The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (6 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

 

[JimEverett]

Public impeachment hearings for President Trump got underway Wednesday. The president stands accused of using his power to undermine democracy, and while these hearings might cover a lot of ground over the next few weeks — every day seems to bring some new report of wrongdoing by the president and his cronies — members of the House aren't likely to delve much, if at all, into how Trump's wrongdoing reflects the culture of the party he heads. And that's a shame, because if there is a story that defines the GOP in the 21st century, it's the willingness of its elected officials to use their power to undermine opponents and entrench themselves in office.

In other words, Trump's abuses of power mirror those of the GOP as a whole. Republicans can't turn on him, because doing so would be to indict their party's entire approach to politics.

At the state level, GOP legislatures across the country have passed numerous voter ID laws over the last decade or so — ostensibly to protect the sanctity of elections, but also with the intended effect of depressing turnout among Democratic constituencies. When voter suppression hasn't been enough — when Democrats managed to win elections anyway — Republicans have in recent years gone to extraordinary lengths to neutralize those wins. In North Carolina and Michigan, GOP-led legislatures neutered the governors' offices after Democrats won elections and replaced the Republican officeholders. In Utah, voters approved Medicaid expansion at the ballot box — and GOP legislators backtracked. In Florida, voters approved letting ex-felons vote — only to see Republican officials there create the 21st-century equivalent of a poll tax...…….

Republicans can't abandon Trump now because they're all guilty

To condemn his sins would be to condemn themselves

theweek.com

Why don't Democrats cover as much of the supposed wrongdoing of Trump as they can, they will certainly hit on the REpublican PArty in general - if, as you (or whoever) says it is virtually everywhere?
Basically a one charge impeachment is a harder sell then multiple charges. Why not delve into obstruction on the Russian interference - again, so many say it is such a slam dunk?

And I am not being rhetorical here. I don't understand why the Giuliani thing is not part of this investigation. IT could be a million different things going on with Giuliani and the White House - including the PResident acting in his official capacity to benefit Giuliani (Giuliani getting stuff done for his clients).

Don't get me wrong - I am not trying to diminish the importance of the quid-pro-quo investigation - its just that all this talk of abuse of power, collusion, emoluments, personal enrichment, obstruction, etc. and all we get is this quid-pro-quo?

 

[Lazybones]

Why don't Democrats cover as much of the supposed wrongdoing of Trump as they can, they will certainly hit on the REpublican PArty in general - if, as you (or whoever) says it is virtually everywhere?
Basically a one charge impeachment is a harder sell then multiple charges. Why not delve into obstruction on the Russian interference - again, so many say it is such a slam dunk?

And I am not being rhetorical here. I don't understand why the Giuliani thing is not part of this investigation. IT could be a million different things going on with Giuliani and the White House - including the PResident acting in his official capacity to benefit Giuliani (Giuliani getting stuff done for his clients).

Don't get me wrong - I am not trying to diminish the importance of the quid-pro-quo investigation - its just that all this talk of abuse of power, collusion, emoluments, personal enrichment, obstruction, etc. and all we get is this quid-pro-quo?

Tried and failed? Or maybe they think this is enough to win in 2020. Or maybe the other stuff is media and liberal hyperbole. Just a few thoughts.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Why don't Democrats cover as much of the can - if, as you (or whoever) says it is virtually everywhere?
Basically a one charge impeachment is a harder sell then multiple charges. Why not delve into obstruction on the Russian interference - again, so many say it is such a slam dunk?

And I am not being rhetorical here. I don't understand why the Giuliani thing is not part of this investigation. IT could be a million different things going on with Giuliani and the White House - including the PResident acting in his official capacity to benefit Giuliani (Giuliani getting stuff done for his clients).

Don't get me wrong - I am not trying to diminish the importance of the quid-pro-quo investigation - its just that all this talk of abuse of power, collusion, emoluments, personal enrichment, obstruction, etc. and all we get is this phone call?

It's a political calculus, not one I agree with, and while I get the sentiment that throwing too much shirt out there risks unfocusing everything, this really should be broader than it currently is IMO. Felt that way from the start. As the Senate isn't convicting anyways. So informing the public and publicly sanctioning and shaming this behavior is really the only functional purpose here and letting so many peripheral figures and potential(and numerous actual) crimes off the hook seem to be a failure of duty. And likey narrowing this so much is a bit of a strategic misstep as well imo.

For instance, I go back to the two other calls(to Saudi Arabia around the time of Kashoggi, and with Putin) we know were unusually placed on that same top-secret level server that limits exposure, access, and removes it from normal circulation, the same server that was used to cover up this call. Which, at a minimum, this probably should have been broadened out to encompass abuse of the office broadly and demand transcripts on those calls to see if this is part of a larger pattern. Though I get not focusing on that right now, but not on the periphery putting real pressure on that is an abdication to me.

 

[insidejob]

For instance, I go back to the two other calls(to Saudi Arabia around the time of Kashoggi, and with Putin) we know were unusually placed on that same top-secret level server that limits exposure, access, and removes it from normal circulation, the same server that was used to cover up this call. Which, at a minimum, this probably should have been broadened out to encompass abuse of the office broadly and demand transcripts on those calls to see if this is part of a larger pattern. Though I get not focusing on that right now, but not on the periphery putting real pressure on that is an abdication to me.

Schiff in his opening statement did directly call out Trump to release thousands of other "records" that he's hiding on that server that don't belong there. There's that at least.

 

[Lazybones]

Schiff in his opening statement did directly call out Trump to release thousands of other "records" that he's hiding on that server that don't belong there. There's that at least.

I am curious as to what the left leaning posters on this board think of Schiff.

 

[The moose]

I don’t have a conspiracy theory at all. What specifically are you talking about?

I was talking about the nonsense of the Ukraine having an effect on the 2016 election. Besides Trump's campaign manager getting in deep dodo there.That is obviously against everything all government agencies told us.

I need some good deep state news that you referring two a couple pages ago.

I am sorry if it is a bother I don't have access to deep state news from reputable news sites I read.

 

[insidejob]

The president blames Yovanovitch for the problems in all her posts as an ambassador while she's testifying.

​

Good job making more baseless accusations, Mr. President. Basically trying to scare her from revealing what she knows, IMO, in real time.

 

[bdb13]

I am curious as to what the left leaning posters on this board think of Schiff.

Not particularly fond of him, don't hate him either. I thought his 'parody' reading of Trump's Ukraine call was bad and provided Republicans with a legitimate angle to criticize him.

 

[insidejob]

Not particularly fond of him, don't hate him either. I thought his 'parody' reading of Trump's Ukraine call was bad and provided Republicans with a legitimate angle to criticize him.

I don't really think about him at all, to be honest. He's a nerd and is doing his job as head of the intelligence committee. That parody was poor form for sure.

 

[MT15]

Why don't Democrats cover as much of the supposed wrongdoing of Trump as they can, they will certainly hit on the REpublican PArty in general - if, as you (or whoever) says it is virtually everywhere?
Basically a one charge impeachment is a harder sell then multiple charges. Why not delve into obstruction on the Russian interference - again, so many say it is such a slam dunk?

And I am not being rhetorical here. I don't understand why the Giuliani thing is not part of this investigation. IT could be a million different things going on with Giuliani and the White House - including the PResident acting in his official capacity to benefit Giuliani (Giuliani getting stuff done for his clients).

Don't get me wrong - I am not trying to diminish the importance of the quid-pro-quo investigation - its just that all this talk of abuse of power, collusion, emoluments, personal enrichment, obstruction, etc. and all we get is this quid-pro-quo?

I also think that the Democrats should cast a wider net. However, I don’t think it will be a single impeachment charge. I could be wrong, but I think Schiff is setting up witness intimidation by reading Trump’s tweet attacking the former ambassador during her testimony into the record at the hearing. They could also certainly charge obstruction for his absolute refusal to turn over any requested documents in this case as well as preventing witnesses from appearing. It’s also a smart move to quit calling it qpq and go with extortion.

 

[coldseat]

I am curious as to what the left leaning posters on this board think of Schiff.

Smart guy that thinks and acts like a prosecutor (he was one). Can be a bit overzealous at times (like with the parody reading) and not completely forthcoming (like with the contact with the WB's lawyer prior to the ICIG complaint). But he comes off as knowledgeable, sane and as somebody who takes their responsibilities seriously.

I think it was very smart of the Dems to have these public hearings take place in the Intelligence subcommittee. In compassion to Nunes's, Schiff comes off serious and knowledgeable. Nunes comes off as a clown. Other than Steven King and Matt Geatz, I don't think I have a lower opinion of anybody in congress than I do of Nunes.

I'm curious what republicans and the right think of Nunes?

 

[insidejob]

I'm curious what republicans and the right think of Nunes?

MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Not particularly fond of him, don't hate him either. I thought his 'parody' reading of Trump's Ukraine call was bad and provided Republicans with a legitimate angle to criticize him.

A legitimate complaint would only arise to me by being consistent in your application of judgement, given I think we are only moments from Republicans once again, in a long and storied history, defending lies and exaggerations levelled by the president, their critique was not legitimate. From you as a poster that has demonstrated an attempt to be even-handed, yeah, that would be legitimate critique imo, but not from Republicans.

It was real-life concern trolling. Which like online concern trolling is only effective against those people willing to try and apply even-handed standards.

 

[SaintForLife]

He's talking about the instance where some Ukrainian officials told a consultant for the DNC about Manafort's dealings with the previous pro-Russian regime.

The Ukrainian officials didn't just tell the DNC operative about Manafort's dealings. The Ukrainian officials publicly released information stating that Manafort was under investigation despite the fact that wasn't true. After the election those Ukrainian officials retracted that Manafort was under investigation.

 

[The moose]

I am curious as to what the left leaning posters on this board think of Schiff.

Don't think he is nearly as bad the the jacketless one. Has he rolled up his sleeves yet.

Old Devin that is a guy that would say lacks a spine.

Oops I just did a republican well what about Obama thing.

You asked a question and I completely ignored it and hung crap on the other side.

Still waiting on that deep state stuff

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I also think that the Democrats should cast a wider net. However, I don’t think it will be a single impeachment charge. I could be wrong, but I think Schiff is setting up witness intimidation by reading Trump’s tweet attacking the former ambassador during her testimony into the record at the hearing. They could also certainly charge obstruction for his absolute refusal to turn over any requested documents in this case as well as preventing witnesses from appearing. It’s also a smart move to quit calling it qpq and go with extortion.

I've said it from the onset, I think we are ultimately working toward the obvious endgame, which is that all these peripheral narratives are going to continue to get whittled away into the real, core one:

- The process isn't transparent(it's public now and transcripts released)​

​

- The whistleblower has an agenda(everything has been corroborated over and over, ad hominems have no real substantive value anymore)​

​

- Trump was genuinely concerned about Ukrainian corruption so this is just an unorthodox approach(told Sondland he only really cares about investigating the Bidens, habitually corroborated or defended Ukrainian actors convicted of, or demonstrated through irrefutable evidence to be corrupt, including firing their chief foil)​

​

- It's all hearsay!(two people will be testifying that they directly heard that call with Sondland and had Sondland confirm their ears, Sondland himself will have to testify).​

Like all past conspiracies, there will be a significant constituency that gets off at any one of those stops and stays there long after the tribe moves on knowing the land is no longer able to be tilled, but it will simply end up where it always was, which is arguing that the president will be given permission to basically do whatever he wants as long as he is a Republican carrying water for their core constituencies interests(tax cuts for the upper class, regulatory favorability, court-packing, etc.) and enjoys majority support from his base. Ultimately being cornered into the position where they have no answer, it all happened, the collusion, the bribery, the cover-up, the obstruction, the witness intimidation, but we aren't going to convict anyways.....And now on to gaslighting our acquittal as an exoneration and telling everyone once again that even best Democrat in any election is always worse than the worst Republican, Trump 2020!

 

[N.O.Bronco]

And honestly, the witness intimidation alone should convict him in a healthy democracy. But this is not a healthy democracy and at this moment the onus is really on the defenders of this president to justify this.

And how they would do so in a way that doesn't ultimately rely on excusing or furthering the rot. Because either you acknowledge there is rot and you are willing to take the hard steps to stop it, or you acknowledge there is rot and you want to allow it to continue. For whatever rationale.

 

[SaintForLife]

Why don't Democrats cover as much of the supposed wrongdoing of Trump as they can, they will certainly hit on the REpublican PArty in general - if, as you (or whoever) says it is virtually everywhere?
Basically a one charge impeachment is a harder sell then multiple charges. Why not delve into obstruction on the Russian interference - again, so many say it is such a slam dunk?

And I am not being rhetorical here. I don't understand why the Giuliani thing is not part of this investigation. IT could be a million different things going on with Giuliani and the White House - including the PResident acting in his official capacity to benefit Giuliani (Giuliani getting stuff done for his clients).

Don't get me wrong - I am not trying to diminish the importance of the quid-pro-quo investigation - its just that all this talk of abuse of power, collusion, emoluments, personal enrichment, obstruction, etc. and all we get is this quid-pro-quo?

We've been told by the left and the media that Russia collusion and the obstruction was such a big deal.....and they dropped it like a hot potato. I'm confused why they aren't pursuing those angles since we have heard about it daily for 3 years.