The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (2 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

 

[RobF]

Whistleblower is not the same as a Supreme Court Nominee. Protections for WB's exist so abuse can be reported.

Right. It's also a complete mischaracterisation of what a whistleblower's complaint is to describe it as being akin to being the accuser in a criminal trial.

The whistleblower made a report of an "urgent concern" according to the procedures under 50 U.S.C. §3033(k)(5)(A) (as is literally their duty). This is then considered to determine credibility, and escalated as appropriate.

The analogy in terms of investigation is reporting a crime to the police. You can report a crime without even being a witness, let alone 'the accuser', and should the investigation substantiate the report otherwise, as is the case here, it is not necessary for the reporter to be part of any subsequent investigation, let alone any trial.

This obsession with the identity of the whistleblower, which at this point is merely of academic interest, when the actual subject of all this is Trump, is pretty telling to be honest.

 

[Lazybones]

Right. It's also a complete mischaracterisation of what a whistleblower's complaint is to describe it as being akin to being the accuser in a criminal trial.

The whistleblower made a report of an "urgent concern" according to the procedures under 50 U.S.C. §3033(k)(5)(A) (as is literally their duty). This is then considered to determine credibility, and escalated as appropriate.

The analogy in terms of investigation is reporting a crime to the police. You can report a crime without even being a witness, let alone 'the accuser', and should the investigation substantiate the report otherwise, as is the case here, it is not necessary for the reporter to be part of any subsequent investigation, let alone any trial.

This obsession with the identity of the whistleblower, which at this point is merely of academic interest, when the actual subject of all this is Trump, is pretty telling to be honest.

Knowing his identity is going to be revealed, it’s very telling to me the narrative being used about the whistleblower as well. It’s almost as if it was planned

 

[RobF]

Knowing his identity is going to be revealed, it’s very telling to me the narrative being used about the whistleblower as well. It’s almost as if it was planned

What do you mean?

 

[Lazybones]

What do you mean?

The media started early on about the identity of the whistleblower being irrelevant. It’s almost as if they knew there would be credibility issues and wanted to get in front and control the narrative.

 

[bdb13]

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.

For the most part I did not like the way the Democrats handled the Kavanaugh stuff and the ante with this politics of retribution is only upped with the way Republicans are handling the whistleblower.

Ukraine doesn't appear to have been business as usual and increasingly it seems clear that some of those involved and on the periphery felt the same. I feel like that point should be pretty agreeable amongst nearly anyone who truly attempts to be objective (whether you believe it's impeachable or not).

It just seems like maybe we're in a pretty dark place on this one when the President and other prominent politicians and their supporters are eager to unnecessarily out a whistleblower who has exposed now corroborated behavior that I think most all of us deep down would object to absent our partisanship.

 

[RobF]

The media started early on about the identity of the whistleblower being irrelevant. It’s almost as if they knew there would be credibility issues and wanted to get in front and control the narrative.

It's exactly like the identity of the whistleblower is irrelevant. That's reality. The credibility of the report has been established independently at this point, hence there can be no credibility issues.

There are clearly some people who wish there were credibility issues, but wishing won't make it so.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

The media started early on about the identity of the whistleblower being irrelevant. It’s almost as if they knew there would be credibility issues and wanted to get in front and control the narrative.

Why does the identity of the whistleblower matter when we have people whose identities are known that are corroborating the whistleblower's report under oath?

 

[Intensesaint]

The media started early on about the identity of the whistleblower being irrelevant. It’s almost as if they knew there would be credibility issues and wanted to get in front and control the narrative.

That's because Eric Ciaramella is a known democrat supporter.

He was fired from the National Security Council in 2017 for leaks.

Also worked with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa in the formation of the Trump-Russian narrative.

 

[RobF]

Why does the identity of the whistleblower matter when we have people whose identities are known that are corroborating the whistleblower's report under oath?

It doesn't matter of course. The attempt is to create a false perception otherwise to distract from what does matter, which is that the initial report was credible, it has been and continues to be substantiated and expanded upon, and it shows grave misbehaviour on the part of Trump.

I think the transcripts of the testimonies of Fiona Hill (aide to John Bolton) and Lt Col Alex Vindman will be released today, so hopefully the thread can get back on track with those.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

That's because Eric Ciaramella is a known democrat supporter.

He was fired from the National Security Council in 2017 for leaks.

Also worked with DNC operative Alexandra Chalupa in the formation of the Trump-Russian narrative.

1. Do you know for a fact that this is the name of the whistleblower or are you speculating?

2. The report has been corroborated under oath by multiple people. Are they all democratic supporters with ties to DNC operatives also?

 

[JRad]

The media started early on about the identity of the whistleblower being irrelevant. It’s almost as if they knew there would be credibility issues and wanted to get in front and control the narrative.

If it's so relevant, would the whistleblower being a Republican change your opinion of the Ukraine events?

 

[Beach Friends]

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.

It's always been a balancing act - she has to try to placate those who are screaming for impeachment and to protect those who stand to face blowback in the districts that went for Trump.

I think it's a little naive to think that Pelosi is only doing this now because it is "the right thing." She is in a tough spot.

 

[Burtifus]

Last month POTUS tweeted Sondland's "no quid pro quo" assertion now he's having recall issues:

 

[Beach Friends]

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.

What's the authority that says a whistleblower does not have to testify? When this first came up I looked at the statute and I didn't see anything other than whistleblowers are protected from retaliation in the workplace and that, to the extent practicable, the IG will not disclose his name.
Everyone now knows the name Eric Ciaramella, so it's not as though his identity needs to be shielded to protect him. If there is any danger, it's from those who are desperate not to have him testify (think Epstein).

 

[Nebaghead]

It's always been a balancing act - she has to try to placate those who are screaming for impeachment and to protect those who stand to face blowback in the districts that went for Trump.

I think it's a little naive to think that Pelosi is only doing this now because it is "the right thing." She is in a tough spot, and I doubt she is really certain that this is the best course to help the Democrats maintain the House, which is her primary concern.

Also, I think it is becoming increasingly clear that Epstein did not kill himself.

So if Epstein killed himself, I would expect Barr to resign since he is in charge of the prison it occured. Nope, just blame Clinton like she can have people killed at whim but some how wasn't able to win an election against Trump.

 

[Beach Friends]

So if Epstein killed himself, I would expect Barr to resign since he is in charge of the prison it occured. Nope, just blame Clinton like she can have people killed at whim but some how wasn't able to win an election against Trump.

I didn't say Clinton killed him.
(But, it's easier to kill someone than it is to win a presidential election - especially if the person running thinks the popular vote decides the issue).

My point is that he needs to go ahead and testify so that the motive of preventing his testimony is moot.

 

[Dragon]

I didn't say Clinton killed him.
(But, it's easier to kill someone than it is to win a presidential election - especially if the person running thinks the popular vote decides the issue).

My point is that he needs to go ahead and testify so that the motive of preventing his testimony is moot.

No he does not. But whoever outed him (if it is him and not just guesswork) commited a crime and right now even if it isn't him,, he and his family still face real and serious threats from the Trump fanatics. Your logic that he should testify to prevent being harmed shows precisely this. Why should he fear for his life, for telling something that even Trump himself have admitted?

 

[RobF]

My point is that he needs to go ahead and testify so that the motive of preventing his testimony is moot.

It's already moot. The whistleblower's report has already been determined to be credible and substantiated by other witnesses. The identity, testimony, favourite colour, etc., of the whistleblower are all already redundant.