The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (3 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

 

[Ayo]

I have no issue with people thinking that the whistleblower, if these ties are valid, as being questionable. Biased. But it's also entirely possible for you to have a bias and also have a sincere concern for the country. That might well be the case here. All of this guessing at motive that means the whistleblower is some compromised source and therefore un-credible seems to be presumptuous. At best.

I think the case might be valid if nothing had been corroborated. But far too many people, credible and long-tenured patriots, have registered concerns that seem to legitimate the source.

I see people defending Trump - here and in the blogospheres and twitterverse - continually attacking this potential whistleblower because of ties.

But they don't really touch:

• Volker
• Yovanovitch
• Hill
• Kent
• McKinley
• Sondland
• Taylor
• Reeker
• Vindman
• Croft
• Anderson
• Morrison

There are more witnesses, too. But the point is, each of them raises questionable to grave concerns about how this entire thing has been handled. These are real, legitimate concerns, imo. And I don't really see anyone saying anything about these. I recall DD saying something like, "This happens with all Presidents" but that's a general, sweeping statement that tends to evade particulars when I've seen it employed.

So, we can sit here and parse the credibility of a person we don't know based on a few things we do know. But the concerns raised seem legitimate - in the eyes of people who know a heckuva lot more about this than any of us in this thread.

Therefore, I'm going to default to the dozen+ experts that have weighed in thus far that the whistleblower's concerns were not manufactured over the insistence of people here that we can judge a whistleblower by a thumbnail photograph on the internet.

 

[superchuck500]

The transcript of the call is there. It was released early on because it doesn’t indicate any crime. If everything is as easy as you put it, should be a slam dunk.

So surely you support the full release of the phone notes that the “partial transcript” was constructed from and the drafts that show the redactions and revisions to the released version? You know, the material that was stored on the “highly classified”, secure server on advice of White House counsel?

Transcripts prepared by the party in possession of the source material are inherently suspect when the source material isn’t provided.

 

[Nebaghead]

I would like to know if the whistleblower in fact posed with that sour looking bunch of folks on the day the POTUS was sworn in.

That isn't even the guy who you've been calling the whistleblower. Turns out the gentleman in this picture is David Edelman.

https://www.thedailybeast.com/trump...ower-they-were-wrong?source=email&via=desktop

 

[Nebaghead]

So surely you support the full release of the phone notes that the “partial transcript” was constructed from and the drafts that show the redactions and revisions to the released version? You know, the material that was stored on the “highly classified”, secure server on advice of White House counsel?

Transcripts prepared by the party in possession of the source material are inherently suspect when the source material isn’t provided.

Maybe the people who wrote the partial transcript should testify to what is missing or if they were coerced into changing the transcript per direction of the White House.

 

[Dragon]

This is why you don't spread unsubstantiated rumours on the net. It is irresponsible and you never know what maniac is going to use it as an excuse to harm someone....

And then the death threats started.
“There were people threatening real physical harm, alluding to the fact that I will not live very long,” Edelman said. “That was obviously upsetting for my family.”

I would like to know if the whistleblower in fact posed with that sour looking bunch of folks on the day the POTUS was sworn in.

 

[Lazybones]

So surely you support the full release of the phone notes that the “partial transcript” was constructed from and the drafts that show the redactions and revisions to the released version? You know, the material that was stored on the “highly classified”, secure server on advice of White House counsel?

Transcripts prepared by the party in possession of the source material are inherently suspect when the source material isn’t provided.

Yes

 

[Lazybones]

Maybe the people who wrote the partial transcript should testify to what is missing or if they were coerced into changing the transcript per direction of the White House.

Funny thing is that aside from this, there is no proof of anything.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Funny thing is that aside from this, there is no proof of anything.

Those people are involved and might very well know a lot that could shed more light on this. They should be publicly named and speculated about while we wait for them to testify to what they know and who they discussed (and possibly even coordinated) with regarding the final edit of the released transcript.

 

[Beach Friends]

This is why you don't spread unsubstantiated rumours on the net. It is irresponsible and you never know what maniac is going to use it as an excuse to harm someone....

Oh yeah, completely my fault for asking the question.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Oh yeah, completely my fault for asking the question.

It is your fault for just jumping at unsubstantiated rumors that impact someone not a part of this at all. You weren't just asking the question, you were publicly pushing a rumor without substantiation.

 

[Beach Friends]

It is your fault for just jumping at unsubstantiated rumors that impact someone not a part of this at all. You weren't just asking the question, you were publicly pushing a rumor without substantiation.

Hey, it's not my fault those two guys (along with half the other guys hanging out at Starbucks) look alike. I said he should be asked about that. Turns out that's not necessary. I am fine with that. There are certainly other questions.

 

[V Chip]

This is the part that falls flat to me. Multiple corroborating witnesses have been deposed, including at least one that was actually on the phone call. If the substance of the whistleblower complaint has been corroborated by named witnesses, what more can the whistleblower add?

A shiny object to distract from actual issues and give Trump supporters something to latch onto and scream about instead of actual facts and relevant issues.

 

[MT15]

You saw my retort. He is a compromised source. The media had been trying to protect him from day 1.

The current administration already released the transcript taking away any need for any whistle to be blown. The media and schiff never thought that would happen.

And if everything is so simple

1. Why be so secretive if everyone knew what was up (btw please link the slam dunk testimony everyone is referring to)
2. If the identity of the whistleblower is so important to be kept confidential, why did the people who “told” the whistleblower actually come forward? Why the middle mark?
3. I don’t care one way or the other. His record is out there and so is the presidents. I’m betting on trump.

just as an FYI, in the bolded you’re repeating a lie that Trump told that has been totally debunked. Trump says he released the “transcript that’s not a transcript” because Schiff stood in congress and told “lies” about the call. And that Schiff never expected him to do that. But the transcript had already been released by the time Schiff spoke about it. It’s just one more example of the way Trump doesn’t care if what he says is true or false.

The testimony is all public, look it up and read it for yourself. You don’t have to totally embody your user name you know.

Even the “transcript that’s not a transcript” shows the “ask” and links it to arms sales. So you keep saying the “transcript that’s not a transcript“ shows something that it does not show.

 

[MT15]

Funny thing is that aside from this, there is no proof of anything.

we actually have testimony from Lt. Col. Vindman, who was on the call, that the “transcript“ leaves out other mentions of Joe Biden specifically by Trump. He also testified that he went to someone (I forget who it was who has responsibility for the transcript) to add in the parts that were omitted, and he was unsuccessful in getting those omissions corrected.

 

[wardorican]

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!

Do you speak for the site?

 

[wardorican]

Hey, it's not my fault those two guys (along with half the other guys hanging out at Starbucks) look alike. I said he should be asked about that. Turns out that's not necessary. I am fine with that. There are certainly other questions.

You spelled, "I was wrong, sorry about that" incorrectly.

Is it that hard to admit a mistake?

One of my favorite scenes from the West Wing.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I would like to know if the whistleblower in fact posed with that sour looking bunch of folks on the day the POTUS was sworn in.

This image was inaccurate and misleading.

In light of that, I ask everyone to please identify the source of any image that they post, so that community members can research the accuracy and credibility of the image for themselves.

 

[Ayo]

This is why you don't spread unsubstantiated rumours on the net. It is irresponsible and you never know what maniac is going to use it as an excuse to harm someone....

In the impeachment testimony, Fiona Hill testified about being targeted by Alex Jones and Infowars and the GOP counsel allegedly laughed.

so Hill’s lawyer had the laughter entered into record.




Not a laughing matter. And not something, particularly in this day and age, we should be running around doing cavalierly.