The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (12 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]

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.

Gosh, seems a little petty honestly. Maybe I am being cynical this am as I scour college football lines.

 

[Ayo]

Gosh, seems a little petty honestly.

Laughing at someone who has received harrassment and threats from a group that includes known unstable, fringe lunatics seems more than merely petty, imo.

 

[Lazybones]

Laughing at someone who has received harrassment and threats from a group that includes known unstable, fringe lunatics seems more than merely petty, imo.

I don’t think anyone threatened her did they? Also I’m not aware of any physical attacks by info wars, though I may have missed it.

Ms hill is not a regular citizen. Being in the political spotlight brings this type of attention. I would akin it to be like Jussie smollett saying he was attacked by TMZ and the attorney laughing.

I may be off base and there may be details I am unaware. However, I stand by my initial assessment.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I don’t think anyone threatened her did they? Also I’m not aware of any physical attacks by info wars, though I may have missed it.

A number of Alex Jones followers have been arrested for persistent death threats, and 3 of them were arrested for planning an attack against the Muslim community in upstate New York. Another follower was arrested for threatening to burn down that same community (Jeff Sessions has commented on these followers as being a threat to America's right to freedom of worship).

 

[Lazybones]

A number of Alex Jones followers have been arrested for persistent death threats, and 3 of them were arrested for planning an attack against the Muslim community in upstate New York. Another follower was arrested for threatening to burn down that same community (Jeff Sessions has commented on these followers as being a threat to America's right to freedom of worship).

I don’t disagree with Jeff Sessions in that people like that are scum. Was Ms Hill threatened in this manner?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I don’t disagree with Jeff Sessions in that people like that are scum. Was Ms Hill threatened in this manner?

According to her sworn testimony, yes.

"My entire first year of my tenure at the National Security Council was filled with hateful calls, conspiracy theories, which has started again, frankly, as it's been announced that I've been giving this deposition," Hill said.

"I received, I just have to tell you, death threats, calls at my home," she added. Hill described her neighbors hearing someone hammering on her door, as well as someone calling her home to deride her with obscenities.

Ex-Trump Russia expert told lawmakers she’s gotten death threats

A former top Russia analyst for the White House told House lawmakers that she received death threats ahead of her testimony as part of the ongoing impeachment inquiry into President Trump.Fiona Hil…

thehill.com

 

[RobF]

According to her sworn testimony, yes.

I was about to say that (and note that was earlier in the testimony to the laughing incident).

But it should have been self-evident anyway. Who would seriously think hate-filled demagogues labeling people as traitors and part of antisemitic conspiracy theories wouldn't provoke abuse and death threats from their audience?

 

[Lazybones]

I was about to say that (and note that was earlier in the testimony to the laughing incident).

But it should have been self-evident anyway. Who would seriously think hate-filled demagogues labeling people as traitors and part of antisemitic conspiracy theories wouldn't provoke abuse and death threats from their audience?

I don’t think anyone will ever defend the fringes of either side the isle. If the guys was barreling laughing I would say it was a small issue. Him chuckling is not an news worthy.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I don’t think anyone will ever defend the fringes of either side the isle. If the guys was barreling laughing I would say it was a small issue. Him chuckling is not an news worthy.

You addressed a few points to me yesterday to which I replied and you might have missed. Here is the post:

The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun

By Laura BassettAfter 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...

madaboutpolitics.com

One of the questions you asked was this:

1. Why be so secretive if everyone knew what was up

The fact that people whose names are known have said they are receiving death threats is a good reason, don't you agree?

 

[Lazybones]

You addressed a few points to me yesterday to which I replied and you might have missed. Here is the post:

The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun

By Laura BassettAfter 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...

madaboutpolitics.com

One of the questions you asked was this:



The fact that people whose names are known have said they are receiving death threats is a good reason, don't you agree?

I’m not defending those actions. I am saying if you are playing in this arena, you know what you are signing up for.

As a caveat, if the threats are coming from the (501), i would suggest fleeing the country as soon as possible.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I’m not defending those actions. I am saying if you are playing in this arena, you know what you are signing up for.

As a caveat, if the threats are coming from the (501), i would suggest fleeing the country as soon as possible.

You are propagating the same baseless conspiracy theories that drive these people in the first place while simultaneously refusing to answer simple questions that were asked in an effort to further discussion.

I ask again: Do you agree that it is rational to want to keep your identity a secret if exposure means being subjected to death threats and harassment?

 

[bdb13]

I’m not defending those actions. I am saying if you are playing in this arena, you know what you are signing up for.

As a caveat, if the threats are coming from the (501), i would suggest fleeing the country as soon as possible.

I'm not so sure they should have counted on the President and other prominent Republicans being so openly willing to out the whistleblower and helping to incite the anger towards him to this degree.

Maybe they should have seen it or did, but I think it's kind of one of those things that's hard to imagine and anticipate going down like this before the situation actually occurs.

 

[Dragon]

I’m not defending those actions. I am saying if you are playing in this arena, you know what you are signing up for.

As a caveat, if the threats are coming from the (501), i would suggest fleeing the country as soon as possible.

So if you fulfill your obligations to report possible abuse you say that people sign up for death threats?
And the same should be the case if people agree to testify when called before a house comittee?

And you feel that it is ok that a person elected to uphold and defend the constitution laugh when a witness testify about threats ?

 

[Lazybones]

I'm not so sure they should have counted on the President and other prominent Republicans being so openly willing to out the whistleblower and helping to incite the anger towards him to this degree.

Maybe they should have seen it or did, but I think it's kind of one of those things that's hard to imagine and anticipate going down like this before the situation actually occurs.

in today’s environment, I would disagree with you.

 

[Lazybones]

So if you fulfill your obligations to report possible abuse you say that people sign up for death threats?
And the same should be the case if people agree to testify when called before a house comittee?

And you feel that it is ok that a person elected to uphold and defend the constitution laugh when a witness testify about threats ?

the leaps of logic some of you take are a little funny. My post speak for my position. Asked and answered.

 

[Lazybones]

With all the eyebrow emojis this am, I think I’m going to the barber. I hope some of you have a better day. It’s depressing when you get your day going with negativity. Go outside and enjoy a day on this great earth.

 

[Beach Friends]

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.

You want me to apologize for not knowing the answer to my own question?

Anywho, maybe I should phrase any such apology the same way that folks did after erroneously claiming that DJT said that white supremacists were very fine people. Or, maybe the way the apologies rolled out after lampooning the Covington kids.

How did they go again?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

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.

How is the whistleblower a compromised source? Was the transcript released by the White House 100% accurate? How can the whistleblower's record be "out there" when nobody has confirmed their identity? Why does it matter that the whistleblower chose to remain unidentified?

You are making outright claims, so these are pretty basic questions that you should be able to answer.
As for damning testimony and statements:

Rudy Giulani admits it was all for Trump's personal gain:

Giuliani: Ukraine quid pro quo intended to benefit Trump personally - Washington Examiner

After the White House released the transcript of the July 25 call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump had a defense. He could argue that his mention of the $400 million aid package for Ukraine, and his suggestion that Ukraine investigate Joe and Hunter Biden...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

Alexander Vindman was on the call when Trump sought a public announcement specifically into Burisma:

White House official says Trump made a quid pro quo “demand” of Ukraine’s president

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman’s full testimony to the House Democrat-led impeachment inquiry is bad news for Trump.

www.vox.com

Gordon Sondland says that he was aware that the congressionally approved military aid was now being tied to an announcement from Preseident Zelensky:

Gordon Sondland Revises Impeachment Testimony to Acknowledge Ukraine Quid Pro Quo

The new statement makes key updates to his earlier testimony from last month

time.com

By all accounts these two posts succesfully counter the assertions about the justification for unmasking the whistleblower or asserting his supposed lack of credibility, and yet they are being avoided by those articulating that position.

From my position this side discussion is spinning it’s wheels unless someone can articulate a counterpoint that successfully addresses these two posts in there entirety.

The only point I would add is that we have a whistleblower system for a reason. And maybe some need to be challenged to argue the case on first principles, because it’s not like this program appeared out of the dust without a purpose. It’s not like we haven’t spent 200 years refining and improving upon whistleblower statutes and protections under bi-partisan consensus. You protect whistleblowers because they can act as safeguards within the shadows of government and the private sector from malfeasance, corruption, and harm. Without whistleblowers Nixon goes unpunished, without whistleblowers big tobacco largely skates free for another several decades, without whistleblowers thousands die prematurely in rural cities across the country because of violations of numerous health and environmental practices. A history going right back to our founding era, where whistleblowers were thrown in jail illegally for outing a Naval officer for torturing British POW’s and Congress had to step in and then codified the earliest laws. If people want to argue in favor of chilling whistleblowers by way of unmasking them after they follow all procedures under the law, while excusing death threats as par for the course, encouraging reckless disclosures like Snowden, risking major malfeasance like Big tobacco or criminality like Nixon going unchecked, they need to be making a far more compelling case than is currently on offer.