The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (4 Viewers)

Thread Attachment browser

Users who are viewing this thread

    Total: 5 (members: 0, guests: 5)
    Andrus

    Andrus

    Admin
    Staff member
    Joined
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages
    2,269
    Reaction score
    944
    Age
    65
    Location
    Sunset, Louisiana
    Offline
    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
     
    superchuck500 said:
    So a key piece of testimony yesterday was Bill Taylor's testimony that he heard Sondland speaking to Trump in a July 26 (the day after the call with Zelensky) cell phone call (not secure line) from Kiev (where Sondland was) to Washington - and Trump asked about the status of the investigations. According to the AP, a "second embassy official" supports Taylor's testimony as true.

    The testimony is important for three reasons:
    - Principally - it goes to the case that Trump definitely viewed Zelensky's announcement of investigations as a condition on further action (the aid/arms package and the state visit);
    - Secondarily - it raises issues of Trump's use of informal and non-secure communication lines to discuss things such as US/Ukraine relations;
    - Tangentially - it casts doubt on Sondland's previous sworn testimony about the full scope of communications he had with the president about "the deliverable" (what Trump wanted from Zelensky).

    Click to expand...

    Clarification. Taylor stated one of his aides heard the phone call and told Taylor. Tatlor never heard it. But we do now have a second person at that table corroborating it (via the media). Friday will be interesting.

    The July 26 call between Trump and Gordon Sondland was first described during testimony Wednesday by William B. Taylor Jr., the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Taylor said one of his staffers overhead the call while Sondland was in a restaurant the day after Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that triggered the House impeachment inquiry.
    Click to expand...
    https://apnews.com/Trumpimpeachmentinquiry
     
    Beach Friends said:
    The man is a solid citizen with no disqualifications.
    Click to expand...

    I'm surprised this got glossed over.

    He has been busted for housing discrimination
    He has bankrupted multiple businesses
    He has an established record of not paying subcontractors/workers.
    He has used undocumented workers to build his buildings
    He settled a fraud suit against his university for $25 million.
    He has advocated sexual assault on tape
    He has had multiple affairs including paying off a porn star to keep quiet (and not reporting it in violation of campaign finance law)
    He has allegedly regularly made false statements in the interest of evading property taxes
    He is barred from operating charitable foundations in New York because of (charitably) mismanagement of his foundation.
    He has had the highest turnover of staff/cabinet in any presidency with numerous cabinet secretaries under ethics investigations

    And on and on. What would you consider disqualifying? What about him is a "solid citizen" ?
     
    buzd said:
    I'm surprised this got glossed over.

    He has been busted for housing discrimination
    He has bankrupted multiple businesses
    He has an established record of not paying subcontractors/workers.
    He has used undocumented workers to build his buildings
    He settled a fraud suit against his university for $25 million.
    He has advocated sexual assault on tape
    He has had multiple affairs including paying off a porn star to keep quiet (and not reporting it in violation of campaign finance law)
    He has allegedly regularly made false statements in the interest of evading property taxes
    He is barred from operating charitable foundations in New York because of (charitably) mismanagement of his foundation.
    He has had the highest turnover of staff/cabinet in any presidency with numerous cabinet secretaries under ethics investigations

    And on and on. What would you consider disqualifying?
    Click to expand...
    Is it true that Ben Carson is actually the only remaining original cabinet member? If so, that speaks volumes.
     
    insidejob said:
    Is it true that Ben Carson is actually the only remaining original cabinet member? If so, that speaks volumes.
    Click to expand...

    I think Betsy and maybe Elaine have been there the whole time? And maybe Wilbur?
     
    buzd said:
    I'm surprised this got glossed over.

    He has been busted for housing discrimination
    He has bankrupted multiple businesses
    He has an established record of not paying subcontractors/workers.
    He has used undocumented workers to build his buildings
    He settled a fraud suit against his university for $25 million.
    He has advocated sexual assault on tape
    He has had multiple affairs including paying off a porn star to keep quiet (and not reporting it in violation of campaign finance law)
    He has allegedly regularly made false statements in the interest of evading property taxes
    He is barred from operating charitable foundations in New York because of (charitably) mismanagement of his foundation.
    He has had the highest turnover of staff/cabinet in any presidency with numerous cabinet secretaries under ethics investigations

    And on and on. What would you consider disqualifying? What about him is a "solid citizen" ?
    Click to expand...

    I thought he was referring to lazybones.
     
    buzd said:
    I'm surprised this got glossed over.

    He has been busted for housing discrimination
    He has bankrupted multiple businesses
    He has an established record of not paying subcontractors/workers.
    He has used undocumented workers to build his buildings
    He settled a fraud suit against his university for $25 million.
    He has advocated sexual assault on tape
    He has had multiple affairs including paying off a porn star to keep quiet (and not reporting it in violation of campaign finance law)
    He has allegedly regularly made false statements in the interest of evading property taxes
    He is barred from operating charitable foundations in New York because of (charitably) mismanagement of his foundation.
    He has had the highest turnover of staff/cabinet in any presidency with numerous cabinet secretaries under ethics investigations

    And on and on. What would you consider disqualifying? What about him is a "solid citizen" ?
    Click to expand...
    Hah, there has been a misunderstanding.

    Samiam said that Lazybones does not deserve the right to vote if he is motivated to vote by sticking it to the libs.

    Lazybones is a solid citizen with no disqualifications.
     
    That is certainly conflicting information. The word “explicitly” stands out however.

    To wit- I would only point out that only one of them was under oath at the time they gave their comments.
     
    CoolBrees said:
    That is certainly conflicting information. The word “explicitly” stands out however.

    To wit- I would only point out that only one of them was under oath at the time they gave their comments.
    Click to expand...
    It's also been brought up, why would he upset the president and face other possible implications.
     
    Last edited:
    It has barely been mentioned, but if Trump really wanted to root out corruption out of Ukraine, he wouldn't have targeted a specific person. He would've asked for investigating corruption more generally. Naming a specific target like Biden, which happens to be his chief political rival, rather than any of the other 300 million other Americans, is absolutely an abuse of power. Asking to open an investigation on your rival is a clear attempt to muddy and undermine the integrity of your rival. Everyone knows that the mere knowledge that someone is under investigation is enough to make people suspicious of that person. He wants to get Biden down to his level of untrustworthiness.
     
    Lapaz said:
    It has barely been mentioned, but if Trump really wanted to root out corruption out of Ukraine, he wouldn't have targeted a specific person. He would've asked for investigating corruption more generally. Naming a specific target like Biden, which happens to be his chief political rival, rather than any of the other 300 million other Americans, is absolutely an abuse of power. Asking to open an investigation on your rival is a clear attempt to muddy and undermine the integrity of your rival. Everyone knows that the mere knowledge that someone is under investigation is enough to make people suspicious of that person. He wants to get Biden down to his level of untrustworthiness.
    Click to expand...

    I think for most people, the “i was just confronting corruption” defense doesn’t pass the laugh test. For several solid reasons.
     
    It's silly to argue that Trump cared about corruption in the Ukraine. There is nothing that supports that opinion.
     
    coldseat said:
    It's silly to argue that Trump cared about corruption in the Ukraine. There is nothing that supports that opinion.
    Click to expand...

    yea, it seems to have been largely abandoned by the GOP as a viable defense/explanation
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Register

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Share this page

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Back
    Top Bottom