The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (8 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

 

[Nebaghead]

mate we supposed to cover our eyes and pretend it isn’t there? I understand his web footprint has been being cleaned up for months, but the general public isn’t oblivious.
I don’t understand why the angst of keeping only 1 name of all the people involved in this quiet. It just stinks.

You guys were posting photos the other day of the whistle blower that were proven false. Until it’s confirmed from legit news sources it isn’t a fact.

 

[BobE]

You guys were posting photos the other day of the whistle blower that were proven false. Until it’s confirmed from legit news sources it isn’t a fact.

1 person and it was damn near questioned immediately. But we're too trust the media that lies and hides shirt from us?

 

[superchuck500]

Here is a Politico article, expressing the opinion that the NY Times was correct in unmasking the "whistleblower":

Opinion | The New York Times Was Right to Unmask the Whistleblower

Journalists are supposed to report the news, not suppress it.

www.politico.com

And, the article from RealClear Investigations discussing the identity of the "whistleblower":

The Beltway's 'Whistleblower' Furor Obsesses Over One Name

By Paul Sperry, RealClearInvestigationsOctober 30, 2019, 4:21 PM Eastern For a town that leaks like a sieve, Washington has done an astonishingly effective job keeping from the American public the nam

www.realclearinvestigations.com

And, an article from today discussing Schiff's claim that he doesn't know the identity of the whistleblower:

Adam Schiff to Jim Jordan: ‘I do not know the identity of the whistleblower’ - Washington Examiner

California Democratic Rep. Adam Schiff claimed he doesn't know the whistleblower’s identity, despite his staff having met with him or her prior to submitting the complaint.During the first round of public testimony, Republican Ohio Rep. Jim Jordan pressed Schiff to disclose information about the...

www.washingtonexaminer.com

I actually don't see why media has a supposed legal obligation to not report the identity of the whistleblower - that's clearly not the case. But I think the media believes that if the identity is reported, that person will be subject to threat of personal harm or death. So it's an ethical thing I suppose. But I can easily see how a reporter could conclude that his/her job is reporting and can't presume people will do bad things.

The article about Schiff doesn't claim he knows the whistleblower's name. It says that his staff do but if Schiff is as clever as his critics are claiming, he could easily make it his office's policy that the person's name will not be discussed. That's plausible. Equally or more plausible than the idea that he's just casually lying on the record about something that is easily disproven.

 

[Nebaghead]

1 person and it was damn near questioned immediately. But we're too trust the media that lies and hides shirt from us?

Because memes off the internet and conspiracy web sites are better sources.

 

[SaintForLife]

Not that I expect Enjeti to treat the testimony any other way, but that particular tweet seems to disregard some very important information about the balance of the agreement. It's a deliberate attempt to re-frame the discussion in such a way that ignores a very central, crucial issue at the heart of the inquiry is how and why the aid was leveraged in the first place. The question isn't the legitimacy of the aid (despite the insistence on the corruption angle, which is really toothless at this point - even by GOP standards and concessions), really, but rather holding the aid hostage (which we learn later he was not legally able to do and something the second part of his tweet even gets at, though I suppose that's lost on Enjeti) in return for the public declaration of an investigation into a political opponent.

I think it's quite obvious that Trump was leveraging the aide to Ukraine investigating their interference in our 2016 election and the Biden's as well. The question comes down to is that an impeachable offense.

Don't you think that previous President's have used aid as leverage on an issue that would benefit them politically? I'm guessing that goes on quite often behind closed doors. If there were as many leaks and transcripts out about the previous presidents that we would see that although probably not has haphazardly as Trump.

Do you share the same concern about Obama investigating his party's opponent during a presidential campaign and the political advantage it gave Clinton/Democrats as your concern about the Ukraine isssue?

Do you have a problem with the DNC soliciting help from Ukraine to help Hillary and harm Trump during the 2016? The Ukrainians released information that Manafort was under investigation only to retract it after the election. Although the difference is Trump/DNC, that sure sounds familiar with what Trump was trying to do. Were the DNC's actions okay or business as usual?

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.

www.politico.com

Manafort Ledger Leak Broke Law, Meddled in Election: Court

A court ruled that the officials broke the law by leaking the ledger, which revealed $12.7M in payments between Ukraine’s ousted president and the ex-Trump campaign chairman.

www.thedailybeast.com

 

[superchuck500]

Cross examination is a powerful tool to get to the truth.

Of what? it doesn't matter (for impeachment) if the whistleblower made everything up and happened to guess right.

What matters is what the people testifying are saying.

I agree - the truth of what?

This whole episode didn't "start" with the whistleblower. Kent testified that he began memo'ing his file in early August. There is other testimony that concerns were brought to the DNI's counsel about it. And I believe that Vindman said concerns were brought to the NSC counsel about it.

It's obvious that a number of personnel and officials were concerned about what was an emerging effort by Trump to make the investigation announcement formal US policy by conditioning aid and a state visit upon Zelensky's agreement. All the whistleblower did was file a formal complaint with the DNI-IG that had a statutory context that required notification to Congress.

Trump's defenders cannot decry the whistleblower for six weeks as being unreliable hearsay and inadmissible junk information - and now turn around and claim the whistleblower is a material witness.

 

[superchuck500]

I think it's quite obvious that Trump was leveraging the aide to Ukraine investigating their interference in our 2016 election and the Biden's as well. The question comes down to is that an impeachable offense.

Don't you think that previous President's have used aid as leverage on an issue that would benefit them politically? I'm guessing that goes on quite often behind closed doors. If there were as many leaks and transcripts out about the previous presidents that we would see that although probably not has haphazardly as Trump.

Do you share the same concern about Obama investigating his party's opponent during a presidential campaign and the political advantage it gave Clinton/Democrats as your concern about the Ukraine isssue?

Do you have a problem with the DNC soliciting help from Ukraine to help Hillary and harm Trump during the 2016? The Ukrainians released information that Manafort was under investigation only to retract it after the election. Although the difference is Trump/DNC, that sure sounds familiar with what Trump was trying to do. Were the DNC's actions okay or business as usual?

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.

www.politico.com

Manafort Ledger Leak Broke Law, Meddled in Election: Court

A court ruled that the officials broke the law by leaking the ledger, which revealed $12.7M in payments between Ukraine’s ousted president and the ex-Trump campaign chairman.

www.thedailybeast.com

The issues raised by your question of whether its okay for the DNC to try to enlist foreign assistance are concerns about foreign involvement in US elections. While some of those concerns apply to Trump/Zelensky, a massive difference is that the DNC is a political organization - it is supposed to operate based solely on its political objectives (in accordance with law of course).

Trump attempted to subjugate official US foreign policy vis-a-vis a foreign country by conditioning $400 million of congressionally approved aid needed in furtherance of well-established US assistance policy. He deferred to his personal attorney over official staff. And his personal/political interest was not aligned with US interests but in substantial divergence from them.

The question about the DNC doesn't implicate the President of the United States doing those things from the White House under the auspices of official US policy and with hundreds of millions of federal dollars.

 

[bdb13]

The issues raised by your question of whether its okay for the DNC to try to enlist foreign assistance are concerns about foreign involvement in US elections. While some of those concerns apply to Trump/Zelensky, a massive difference is that the DNC is a political organization - it is supposed to operate based solely on its political objectives (in accordance with law of course).

Trump attempted to subjugate official US foreign policy vis-a-vis a foreign country by conditioning $400 million of congressionally approved aid needed in furtherance of well-established US assistance policy. He deferred to his personal attorney over official staff. And his personal/political interest was not aligned with US interests but in substantial divergence from them.

The question about the DNC doesn't implicate the President of the United States doing those things from the White House under the auspices of official US policy and with hundreds of millions of federal dollars.

And if Obama had conducted the investigation of Trump in this way it would not have been OK, and I would certainly be Ok if the justice department had cause and deemed it necessary to investigate the Bidens, regardless of Joe Biden's status as a candidate.

 

[First Time Poster]

I agree - the truth of what?

This whole episode didn't "start" with the whistleblower. Kent testified that he began memo'ing his file in early August. There is other testimony that concerns were brought to the DNI's counsel about it. And I believe that Vindman said concerns were brought to the NSC counsel about it.

It's obvious that a number of personnel and officials were concerned about what was an emerging effort by Trump to make the investigation announcement formal US policy by conditioning aid and a state visit upon Zelensky's agreement. All the whistleblower did was file a formal complaint with the DNI-IG that had a statutory context that required notification to Congress.

Trump's defenders cannot decry the whistleblower for six weeks as being unreliable hearsay and inadmissible junk information - and now turn around and claim the whistleblower is a material witness.

That whole line of inquiry is a parlor game at this point. If a whistle blower went to the NBPA and said the Pelicans bribed and/or extorted the NBA into getting the first pick in the draft and afterwards, a transcript of a phone call between Gayle Benson and Adam Silver, sworn testimony from Mickey Loomis, David Griffin and Mark Tatum along with subordinates corroborates what the whistle blower notified the Player's Association of, then it becomes irrelevant that the WB is Anthony Davis. Especially if AD followed the bylaws of reporting such an offense.

Anthony Davis' motives, intentions, connections or feelings are irrelevant if the information provided has been corroborated by persons directly connected to the act.

 

[superchuck500]

And if Obama had conducted the investigation of Trump in this way it would not have been OK, and I would certainly be Ok if the justice department had cause and deemed it necessary to investigate the Bidens, regardless of Joe Biden's status as a candidate.

I don't know enough about Hunter Biden and Burisma to have a strong opinion - but if he was doing shady stuff, the Justice Department is more than capable of investigating and prosecuting him. Go for it.

I do know that the history on the Zlochevsky/Shokin/Biden deal makes it pretty clear that Shokin's removal was official US policy, official UK policy, and a demand by the IMF and the G7 . . . and primarily because Shokin wasn't meeting the international (principally the UK) expectations for challenging corruption in Ukraine and principally Zlochevsky's money laundering operation that had the UK all in a tizzy. Zlochevsky owned Burisma - if Biden was actually pressuring Ukraine for Shokin's removal to insulate Hunter Biden from a Burisma investigation while at the same time carrying out official US policy consistent with UK and IMF policy that Shokin be removed so that Ukraine actually would investigate Zlochevsky (and likely Burisma) . . . well that's just absolutely brilliant and bully for him. Of course that doesn't make any sense - but that never stopped Trump before.

 

[Beach Friends]

I agree - the truth of what?

That's pretty easy actually.

How many times today did you hear the witnesses preface their testimony with, "I understood," "I learned", "I heard", or other similar phrases that I know sent alarms to you that would have had you on the edge of your seat ready to object on the grounds of hearsay if you were in a courtroom.

So, we know that a lot of these witnesses are basing their testimony on the impressions of others. We also know that, necessarily, one or more of these people were speaking with was the whistleblower.

To what extent did the whistleblower actually shape the opinions of others? How many conversations did he have? Was the concerns of the testifying witnesses influenced by the whistleblower and perhaps others who were guiding the whistleblower?

I don't think the Democrats can have it both ways. They can't go outside of the "transcript," rely on hearsay evidence, elicit opinion testimony and then turn around and say the President/GOP can not explore all of the potential sources of influence.

Furthermore, and I don't see how you can disagree with this, it was absolutely ridiculous that Vindman could testify that he spoke with people after the telephone call and then have Schiff prohibit inquiry as to the identity of those people he spoke with on the grounds that one of those people may have been the whistleblower. That's absurd.

Those people are witnesses. Were Vindman's prior statements, made immediately after the call, with his current testimony? Did one of these unnamed confidants influence his understanding of the call?

These are all reasonable lines of inquiry. Moreover, I feel certain that you have gone into areas on cross examination that your opponent did not really see coming but gutted that opponent's witness. Each side needs to be able to put on it's own case.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

That whole line of inquiry is a parlor game at this point. If a whistle blower went to the NBPA and said the Pelicans bribed and/or extorted the NBA into getting the first pick in the draft and afterwards, a transcript of a phone call between Gayle Benson and Adam Silver, sworn testimony from Mickey Loomis, David Griffin and Mark Tatum along with subordinates corroborates what the whistle blower notified the Player's Association of, then it becomes irrelevant that the WB is Anthony Davis. Especially if AD followed the bylaws of reporting such an offense.

Anthony Davis' motives, intentions, connections or feelings are irrelevant if the information provided has been corroborated by persons directly connected to the act.

Couldn’t of put it better.

Which then raises the additional question of why this line of attack is being pursued? Several pages now and no one advocating this unmasking has articulated what is meant to be gained? Discrediting then whistleblower doesn’t discredit the evidence while also failing to answer for why a whistleblower that was cleared by all checks in the process should be outed and risk wide scale chilling effect in future whistleblower cases?

 

[superchuck500]

That's pretty easy actually.

How many times today did you hear the witnesses preface their testimony with, "I understood," "I learned", "I heard", or other similar phrases that I know sent alarms to you that would have had you on the edge of your seat ready to object on the grounds of hearsay if you were in a courtroom.

So, we know that a lot of these witnesses are basing their testimony on the impressions of others. We also know that, necessarily, one of the people that one of the people that one or more of these people were speaking with was the whistleblower.

To what extent did the whistleblower actually shape the opinions of others? How many conversations did he have? Was the concerns of the testifying witnesses influenced by the whistleblower and perhaps others who were guiding the whistleblower?

I don't think the Democrats can have it both ways. They can't go outside of the "transcript," rely on hearsay evidence, elicit opinion testimony and then turn around and say the President/GOP can not explore all of the potential sources of influence.

Furthermore, and I don't see how you can disagree with this, it was absolutely ridiculous that Vindman could testify that he spoke with people after the telephone call and then have Schiff prohibit inquiry as to the identity of those people he spoke with on the grounds that one of those people may have been the whistleblower. That's absurd.

Those people are witnesses. Were Vindman's prior statements, made immediately after the call, with his current testimony? Did one of these unnamed confidants influence his understanding of the call?

These are all reasonable lines of inquiry. Moreover, I feel certain that you have gone into areas on cross examination that your opponent did not really see coming but gutted that opponent's witness. Each side needs to be able to put on it's own case.

That's what cross examination is for. Ask the witness where "I understood" came from. Ask the witness who he "heard" it from. You don't go get some other witness, for whom there's no material basis at this point, and ask him "are you the person that they were referring to?" That's nonsense. The Republicans on the committee have time, they have counsel. Ask the right questions of the witnesses you have.

I do agree with you that if Schiff closed down testimony about a call on the basis that the call might have been with the whistleblower, that's silly. I don't know if that happened, but I would agree with you. That doesn't, however, make the whistleblower a material or even meaningful witness.

Establish a foundation for the whistleblower to have material testimony - then you'll have an argument. Right now, you're coming at it from the wrong side.

Also, everyone has to remember this isn't the trial phase. That happens in the Senate. And the Republicans will have far more clout there.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

That's what cross examination is for. Ask the witness where "I understood" came from. Ask the witness who he "heard" it from. You don't go get some other witness, for whom there's no material basis at this point, and ask him "are you the person that they were referring to?" That's nonsense. The Republicans on the committee have time, they have counsel. Ask the right questions of the witnesses you have.

I do agree with you that if Schiff closed down testimony about a call on the basis that the call might have been with the whistleblower, that's silly. I don't know if that happened, but I would agree with you. That doesn't, however, make the whistleblower a material or even meaningful witness.

Establish a foundation for the whistleblower to have material testimony - then you'll have an argument. Right now, you're coming at it from the wrong side.

Also, everyone has to remember this isn't the trial phase. That happens in the Senate. And the Republicans will have far more clout there.

I think this is why the whole drive to find out who the whistleblower is a sham meant to rile up the base. They have the actual witnesses in front of them. If they're concerned that there is some mastermind that sort of led them to believe that something shady was going on when they initially didn't have those concerns, the Republicans could have easily cross-examined those witnesses. "When did you first come to the belief that the President was holding up foreign aid in exchange for helping him politically?" "What led you to that belief?" And so on. If there was someone feeding them that info, that will come out in testimony.

But the Republicans aren't doing that, imo, because if they weren't led to that conclusion by political operative mole, then that just gives more air time against the President as the witness talks more about why they think the President's actions were improper. The Republicans don't actually believe what Beach Friends' is theorizing, so they don't want to go down that path through witness testimony.

 

[wardorican]

That's pretty easy actually.

How many times today did you hear the witnesses preface their testimony with, "I understood," "I learned", "I heard", or other similar phrases that I know sent alarms to you that would have had you on the edge of your seat ready to object on the grounds of hearsay if you were in a courtroom.

So, we know that a lot of these witnesses are basing their testimony on the impressions of others. We also know that, necessarily, one or more of these people were speaking with was the whistleblower.

To what extent did the whistleblower actually shape the opinions of others? How many conversations did he have? Was the concerns of the testifying witnesses influenced by the whistleblower and perhaps others who were guiding the whistleblower?

I don't think the Democrats can have it both ways. They can't go outside of the "transcript," rely on hearsay evidence, elicit opinion testimony and then turn around and say the President/GOP can not explore all of the potential sources of influence.

Furthermore, and I don't see how you can disagree with this, it was absolutely ridiculous that Vindman could testify that he spoke with people after the telephone call and then have Schiff prohibit inquiry as to the identity of those people he spoke with on the grounds that one of those people may have been the whistleblower. That's absurd.

Those people are witnesses. Were Vindman's prior statements, made immediately after the call, with his current testimony? Did one of these unnamed confidants influence his understanding of the call?

These are all reasonable lines of inquiry. Moreover, I feel certain that you have gone into areas on cross examination that your opponent did not really see coming but gutted that opponent's witness. Each side needs to be able to put on it's own case.

I'm not sure how much the WB influenced any testimony or feelings on the matter, since their own notes were referenced from the time things happened, and i found that the ambassador was very clear about when he knew what.

I.e.. what he knew then, what he interpreted then, and how he views it or understands to be true now.

 

[wardorican]

This is going to get play, because it was funny. But the rest of what Welch said after was good stuff. The bottom video.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I think it's quite obvious that Trump was leveraging the aide to Ukraine investigating their interference in our 2016 election and the Biden's as well. The question comes down to is that an impeachable offense.

Don't you think that previous President's have used aid as leverage on an issue that would benefit them politically? I'm guessing that goes on quite often behind closed doors. If there were as many leaks and transcripts out about the previous presidents that we would see that although probably not has haphazardly as Trump.

No, I don't think past President's have used the office of the Presidency and the resources of the United States to try to damage a political opponent for their own personal benefit. Do you have evidence that they have? If not, why do you think they have?

We're not talking about trying to do a good job for the United States which will benefit them politically. We're also not talking about weighing poll numbers to try to determine the most politically expedient course of action. We're talking about using the resources of the United States for a purely self-interested matter that is not for the United States. That is what this line of hearings is about. Did Trump abuse his office to help himself and damage a political opponent.

Do you share the same concern about Obama investigating his party's opponent during a presidential campaign and the political advantage it gave Clinton/Democrats as your concern about the Ukraine isssue?

Do you have evidence that Obama started this investigation outside normal channels? Do you have evidence that Obama was trying to go outside of normal oversight by having his personal lawyer run things? Do you have evidence that Obama tried to influence the electoral process by pressuring the FBI to announce their investigation into Trump right before the election to damage Trump politically? If so, then yes, I'd be concerned. But I haven't seen any evidence that Obama was trying to circumvent the normal investigative process to influence the 2016 election.

We do have accusations that the FBI improperly obtained a FISA warrant against a former Trump campaign official. And while I don't think there is evidence to suggest that was the case, I support the IG's investigation into that since I think sufficient distrust of the FBI has been sown that it's in our nation's interest to restore that trust by a thorough review and either exoneration or punishment depending on the review.

And I find it curious that you're using all the leaks in Trump's circles as some sort of defense of Trump. Why do you think it is that so many of the people that Trump surrounds himself with end up either leaking information or quitting or so on? These are people mostly hired by Trump's people. Don't you think it's more likely that people who end up working for Trump end up seriously alarmed and concerned by Trump's behavior than there is some sort of conspiracy against him?

Do you have a problem with the DNC soliciting help from Ukraine to help Hillary and harm Trump during the 2016? The Ukrainians released information that Manafort was under investigation only to retract it after the election. Although the difference is Trump/DNC, that sure sounds familiar with what Trump was trying to do. Were the DNC's actions okay or business as usual?

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.

www.politico.com

Manafort Ledger Leak Broke Law, Meddled in Election: Court

A court ruled that the officials broke the law by leaking the ledger, which revealed $12.7M in payments between Ukraine’s ousted president and the ex-Trump campaign chairman.

www.thedailybeast.com

As superchuck pointed out the DNC is a political entity. It's supposed to do things to benefit themselves politically. They aren't supported by taxpayers dollars and they aren't employed by the United States government. Trump is.

Now, if you have evidence that the DNC was coordinating with Ukraine on trying to damage Trump politically, let's lay it out there, because that would be interesting.

 

[Beach Friends]

That's what cross examination is for. Ask the witness where "I understood" came from. Ask the witness who he "heard" it from. You don't go get some other witness, for whom there's no material basis at this point, and ask him "are you the person that they were referring to?" That's nonsense. The Republicans on the committee have time, they have counsel. Ask the right questions of the witnesses you have.

I do agree with you that if Schiff closed down testimony about a call on the basis that the call might have been with the whistleblower, that's silly. I don't know if that happened, but I would agree with you. That doesn't, however, make the whistleblower a material or even meaningful witness.

Establish a foundation for the whistleblower to have material testimony - then you'll have an argument. Right now, you're coming at it from the wrong side.

Also, everyone has to remember this isn't the trial phase. That happens in the Senate. And the Republicans will have far more clout there.

Actually, Shiff shut down two "who all did you speak with" lines of questioning. Once, Vindman was not allowed to answer who all he spoke with following a July 10 meeting and then he was not allowed to say who all he spoke with after "the" phone call.

It's really hard to effectively cross examine someone about the content of a conversation when you are not even permitted to know that it occurred at all.

Again, it wasn't just that the GOP was not permitted to ask about the specific conversation with the whistleblower, but Vindman was stopped from further indentifying such individuals, because one of them may have been the WB. (he had already said he spoke to his twin brother and another individual in the NSC counsel's office).