The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (1 Viewer)

[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]

I apologize if LB didn’t mean the research comment as snark. And I appreciated that Ayo didn’t complain, just provided further information.

I think my comment about applying what we want to see in others to our own postings still applies, though. If LB had just questioned the source rather than making a blanket statement that it was “propaganda” I think it would be less confrontational.

I am making a conscious effort to post less often and only after careful consideration of the point I am trying to make. Clearly I should have waited this time.

I do hope LB makes it back to this thread and considers the effort Ayo went through to back up his point.

I read it as soon as he posted it. And I think I upvoted the post

 

[Lazybones]

And what do you think the transcript provided shows?

the transcript speaks for itself. Is there something particular you are looking for me to say?

 

[wardorican]

According to her sworn testimony, yes.

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

Sounds like she needs the MCU Maria Hill to watch her back.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I get duped from time to time. Like everyone else. But I do try and take care to back up what I say or have the resources at my disposal to at least demonstrate how I arrived at an opinion. I agree that the edited piece can seem problematic, and I didn't vet each and every reference. I did, however, read one of them - found at the link - before I posted it.

I never mind someone asking me for a source or documentation or whatever.

And, fwiw, I did not take Lazy's comment about "research capabilities" as a shot or insult. I think LB genuinely knows that I can and will do research.

I actually took it more complimentary. And I thought his request for more information to be totally reasonable.

I'd like to think that's more or less the standard, generally, around here.

I've got no problem with someone asking for a citation or more information to support a claim. I was more referring to the fact that LB said it was a hit piece, then steadfastly ignored any subsequent clarification. It seems to be a pattern.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Sounds like she needs the MCU Maria Hill to watch her back.

Resisting the terrible joke... but she can watch my back any time.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

It’s not looking like this is going to be a Manafort situation with Parnas...

And this is potentially rather consequential because Parnas and Fruman have had a symbiotic relationship with Giuliani, first using him as their lawyer/representative in a manner that may expose him to legal jeopardy(though FARA is notoriously hard to prosecute, but if Parnas has flipped and is trying to save his skin, admitting he was working on behalf of any Ukrainian official through Rudy, and has any receipts, it would be hard for Rudy to avoid the charge, still, that result seems unlikely due to the burden of proof threshold, but we’ll see), then reversing the roles and acting as the goons/proxy for Giuliani to dig up dirt on the Biden’s in Ukraine. And they have been with Rudy at the hip, even going to HW Bush’s funeral with him. There might not be a person that knows more about Rudy’s political actions in recent years than Parnas.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

This is also a good reason why the Democrats need to slow the heck down and not try and cast such a small net. The additional improper cover up of calls to Saudi Arabia right before our decision to basically back the Saudi’s on Khashogi’s murder, along with Putin, and now this revelation, should be enough to make it obvious that investigations should be looking into the Ukraine call as likely part of a larger strategy of improper governance and using the office of the presidency in exchange for personal political favors from foreign heads of state.

As it’s pretty hard to come up with a workable alternative hypothesis for why Parnas would be floating that sort of quid pro quo at the same time he and Igor were working with Giuliani trying to dig up dirt on the Biden’s/Democrats and trying to discredit the Mueller investigation, while in his words, working as Trump’s personal lawyer looking out for his personal interests. If not because Parnas understood it to be an exchange willing to be made whole if agreed to.

 

[superchuck500]

Nikki going all in. It's a bold strategy Cotton.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[Lazybones]

what is the timeline on the aId getting released? Did the Ukraine make said deceleration and then the money got sent? Or did the money accidentally get sent without an omission?

my confusion is if there was a quid pro quo, what happened to it?

I do for you, if you do for me.

Or

You don’t really have to do for me and I will still do for you.

 

[superchuck500]

what is the timeline on the aId getting released? Did the Ukraine make said deceleration and then the money got sent? Or did the money accidentally get sent without an omission?

my confusion is if there was a quid pro quo, what happened to it?

I do for you, if you do for me.

Or

You don’t really have to do for me and I will still do for you.

The aid was released in September after substantial pressure by a host of White House aids and others including Senator Ron Johnson who spoke to the president by phone on August 31. Trump has also stated that Senator Rob Portman also impressed upon him the need to release the package. According to reports, by September 11, all of the aid had been released.

The primary motivation appears to have been the conclusion by counsel at the State Department and possibly also the White House that the president lacked legal authority to withhold the congressionally-approved aid beyond its year of appropriation, Fiscal Year 2019 - which was set to expire on September 30.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-freed-ukraine-money-before-trump-says-he-did via @bpolitics

GOP senator: Trump advisers had to 'convince' Trump to release Ukraine aid

Most of Trump's "advisers wanted the military aid released," Ron Johnson said, adding that they tried to find any way to "convince" him to do so.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[Lazybones]

The aid was released in September after substantial pressure by a host of White House aids and others including Senator Ron Johnson who spoke to the president by phone on August 31. Trump has also stated that Senator Rob Portman also impressed upon him the need to release the package. According to reports, by September 11, all of the aid had been released.

The primary motivation appears to have been the conclusion by counsel at the State Department and possibly also the White House that the president lacked legal authority to withhold the congressionally-approved aid beyond its year of appropriation, Fiscal Year 2019 - which was set to expire on September 30.


https://www.bloomberg.com/news/arti...-freed-ukraine-money-before-trump-says-he-did via @bpolitics

GOP senator: Trump advisers had to 'convince' Trump to release Ukraine aid

Most of Trump's "advisers wanted the military aid released," Ron Johnson said, adding that they tried to find any way to "convince" him to do so.

www.nbcnews.com

thanks chuck. as a legal question (I’m not advocating anything, I’m just asking)

is it illegal to ask for a quid pro quo or does it have to play out?

I do find it interesting that the press and many here leave out the message in this closing paragraph.

Well again, that's their impression," Johnson said. "I've never heard the president say, 'I want to dig up dirt on a potential 2020 opponent.' What I've always heard the president consistently concerned about is: 'What happened in 2016? How did this false narrative with Russian collusion with my campaign occur? Why was I strapped with the special counsel?' It's a very human desire."

 

[superchuck500]

thanks chuck. as a legal question (I’m not advocating anything, I’m just asking)

is it illegal to ask for a quid pro quo or does it have to play out?

I do find it interesting that the press and many here leave out the message in this closing paragraph.

Well again, that's their impression," Johnson said. "I've never heard the president say, 'I want to dig up dirt on a potential 2020 opponent.' What I've always heard the president consistently concerned about is: 'What happened in 2016? How did this false narrative with Russian collusion with my campaign occur? Why was I strapped with the special counsel?' It's a very human desire."

So keeping in mind that impeachable offenses don't have to be co-extensive with crimes - but I think as a matter of law and underlying policy, the improper quid pro quo doesn't have to actually happen. The demand is sufficient to trigger coverage under the criminal statute.

For example, under the federal corruption/bribery statute, 18 USC Sec. 201(b)(2), the relevant elements here are:

- Public official
- Corruptly
- Demands, seeks, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept
- Anything of value personally
- In return for influence in the performance of an official act

18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses

www.law.cornell.edu

 

[Lazybones]

So keeping in mind that impeachable offenses don't have to be co-extensive with crimes - but I think as a matter of law and underlying policy, the improper quid pro quo doesn't have to actually happen. The demand is sufficient to trigger coverage under the criminal statute.

For example, under the federal corruption/bribery statute, 18 USC Sec. 201(b)(2), the relevant elements here are:

- Public official
- Corruptly
- Demands, seeks, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept
- Anything of value personally
- In return for influence in the performance of an official act

18 U.S. Code § 201 - Bribery of public officials and witnesses

www.law.cornell.edu

If I had to read stuff like that everyday I would shoot my self. I see why you said “I think”.

 

[superchuck500]

If I had to read stuff like that everyday I would shoot my self. I see why you said “I think”.

It's actually clear - the demand is enough. "I think" is just me being colloquial.

 

[Dadsdream]

So, now we have a whistle blower complaint against the whistleblower!
And, of course, it involves an entity headquartered in New Orleans.

Read: Complaint to ICIG regarding Ukraine whistleblower

Complaint to ICIG regarding Ukraine whistleblower

www.foxnews.com

ICIG complaint alleges Trump-Ukraine whistleblower may be soliciting illicit donations

EXCLUSIVE: A newly filed complaint to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) alleges that the whistleblower whose allegations touched off the House Democrats' impeachment inquiry may have violated federal law by indirectly soliciting more than a quarter-million dollars from mostly...

www.foxnews.com

 

[Lazybones]

So, now we have a whistle blower complaint against the whistleblower!
And, of course, it involves an entity headquartered in New Orleans.

Read: Complaint to ICIG regarding Ukraine whistleblower

Complaint to ICIG regarding Ukraine whistleblower

www.foxnews.com

ICIG complaint alleges Trump-Ukraine whistleblower may be soliciting illicit donations

EXCLUSIVE: A newly filed complaint to the Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) alleges that the whistleblower whose allegations touched off the House Democrats' impeachment inquiry may have violated federal law by indirectly soliciting more than a quarter-million dollars from mostly...

www.foxnews.com

sounds like a move by his attorney

 

[SystemShock]

Nikki going all in. It's a bold strategy Cotton.

What a letdown and a sellout she turned out to be.