The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (7 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]

Liberals did not start this. Trump did with his own actions which has been confirmed multiple times both by his own words, by his laywer and several high ranking republican members of his organisation.

I really don't understand how you can attack someone who is literally just fulfilling his obligations as a public servant by alerting proper authorities about possible abuse of power?

You are speculating the motives of the whistleblower and for that matter of trump.

I was not speculating in my description of whistleblower. I don’t think anyone would argue with the description of him.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

You are speculating the motives of the whistleblower and for that matter of trump.

I was not speculating in my description of whistleblower. I don’t think anyone would argue with the description of him.

Do you know who the whistleblower is? You keep making truth claims about the person but refuse to admit whether or not you know their identity.

 

[Dragon]

You are speculating the motives of the whistleblower and for that matter of trump.

I was not speculating in my description of whistleblower. I don’t think anyone would argue with the description of him.

If Trump did not do what he did, there would be no whistleblower.... and still - even if the whistleblower is an ultra-right wing republican, he would STILL be oblieged to alert proper authorites about possible abuse of power.

 

[Dadsdream]

When the content of the accusations have been as well established as they have independently of the whistleblower, trying to make this about their identity is just another attempt at distraction by a group who can't defend the content and have to resort to anything else.

There's one little thing that bugs me about what you're saying . . .

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

The usual response is that this impeachment is not a criminal prosecution. But, that depends on who you ask. Off hand, I'd say accusing someone of "high crimes and misdemeanors" with the possibility of being removed from office and sent to jail would count as a criminal prosecution, but that's just me and I'm not a legal expert.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

She has been opposed, but IMO that is only because the politics dictated that. I believe if she thought it was politically expedient, she would support impeachment on the grounds he got two scoops and every one else got one.

Ok, now we are getting somewhere. What has change that makes impeachment politically expedient for Pelosi? Will they not face political blow back for taking up impeachment? Pelosi knows they have no chance of the Senate convicting the President, so why would she do this now?

Pelosi has done this because it is the right thing to do, politics be damned. There will be no political points scored by the Dems because their "adults in the room" understand that impeachment, without bipartisan support, will further divide this nation and that is not in the Democrats best interest.

 

[RobF]

There's one little thing that bugs me about what you're saying . . .

The Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "in all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right…to be confronted with the witnesses against him."

Not sure why that would bug you when, a) the whistleblower is not acting as a witness at this point, the witnesses are doing that, and b) this isn't a criminal prosecution either. Yet.

 

[superchuck500]

I will disagree with you on the latter part of your post.

1. The whistleblower has no first hand knowledge
2. He is also an ultra liberal who hates trump
3. Low end staffer who is well connected


Honestly I had a feeling something was up with the whole story shortly after it broke. The media made such a big deal about the whistleblower that it raises my eyebrow. I wasn’t around for Nixon, but did the media start covering for deep throat as soon as the story broke? It almost seemed like the media and the left started trying to protect the identity very quickly. Just seems a little to pre planned for me.

None of that matters unless there was a fabrication. And based on sworn testimony of numerous people corroborated by contemporaneous documents and communications, none of it is fabricated and, in fact, it appears that a host of officials across three offices (White House and NSC, State, and Pentagon) had concerns that Trump's Ukraine policy was moving toward personal/political interests, damaging to US interests, and potentially illegal. The question here isn't what happened - we know what happened. The question is how to characterize what happened

The whistleblower just had to nerve to make an official report of the matter. He figuratively blew the whistle - that's it. He's not a material witness. His motives aren't relevant if the subject matter is true. I suspect that across the landscape of government, the financial sector, manufacturing, etc., a substantial percentage of "whistleblowers" - people who submit reports of fraud or illegal or unsafe practices - often have personal disagreements or motives against either the organization or individuals within its leadership.

But if the report is true, the motive is irrelevant.

 

[Dadsdream]

Well, I should have stated that where the MCB is concerned we aren't allowing partisan memes that are intended to take shots, incite, insult, yadda, yada!

Everybody is welcome to post partisan memes from all sides in the Mud Pit Funnies! thread in ye olde Mud Pit. Post early, post often!

 

[Nebaghead]

So unconfirmed accounts of the identity of the whistleblower are fact and sworn testimony is fake. Am I doing this right? The amount of cognitive dissonance on this thread is astounding. The WB testimony is not needed as others have coraborated what was being questioned. The WH summary of the call confirmed most everything the WB said in his report. Again, the defense the right is using is the process is flawed.

 

[JRad]

No one?

Let me ask something, in general. If it comes out the whistleblower is a lifelong republican, Trump voter - does that change your opinion on any of the Ukraine stuff?

 

[Dadsdream]

Not sure why that would bug you when, a) the whistleblower is not acting as a witness at this point, the witnesses are doing that, and b) this isn't a criminal prosecution either. Yet.

I see. We're having a congressional investigation over accusations against a sitting president and the accuser is not acting as a witness at this point? It's a trifling thing, I know, but I think we have reached a point where he is acting as a witness.

Remember the way Kavanaugh got dragged through the mud over something he allegedly did decades ago at a college party?

I say we do that with this accuser. See how he holds up to intense scrutiny, dig into his college sex life, count the number of times he got sent to the principal in the Third Grade, you know, the usual Congressional Investigation stuff.

 

[Nebaghead]

I see. We're having a congressional investigation over accusations against a sitting president and the accuser is not acting as a witness at this point? It's a trifling thing, I know, but I think we have reached a point where he is acting as a witness.

Remember the way Kavanaugh got dragged through the mud over something he allegedly did decades ago at a college party?

I say we do that with this accuser. See how he holds up to intense scrutiny, dig into his college sex life, count the number of times he got sent to the principal in the Third Grade, you know, the usual Congressional Investigation stuff.

Whistleblower is not the same as a Supreme Court Nominee. Protections for WB's exist so abuse can be reported. You want to trash on that because he said bad things about your guy that have been proven true. You do that and we will have less protection against corporations and the government when they are doing illegal things. If the WB accusations couldn't be proven then yes, he should testify, otherwise he doesn't has to.

 

[Dadsdream]

Whistleblower is not the same as a Supreme Court Nominee. Protections for WB's exist so abuse can be reported. You want to trash on that because he said bad things about your guy that have been proven true. You do that and we will have less protection against corporations and the government when they are doing illegal things. If the WB accusations couldn't be proven then yes, he should testify, otherwise he doesn't has to.

Hi nebaghead. Yes, I am familiar with whistleblower protections.

I am also familiar with the blowback which occurs when ot turns out the whistleblower has an agenda and an ulterior motive.

It ends up hurting everybody and damages the entire process irrevokably.

So, to anybody's knowledge, does this whistleblower have any agenda or ulterior motive? Emails, social media or conversations where he identifies as Resist Movement member?

If so, stop everything and quit wasting everybody's time.

 

[Intensesaint]

Can we just start saying the whistleblower's name now, Eric Ciaramella.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Hi nebaghead. Yes, I am familiar with whistleblower protections.

I am also familiar with the blowback which occurs when ot turns out the whistleblower has an agenda and an ulterior motive.

It ends up hurting everybody and damages the entire process irrevokably.

So, to anybody's knowledge, does this whistleblower have any agenda or ulterior motive? Emails, social media or conversations where he identifies as Resist Movement member?

If so, stop everything and quit wasting everybody's time.

Why does this matter? The allegations in the whistleblower's report have been corroborated under oath by multiple people.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Can we just start saying the whistleblower's name now, Eric Ciaramella.

Do you have proof that this is the whistleblower or are you speculating?

 

[Nebaghead]

Hi nebaghead. Yes, I am familiar with whistleblower protections.

I am also familiar with the blowback which occurs when ot turns out the whistleblower has an agenda and an ulterior motive.

It ends up hurting everybody and damages the entire process irrevokably.

So, to anybody's knowledge, does this whistleblower have any agenda or ulterior motive? Emails, social media or conversations where he identifies as Resist Movement member?

If so, stop everything and quit wasting everybody's time.

His report has been confirmed. His role is irrelevant. If the story wasn't confirmed I would support what you are saying. It doesn't matter if he is Voldemort at this point because what he said was proven true.

The way this has played out is exactly why WB protections exist. WB makes report. Report confirmed. Legal process begins. How should it work? How is this process weakening the WB protections. THis is literally why WB protections exist.

 

[Lazybones]

But if the report is true, the motive is irrelevant.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you. Unfortunately the part I quoted above only holds true if you are part of the machine.

1. The same standard isn’t given to project Veritas

2. The same standard isn’t being applied to the Biden’s.

I have a feeling this whole thing is about to get ugly for a lot of people. The nastier they get with Trump, the nastier he will get. A bully never just sits back and takes it.