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

 

[N.O.Bronco]

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?

whataboutism

NOUN
British

• The technique or practice of responding to an accusation or difficult question by making a counter-accusation or raising a different issue.
  ‘the parliamentary hearing appeared to be an exercise in whataboutism’
  Also called whataboutery

 

[Ayo]

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.

Mike Pence agreed (past tense) with you

 

[Ayo]

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.

if you don't think it's newsworthy, that's fine. The lawyer thought enough of it to have it recorded. I wasn't in the room and the counselor said it was a "mischaracterization" and maybe it was. I've no idea.

The reason I included it is because I think it's related to the topic we were discussing in a couple of ways. First, I think - if it happened, even a "chuckle" demonstrates a callousness that doesn't belong before a judge from a defense counselor when we're talking about these sorts of threats. But I'm also open to having a lawyer tell me this sort of thing is common enough.

Even more to the point, I think it relates to the real risks faced by people who put themselves in these positions. You acknowledge it yourself. And by coming forward, they are facing these sorts of threats - that's not something to be taken lightly. And, here on these boards I think it's irresponsible to be so casual about it. I mean, the fact that the wrong person was identified outside this site - and perpetuated here - is illustrative of why this is, as I wrote, not really a laughing matter.

 

[Lazybones]

Mike Pence agreed (past tense) with you

If that doesn’t look like a severely edited hit piece, I’ve never scene one. I’m sure with your research capabilities you can pull the transcript of the speech and not use propaganda to make a valid point.

 

[Ayo]

I’m sure with your research capabilities you can pull the transcript of the speech and not use propaganda to make a valid point.

speeches. Plural.

 

[Lazybones]

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

I’m curious as to why La-la and DJ gave snide faces to this post. I’m not whining, because I really don’t care.
This is merely an observation. This was a normal conversation that I agreed with the poster and asked a follow up question that I did not know the answer to.

these actions, I’m my opinion, make a normal conversation confrontational. I’m not sure why some of you can’t resist to fight with anyone or anything that you don’t agree with.

 

[Ayo]

I’m sure with your research capabilities you can pull the transcript

here's one:

It's from the Reporters' Privilege Legislation: Issues and Implications, which was a Hearing Before the Committe on the Judiciary of the US Senate from 2005.

You can read Pence's remarks from pgs. 8-10 and pgs. 138-142. The quote from the edited excerpts above are on page 9.

Protecting whistleblower's and reporters from having to reveal sources is fundamentally "about protecting the public's right to know" - in his words

 

[bdb13]

I’m curious as to why La-la and DJ gave snide faces to this post. I’m not whining, because I really don’t care.
This is merely an observation. This was a normal conversation that I agreed with the poster and asked a follow up question that I did not know the answer to.

these actions, I’m my opinion, make a normal conversation confrontational. I’m not sure why some of you can’t resist to fight with anyone or anything that you don’t agree with.

I don't think they took your question at face value. Are you wanting someone to provide evidence beyond her claim that she has been targeted by Alex Jones and his supporters?

 

[Lazybones]

I don't think they took your question at face value. Are you wanting someone to provide evidence beyond her claim that she has been targeted by Alex Jones and his supporters?

the following posters answered the question and I condemned their activity. I’m just saying if the intent is to create conversation, that isn’t the way to do it.

I’m a pretty genuine poster. If someone has a question, ask it. Anyway rant over.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

the following posters answered the question and I condoned their activity. I’m just saying if the intent is to create conversation, that isn’t the way to do it.

I’m a pretty genuine poster. If someone has a question, ask it. Anyway rant over.

I think the reason people are taking issue is because when you asked if Hill had been threatened or harassed, you were quoting a post that stated as much. It came across as though you were questioning her assertions.

Also, I think I am missing something here. Whose behavior did you condone?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I’m curious as to why La-la and DJ gave snide faces to this post. I’m not whining, because I really don’t care.
This is merely an observation. This was a normal conversation that I agreed with the poster and asked a follow up question that I did not know the answer to.

these actions, I’m my opinion, make a normal conversation confrontational. I’m not sure why some of you can’t resist to fight with anyone or anything that you don’t agree with.

Because the question, at best, is disingenuous. The insinuations by Jones and his ilk, has led to attacks such as the pizzeria attack. These guys know who their listeners are and how they will react to their ramblings. IMO, they are culpable in any threats or attacks on Hill or anyone else they targeted.

 

[Lazybones]

I think the reason people are taking issue is because when you asked if Hill had been threatened or harassed, you were quoting a post that stated as much. It came across as though you were questioning her assertions.

Also, I think I am missing something here. Whose behavior did you condone?

Lol condemn. I obviously didn’t see it in the quoted caption. But again, it’s not a way to foster conversation. When we get new people coming here, if we want it to work, we must resist the urge to poke.

 

[Lazybones]

Because the question, at best, is disingenuous. The insinuations by Jones and his ilk, has led to attacks such as the pizzeria attack. These guys know who their listeners are and how they will react to their ramblings. IMO, they are culpable in any threats or attacks on Hill or anyone else they targeted.

again, instead of picking a fight with me, just ask a question. None of what you posted has anything to do with me. You sound angry at me for something some scumbags did.

 

[Lazybones]

if you don't think it's newsworthy, that's fine. The lawyer thought enough of it to have it recorded. I wasn't in the room and the counselor said it was a "mischaracterization" and maybe it was. I've no idea.

The reason I included it is because I think it's related to the topic we were discussing in a couple of ways. First, I think - if it happened, even a "chuckle" demonstrates a callousness that doesn't belong before a judge from a defense counselor when we're talking about these sorts of threats. But I'm also open to having a lawyer tell me this sort of thing is common enough.

Even more to the point, I think it relates to the real risks faced by people who put themselves in these positions. You acknowledge it yourself. And by coming forward, they are facing these sorts of threats - that's not something to be taken lightly. And, here on these boards I think it's irresponsible to be so casual about it. I mean, the fact that the wrong person was identified outside this site - and perpetuated here - is illustrative of why this is, as I wrote, not really a laughing matter.

that’s cool.

In the scheme of things it’s a freaking chuckle. This is an example of what I referenced the other day as “liberal cause of the day.”

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Lol condemn. I obviously didn’t see it in the quoted caption. But again, it’s not a way to foster conversation. When we get new people coming here, if we want it to work, we must resist the urge to poke.

I think that replying without actually reading or processing the post to which you reply is the problem. Even if we take you at your word, you are telling us that you reply to things without really reading them. That does not do anything to foster intelligent discussion.

I also completely disagree with your claim that you condemned those that harass and threaten. This is what you said:

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 blamed the victims, then propagated the same conspiracy theories that lead to the harassment and threats in the first place.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

again, instead of picking a fight with me, just ask a question. None of what you posted has anything to do with me. You sound angry at me for something some scumbags did.

Angry with you??? All I said about you was that your question was disingenuous at best. However, you are right about one thing, nothing I posted had anything to do with you.

 

[Lazybones]

I think that replying without actually reading or processing the post to which you reply is the problem. Even if we take you at your word, you are telling us that you reply to things without really reading them. That does not do anything to foster intelligent discussion.

I also completely disagree with your claim that you condemned those that harass and threaten. This is what you said:



You blamed the victims, then propagated the same conspiracy theories that lead to the harassment and threats in the first place.

did you actually go back and look at the post I quoted? It’s a twitter link and that twitter link doesn’t have the info I asked about.

I would appreciate the apology and more consideration next time.

 

[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.

So where in this post does it talk about death threats?