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]

“So they said they had—they were walking out to a press conference. I said, nah, I’m not going to—or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said—I said, call him. (Laughter.) I said, I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars. I said, you’re not getting the billion. I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a birch. (Laughter.) He got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time.” Joe Biden

 

[crosswatt]

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?

I don't know that it extends to Biden directly though. Hunter is a complete mess of a person. Even going as far as dating his deceased brother's widow. Plus years of drug and alcohol abuse. He's more Ron Reagan Jr. or Billy Carter IMHO.

Now did he benefit from having the last name Biden? 100%. Did he leverage his famous dad into a killer position? I would assume so. Should it be investigated? It has. Several times. It's sketchy, but not illegal.

And it is completely different to me than the family wide coordinated efforts to monetize the office of the presidency. From Kushner being placed in a government position that allows him to grift for loans, to Ivanka getting several patents from the Chinese government while her father wages a trade war against them. Using properties owned by the president for official government duties. They even brag about it. Make fun of the emoluments clause. It's all shamelessly and transparently for self enrichment purposes.

And it's so far past anything I remember ever seeing. Dick Cheney rewarding Halliburton and the Clinton's working the "legal defense fund" were bad come to mind as examples of naked greed from an administration, and I think they both fall extremely short of what we're allowing to happen right now.

 

[Lazybones]

I don't know that it extends to Biden directly though. Hunter is a complete mess of a person. Even going as far as dating his deceased brother's widow. Plus years of drug and alcohol abuse. He's more Ron Reagan Jr. or Billy Carter IMHO.

Now did he benefit from having the last name Biden? 100%. Did he leverage his famous dad into a killer position? I would assume so. Should it be investigated? It has. Several times. It's sketchy, but not illegal.

And it is completely different to me than the family wide coordinated efforts to monetize the office of the presidency. From Kushner being placed in a government position that allows him to grift for loans, to Ivanka getting several patents from the Chinese government while her father wages a trade war against them. Using properties owned by the president for official government duties. They even brag about it. Make fun of the emoluments clause. It's all shamelessly and transparently for self enrichment purposes.

And it's so far past anything I remember ever seeing. Dick Cheney rewarding Halliburton and the Clinton's working the "legal defense fund" were bad come to mind as examples of naked greed from an administration, and I think they both fall extremely short of what we're allowing to happen right now.

So are you saying that

1. Trump has no right to question Bidens influence in the Ukraine, because it has already been investigated?

2. He also has no right to investigate it because he is monetizing the presidency?

 

[Dadsdream]

The lawyer for the whistleblower has announced he is willing to accept written questions from GOP lawmakers.

Accepting questions doesn't necessarily mean answering them and does not equate to confronting an accuser or cross-examination.

My take? This is the first step. It's the least acceptable alternative, and the most the House majority is willing to put forward at this stage of the chess match.

In a series of tweets, Zaid said Republicans on the House Intelligence Committee have sought to "expose our client's identity which could jeopardize their safety, as well as that of their family."

"Despite long standing policy of HPSCI to protect #whistleblowers, especially anonymity (btw, this was consistent with my efforts w/GOP on #Benghazi), GOP has sought to expose our client's identity which could jeopardize their safety, as well as that of their family," Zaid tweeted Sunday morning.

The lawyer continued: "We have offered to @DevinNunes, Ranking HPSCI Member, opportunity for Minority to submit through legal team written questions to WBer. Qs cannot seek identifying info, regarding which we will not provide, or otherwise be inappropriate. We will ensure timely answers. We stand ready to cooperate and ensure facts - rather than partisanship - dictates any process involving the #whistleblower."

Lawyer says whistleblower willing to answer written questions from Republicans | CNN Politics

Mark Zaid, an attorney for the anonymous whistleblower whose allegations about President Donald Trump’s dealings with Ukraine ignited the House impeachment inquiry into the President, said Sunday he offered to have Republican lawmakers submit questions to his client directly without having to go...

www.cnn.com

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So are you saying that

1. Trump has no right to question Bidens influence in the Ukraine, because it has already been investigated?

2. He also has no right to investigate it because he is monetizing the presidency?

I think he’s saying we don’t believe Trump is trying to conduct a legitimate investigation because he obviously doesn’t have a problem with family members having business interests in areas that he influences policy.

He also probably knows that Ukraine has already finished its investigation of Burisma.

Add on top of that he’s not doing this through normal channels it leads us to believe he’s not actually interested in corruption.

 

[JRad]

The more I see “investigate the Bidens” stuff, the more it looks like this:

“The Bidens should be investigated for potential crimes/corruption!” - “the right”
“Ok, do it” - “the left”

“Trump should be investigated for potential crimes/corruption!” - “the left”
“Political hit job!” - “the right”

Investigations are meant to discover whether or not a crime was committed. It doesn’t matter if it’s Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, or Donald Trump. House Dems are currently investigating to see if enough evidence exists to send to the Senate for “trial”. If the House doesn’t find enough, it dies there. End of story. If the House says “maybe there is something here”, they pass it on and the Senate takes it from there. End of story.

No one is stopping the appropriate authorities from investigating the Bidens. Really, if you want to hit Joe hard, now is the time to investigate regardless of evidence. (Though honestly I think more Democratic voters would welcome Joe dropping heh)

 

[crosswatt]

So are you saying that

1. Trump has no right to question Bidens influence in the Ukraine, because it has already been investigated?

2. He also has no right to investigate it because he is monetizing the presidency?

He has no right to do it in the manner that he attempted to, because it's illegal. And he's only trying the illegal path because the legal path already showed no improper connection.

And the monetization aspect is to me relevant because it indicates an effort to normalize his behaviors by attempting to show that "those guys did it too".

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I think he’s saying we don’t believe Trump is trying to conduct a legitimate investigation because he obviously doesn’t have a problem with family members having business interests in areas that he influences policy.

He also probably knows that Ukraine has already finished its investigation of Burisma.

Add on top of that he’s not doing this through normal channels it leads us to believe he’s not actually interested in corruption.

Let's also remember that not only did Ukraine conduct over a dozen investigations into Burisma, but Britain and the United States also conducted investigations starting in 2014. Part of the findings are why people like Biden, along with a large constituency of the international community, were pushing for Viktor Shokin to be removed as Prosecutor General of Ukraine.

Not because he was investigating corruption too much(in fact, documents released from his tenure showed he actually had chilled an investigation into Burisma), but because he was tipping off suspects, colluding with his backers that had wide-ranging business ties, dropping corruption investigations without justification, running defense for corrupt oligarchs, and generally was seen as a proxy for a sect of Ukrainian kleptocrats.

But if we had just cause to suspect Hunter Biden of being more than a grifting fail-son that rode his name on the promise he might be able to curry American favor, there are official channels and processes to investigate that. Like the ones we used the first go-round. Instead, they used Trump's personal lawyer working with convicted Ukrainian kleptocrat supporters and a pressure campaign to coerce a public announcement about re-opening already closed investigations. Then because they all thought this was so above board they tried to cover it up, silence dissent, and are now dangerously trying to unmask a whistleblower so they can pillory him.

 

[Ayo]

Instead, they used Trump's personal lawyer working with convicted Ukrainian kleptocrat supporters and a pressure campaign to coerce a public announcement about re-opening already closed investigations.

I continue to wonder why this is the case. Is it because Giuliani is so sycophantic? Is it because of the connections Rudy had to these Ukrainian connections?

He has an AG who has gone to other countries and solicited help, in Australia, Italy and the UK. So why use his personal lawyer here? Are those examples more legitimate and not so many eyes will be raised if they solicit foreign help in investigations? Is the intelligence being sought there more defensible when it comes to national security and national interests? They were opening investigations and enlisting help for investigations. And these aren't raising the same concerns as the dealings in Ukraine.

 

[Lazybones]

He has no right to do it in the manner that he attempted to, because it's illegal. And he's only trying the illegal path because the legal path already showed no improper connection.

And the monetization aspect is to me relevant because it indicates an effort to normalize his behaviors by attempting to show that "those guys did it too".

Im not going to concede the legality at this point, because it is not universally accepted as illegal at this juncture. But I have to ask, why would an illegal investigation provide better info than a legal investigation?

Is it because maybe it wasn’t really investigated legitimately? I honestly don’t know, I’m just trying to wrap my head around yiur explanation.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Im not going to concede the legality at this point, because it is not universally accepted as illegal at this juncture. But I have to ask, why would an illegal investigation provide better info than a legal investigation?

Is it because maybe it wasn’t really investigated legitimately? I honestly don’t know, I’m just trying to wrap my head around yiur explanation.

Can't speak for CW, but what makes Giuliani's "investigation" illegitimate is the possibility of him getting salacious information about the Bidens from questionable sources and making them public. Which, by the way, Rudy has done just that and to me, that is just proof that they were not looking for actual corruption by the Bidens, they were looking for the same result they got from the late Oct Comey announcement of more Clinton emails.

 

[Lazybones]

Can't speak for CW, but what makes Giuliani's "investigation" illegitimate is the possibility of him getting salacious information about the Bidens from questionable sources and making them public. Which, by the way, Rudy has done just that and to me, that is just proof that they were not looking for actual corruption by the Bidens, they were looking for the same result they got from the late Oct Comey announcement of more Clinton emails.

I don’t know man, seems like a stretch to me. Why would they have done this so early in the game?

Gosh the more I read about Biden Jr, he is a piece of work. How immoral do you have to be to bed you dead brothers wife? Ughhh

 

[crosswatt]

Im not going to concede the legality at this point, because it is not universally accepted as illegal at this juncture. But I have to ask, why would an illegal investigation provide better info than a legal investigation?

Is it because maybe it wasn’t really investigated legitimately? I honestly don’t know, I’m just trying to wrap my head around yiur explanation.

The whole issue centers around Joe Biden telling the Ukrainian government that their prosecutor in charge of corruption investigations wasn't investigating anything and needed to be removed.

The decision to remove him was supported by international monetary fund among others. Several entities credit Biden with bring enough visibility to the issue that actually cause the action.

The investigation into Burisma preceded Hunter Biden being named to the board. and what's the actual investigation by a competent prosecutor was completed, a fine was paid by one of the managing partners.

To my understanding, the DOJ looked into Biden's efforts and found no improper action on his part.

 

[crosswatt]

Im not going to concede the legality at this point, because it is not universally accepted as illegal at this juncture. But I have to ask, why would an illegal investigation provide better info than a legal investigation?

Is it because maybe it wasn’t really investigated legitimately? I honestly don’t know, I’m just trying to wrap my head around yiur explanation.

Actually this is a really fantastic read on the subject. Well, so far. I just found it when googling some Burisma info. But it seems to be clear and concise and rather matter of fact concerning all the misinformation floating around.

Debunking 4 Viral Rumors About the Bidens and Ukraine (Published 2019)

As lawmakers examine whether President Trump pushed Ukraine to investigate the Biden family, here are some of the most prominent falsehoods that have spread online and an explanation of what really happened.

www.nytimes.com

 

[Lazybones]

The whole issue centers around Joe Biden telling the Ukrainian government that their prosecutor in charge of corruption investigations wasn't investigating anything and needed to be removed.

The decision to remove him was supported by international monetary fund among others. Several entities credit Biden with bring enough visibility to the issue that actually cause the action.

The investigation into Burisma preceded Hunter Biden being named to the board. and what's the actual investigation by a competent prosecutor was completed, a fine was paid by one of the managing partners.

To my understanding, the DOJ looked into Biden's efforts and found no improper action on his part.

I wasn’t aware of the DOJ investigating Biden. I couldn’t find anything on this (though I didn’t search with vigor). I did find where there is a questionably 900k payment time Old Joe from a Ukrainian oligarch. (I’m not saying this so true as I don’t know, just what’s being said).

What I did find was something I knew yet it didn’t register with me. Your point of the Bidens being investigated and being cleared by DOJ. Wasn’t Trump cleared by the DOJ pertaining to the Ukraine claims?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I wasn’t aware of the DOJ investigating Biden. I couldn’t find anything on this (though I didn’t search with vigor). I did find where there is a questionably 900k payment time Old Joe from a Ukrainian oligarch. (I’m not saying this so true as I don’t know, just what’s being said).

What I did find was something I knew yet it didn’t register with me. Your point of the Bidens being investigated and being cleared by DOJ. Wasn’t Trump cleared by the DOJ pertaining to the Ukraine claims?

The review, done at the request of the inspector general of the intelligence community, was narrow.

It was based entirely on the written summary of the call, which even the White House indicated was imperfect. Authorities conducted no interviews to learn why a whistleblower took the extraordinary step of taking his concern to the inspector general for the nation's intelligence agencies.

And it took only a few weeks for prosecutors to conclude there was no violation of campaign finance law.
'

As Trump impeachment probe heats up, some say Congress is doing inquiry the Justice Department should've done

Testimony in the impeachment inquiry has corroborated a whistleblower's complaint and raises questions about the Justice Department's review.

www.usatoday.com

 

[Lazybones]

As Trump impeachment probe heats up, some say Congress is doing inquiry the Justice Department should've done

Testimony in the impeachment inquiry has corroborated a whistleblower's complaint and raises questions about the Justice Department's review.

www.usatoday.com

Ok so let’s say we go with that. Does that not also undermine the DOJ investigation of Biden (if the DOJ actually investigated).

 

[Taurus]

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?

Nope. Because that actually IS "fake news". Biden went to Ukraine to jumpstart the investigation into Burisma by getting them to fire the corrupt prosecutor who was stalling it. That, in case it's not clear, is the opposite of "shady".