The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (4 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

 

[SaintForLife]

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 wonder when Schiff will release the classified evidence about Trump colluding with Russia that he lied about for 2 years only to later claim it's been in plain sight all along.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Rarely watch their channel, but it's what's on in the office, CNN just pointed out the transcript of the first and second call further advances the notion the second transcript was clearly altered(which we already know).

The first transcript is detailed, no ellipses, and no breaks in the conversation. It also doesn't talk about corruption as asserted by the White House, and it first introduces the desire of Zelensky to have a public showing of support at the highest level to strengthen US/Ukrainian ties. Which went on to be the Pence visit that Trump ultimately vetoed.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

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.

They just got a judgement back about Trump's taxes on the heels of winning a ruling to see the redacted portions of the Mueller Report that clearly allowed Barr to once again make a set of assertions that when additional evidence was unearthed does not rectify properly.

Now why they are not incorporating that into the impeachment hearings is fair, but the notion they dropped their investigations is just not supported by the facts.

 

[wardorican]

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?

Can they compel him to testify? Attorney client privilege? Executive privilege? Have they asked? I haven't looked it up.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

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.

And the Roger Stone verdict just came back:

So far, 4 guilty counts, including about his testimony and behavior surrounding his contacts/coordination with WikiLeaks and what communications he made to senior-level officials about those contacts including:

- Obstruction
- lying under oath about who and what those communications were about(some of the redacted portions Barr covered up in the Mueller Report in order to claim Trump was not knowledgable of these events involved Stone reiterating his discussion to Trump himself and Trump demonstrating knowledge of those leaks and conversations)
- Witness Tampering(ironic since this is now happening in real-time by Trump)
- One of these convictions is also about Stone committing crimes to hide the Trump campaign's efforts to optimize the release of emails stolen by Russia.

 

[Nebaghead]

I wonder when Schiff will release the classified evidence about Trump colluding with Russia that he lied about for 2 years only to later claim it's been in plain sight all along.

It is with Trump's damning findings about Obama's birth certificate.

The lack of testimony and interviews allowed for the Mueller investigation prevented finding enough information for concrete proof, as stated on the Mueller report. This is being handled similar to big criminal investigations. You go with what you can proove. There are multiple items that are impeachable but they are going with the one that can be fully corroborated and proven in the hearings. I think the witness intimidation that is happening real time during the inquiry will be added to the articles.

 

[coldseat]

I wonder when Schiff will release the classified evidence about Trump colluding with Russia that he lied about for 2 years only to later claim it's been in plain sight all along.

How would he release classified information? He doesn't have the power to un-classify it.

The evidence of obstruction is right there in the Mueller report. I think they should have impeached Trump with it, but Pelosi felt it would be to hard and divisive so they pretty much dropped it. And then Trump goes and pulls this crap. Because as with any autocrat, when you don't confront the corrupt actions and let them get away with it, it only emboldens them. So now here we are. Took too long if you ask me, but at least they're doing it.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I wonder when Schiff will release the classified evidence about Trump colluding with Russia that he lied about for 2 years only to later claim it's been in plain sight all along.

Are we not in a thread where we now have multiple testimonies from multiple witnesses demonstrating Trump's personal role in bribing foreign officials to interfere on his behalf in our electoral process? With first-hand accounts lined up in the next week?

Either you don't actually care about colluding with foreign governments to affect elections, to which you are not having an honest conversation here, or you do, and if you do, why are you not simultaneously calling for the president's removal instead of only focusing on Shiff potentially overstating his position 2 years ago??

 

[insidejob]

I guess I should've just edited instead of deleting my previous post since there's now an empty box there. Live and learn.

Does Nunes not realize or comprehend the rules they'd agreed to before these public hearings were green lighted?

 

[SaintForLife]

And the Roger Stone verdict just came back:

So far, 4 guilty counts, including about his testimony and behavior surrounding his contacts/coordination with WikiLeaks and what communications he made to senior-level officials about those contacts including:

- Obstruction
- lying under oath about who and what those communications were about(some of the redacted portions Barr covered up in the Mueller Report in order to claim Trump was not knowledgable of these events involved Stone reiterating his discussion to Trump himself and Trump demonstrating knowledge of those leaks and conversations)
- Witness Tampering(ironic since this is now happening in real-time by Trump)
- One of these convictions is also about Stone committing crimes to hide the Trump campaign's efforts to optimize the release of emails stolen by Russia.

It sounds a lot like the Mueller report. Guilty of lying and not guilty of collusion with Wikileaks and Russia.

 

[SaintForLife]

How would he release classified information? He doesn't have the power to un-classify it.

The evidence of obstruction what right there in the Mueller report. I think they should have impeached Trump with it but Pelosi felt it would be to hard and divisive, so they pretty much dropped it. And then Trump goes and pulls this crap. Because as with any autocrat, when you don't confront the corrupt actions and let them get away with it, it only emboldens them. So now, here we are. Took to long, if you ask me, but at least they're doing it.

That doesn't make sense. We've been told that Trump committed egregious offenses in relation to Russia & obstruction, but they dropped it for the impeachment because it would be too hard and divisive?

 

[brandon]

It sounds a lot like the Mueller report. Guilty of lying and not guilty of collusion with Wikileaks and Russia.

Sounds to me like his obstruction and unwillingness to provide evidence made it impossible to convict on collusion with Wikileaks and Russia.

And now the pardon comes and everyone gets off.

 

[SaintForLife]

It is with Trump's damning findings about Obama's birth certificate.

The lack of testimony and interviews allowed for the Mueller investigation prevented finding enough information for concrete proof, as stated on the Mueller report. This is being handled similar to big criminal investigations. You go with what you can proove. There are multiple items that are impeachable but they are going with the one that can be fully corroborated and proven in the hearings. I think the witness intimidation that is happening real time during the inquiry will be added to the articles.

Blaming the lack of proof on Mueller not being allowed enough testimony and interviews is not a convincing argument in my opinion.

 

[Nebaghead]

It sounds a lot like the Mueller report. Guilty of lying and not guilty of collusion with Wikileaks and Russia.

This trial wasn't about the collusion but what he did to obstruct the investigation. Kind of hard to believe he obstructed an investigation into a nothing burger. People who obstruct have something to hide.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

It sounds a lot like the Mueller report. Guilty of lying and not guilty of collusion with Wikileaks and Russia.

Then you aren't listening.

We already have multiple testimonies corroborating that aid and things of perceived benefit were explicitly withheld specifically to induce the Ukrainian government to interfere in our electoral process by damaging Trump's chief political rival by way of publicly announcing foreign investigations into his rival, his rival's son, and the party supporting him.

Soon to include 3 people that will be able to corroborate that Trump directly made clear that what he was only concerned with in pursuit of this extortion was dirt on the Biden's.

Now, do you care about domestic political coordination with foreign governments to interfere in our elections or not? If so, where is the condemnation? if not, why are you appealing to Rubicon's you don't actually care are crossed? Sea-lioning other posters for information about lines in the sand you really don't care if they are crossed?

 

[Nebaghead]

Blaming the lack of proof on Mueller not being allowed enough testimony and interviews is not a convincing argument in my opinion.

If you aren't allowed to interview people involved in the incidents, how can an investigator gather good evidence. The WH blocked the Mueller report as best they could and did enough to prevent it from having serious damage to the President. If he wasn't the president he would be sitting in jail today along with Cohen and the others.

 

[insidejob]

I don't see how these questions he's asking benefit Trump or the GOP at all.

 

[coldseat]

That doesn't make sense. We've been told that Trump committed egregious offenses in relation to Russia & obstruction, but they dropped it for the impeachment because it would be too hard and divisive?

Why are you only relying on what you've been told? Read the report and you'll know that he did for yourself. Nobody has to tell you anything.

It was a political calculations by Pelosi. A wrong one in my estimation, but I'm also not in her position.

BTW, this quasi innocent/ignorance approach to seemingly asking "honest questions" isn't working or fooling anybody. It's also not accomplishing whatever point you think you're proving. You can drop the act and just say what you believe. We all already know what it that is anyway.