any attempt to make it a legitimate national security issue.
An investigation into corruption in Ukraine doesn't include a big, fat public announcement that Joe Biden and his son are under scrutiny.
It's like Trump is being as obvious, as blatant as he possibly can.
Just walking right up and grabbing Lady Liberty by the vulva. "When you're a star, they let you."

 

[N.O.Bronco]

If you cannot see evidence of prior presidents using foreign policy in ways that benefit themselves politically, you are not looking for it.

Almost by definition, presidents must choose a foreign policy path that is beneficial politically or they will not be in power for long.

And each president must necessarily believe that his agenda is the right agenda and therefore, must be willing to make choices that help him to stay in power in order to implement that agenda.

Believing otherwise is naive. Pretending to believe otherwise is deceitful.

Every choice a president makes is necessarily political.

That is why this is all a "gotcha". This impeachment and the responses in this thread.

The impeachment "gotcha" is DJT naming Biden in a phone conversation with a foreign leader, providing the silly cover that this is somehow something new and beyond the pale.

Witnesses pre-disposed towards hatred of DJT portray the conversation completely differently than those without that particular disposition. That, alone, is proof that this is a politically motivated investigation in search of a crime.

Sorry if I don't play by your rules.

Again, Archie, examples are all I am asking for here.

You continue to assert, without evidence, that what Trump has done here is indistinguishable from the foreign policy actions countless past presidents have taken. So common we are awash in it apparently, I and others just need to open our eyes. And yet, when I and others ask you for just one or two examples to help illuminate us, you are coming up empty and/or refusing to participate.

No one is so naive as to suggest that actions presidents take don't carry with them a political calculus, in a democracy that is practically a requirement. But where the deviation here comes in is you have a president both leveraging the power of the office and usurping the normal diplomatic channels in a way(potentially illegally) that harms national security interests in order to coerce a foreign head of state to interfere in our electoral processes to re-open an already investigated case to damage his chief political rival. Then attempting to alter transcripts(obstruct), silence witnesses, and cover up those actions.

If you think that weaponizing the state and justice department to both investigate political rivals domestically for political gain and coerce foreign governments abroad to do likewise is above board politics in a healthy democracy, if you think that is a common occurrence, say so, then provide the evidence to back it up.

It is all I and several others have asked of you in your participation in this thread.

 

[Lazybones]

It throws out any attempt to make it a legitimate national security issue.
An investigation into corruption in Ukraine doesn't include a big, fat public announcement that Joe Biden and his son are under scrutiny.
It's like Trump is being as obvious, as blatant as he possibly can.
Just walking right up and grabbing Lady Liberty by the vulva. "When you're a star, they let you."

Does it matter to anyone that Biden and his son have shady business dealings? The way that media has pounded on trump for his business, seems weird they dont want to know anything about our former VICE PRESIDENT who is now running for president.

is it because no one wants to shed a negative light on the Obama admin?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Does it matter to anyone that Biden and his son have shady business dealings? The way that media has pounded on trump for his business, seems weird they dont want to know anything about our former VICE PRESIDENT who is now running for president.

is it because no one wants to shed a negative light on the Obama admin?

So, what in your eyes makes it shady?

If you want to support a law that all high level officials and their immediate families need to divest themselves of any businesses that their duties would give them leverage over, I’m all in favor of that. But I don’t think that’s what Trump is going for here.

 

[RobF]

I'm really not buying the "other presidents have done it and gotten away with it" argument. Aside from the lack of evidence for that being the case, that's not how that works. We don't let people commit illegal acts because other, different, people may have committed illegal acts and gotten away with it previously. That's not a thing.

It's not just desirable, it's absolutely necessary for it to be seen for anyone in the role of president to be held to account for their actions. If no-one knows about their actions, then, sure, it's going to be a bit hard for them to be held to account for them. That's one thing. But if they're disclosed by a whistleblower, confirmed by the release of a 'transcript' confirming the whistleblower's account, which is then further confirmed by multiple witnesses, that's a whole different thing. It would be an absolute dereliction of duty to turn a blind eye to it.

I'd like to think most people realise that. And perhaps they do. Support for an impeachment inquiry is consistently polling above opposition to it (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...eachment_inquiry_of_president_trump-6956.html).

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I'm really not buying the "other presidents have done it and gotten away with it" argument. Aside from the lack of evidence for that being the case, that's not how that works. We don't let people commit illegal acts because other, different, people may have committed illegal acts and gotten away with it previously. That's not a thing.

It's not just desirable, it's absolutely necessary for it to be seen for anyone in the role of president to be held to account for their actions. If no-one knows about their actions, then, sure, it's going to be a bit hard for them to be held to account for them. That's one thing. But if they're disclosed by a whistleblower, confirmed by the release of a 'transcript' confirming the whistleblower's account, which is then further confirmed by multiple witnesses, that's a whole different thing. It would be an absolute dereliction of duty to turn a blind eye to it.

I'd like to think most people realise that. And perhaps they do. Support for impeachment is consistently polling above opposition to it (https://www.realclearpolitics.com/e...eachment_inquiry_of_president_trump-6956.html).

Yeah, this gets to the point I ended with on my last response to Archie, the natural conclusion to this argument that supposedly "everyone does it, so, therefore, Trump should not be punished" is basically a full-throated endorsement of illiberal democracy. Where it is now ok to weaponize things like the Justice Department and the conduct of American foreign policy to prosecute political rivals, coerce political favor, and self-dealing.

Ironically, it also tends to come from the same line of reasoning that argues Trump has a genuine concern about corruption in Ukraine. Ironic because when you contextualize the problems of Ukrainian political corruption, when you get at what people are talking about when they speak of "Ukrainian corruption" at the highest level, what critics are speaking about is the way in which the country has corrupted political processes and offices. Weaponizing their version of the Justice Department to drum up charges to prosecute political rivals, using the power of their office to damage political rivals, rigging government contracts to award allies or self-deal, to use the power and resources of the office to funnel money into their businesses. All things Trump has not only not shown any interest in domestically, but in many cases is doing himself. So what his defenders are arguing is basically that Trump is genuine in wanting to fight the sort of corruption in Ukraine that he is committing at home.

 

[Ayo]

I agree with some of this but I don’t think it’s productive to discuss another persons motivations in front of them or behind their back. Lazybones has been good about trying to answer my questions.

I wasn't talking about Lazybones, though. And I wasn't talking 'behind' anyone's back. You replied to Archie's Ghost and I was building on your reply to him - I think he's employing false equivalencies in saying 'well, all politicians do this and this is just one of those examples" as if they are all the same. And that seemed to be the point you were making, too - the same fundamental observation.

I thought it was pretty clear who I was talking about. And I was merely extending your argument about the false equivalencies being employed.

 

[Ayo]

I appreciate your very nice insult.

First, I wasn't talking about your posts. I think the two of us have arrived at a pretty good understanding of one another - with mutual respect and acknowledgment. I don't think I've done anything 'insulting' toward you - if so, it certainly wasn't my intent. And this was no exception.

Secondly, it wasn't meant as an 'insult' except to agree with UTJ's point that false equivalencies were being employed.

I was building on his comment and, as such, didn't mean for it to be anymore 'insulting' than what he'd pointed out