The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (3 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]

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.

That sounds like a convenient excuse given there is no proof that he ever had a backchannel to Wikileaks. It's yet another thing that totally undermines the Trump, Wikileaks, Russia collusion angle which is exactly what Mueller investigated.

 

[SaintForLife]

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?

I was talking about the Roger Stone conviction.

 

[brandon]

That sounds like a convenient excuse given there is no proof that he ever had a backchannel to Wikileaks. It's yet another thing that totally undermines the Trump, Wikileaks, Russia collusion angle which is exactly what Mueller investigated.

Guess we'll have to wait (on that pardon) and see.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I was talking about the Roger Stone conviction.

The question still remains, do you care about it or not, and if so, why are you refusing to condemn Trump for doing this very thing with Ukraine and deflecting to things like Shiff possibly overstating on a similar matter 2 years ago about incidents we have other threads for?

 

[MT15]

I was talking about the Roger Stone conviction.

we actually have a thread about the Roger Stone conviction

 

[Archies Ghost]

we actually have a thread about the Roger Stone conviction

We have a thread titles but, so far, on topic is not an accurate descriptor of threads on this board.

 

[JimEverett]

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.

That is not what the Mueller Report said, though.

There was no evidence of collusion. None. Zero.

 

[brandon]

That is not what the Mueller Report said, though.

There was no evidence of collusion. None. Zero.

There absolutely was evidence.

It may not have been enough to prove conspiracy, but there absolutely was evidence that it occurred.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

That is not what the Mueller Report said, though.

There was no evidence of collusion. None. Zero.

That's not true at all and Roger Stone's conviction just demonstrated another arm of that in a legal judgement. To go with Manafort passing off polling data to a known Russian intelligence agent, or Pappy being encouraged and attempting to collude with a Russian proxy to obtain DNC emails. In the general defined sense, that is evidence of "collusion."

Conspiracy, on the other hand, was not legally demonstrated. But as has been mentioned before, a large part of that was because of obstruction and contentious value judgements made such as Don Jr. being too stupid to realize what he was doing in facilitating the Trump Tower meeting on the pretense that the people they would be meeting would have material of value and represent the Russian government.

But the same question I poised to SaintForLife applies here, if that is truly a concern, where is the outrage over the Ukraine extortion racket? Because as more and more is revealed with Ukraine, that is far beyond anything in the Russia inquiry, and the same people seem to still be unwilling to publicly condemn the president, it seems on the surface that those lines of evidentiary threshold to justify condemnaton were never actually genuine.

 

[JimEverett]

There absolutely was evidence.

It may not have been enough to prove conspiracy, but there absolutely was evidence that it occurred.

Show me in the Mueller Report where there was evidence of a conspiracy to commit a crime (not obstruction).

 

[brandon]

Show me in the Mueller Report where there was evidence of a conspiracy to commit a crime (not obstruction).

The Trump Tower meeting with Russia and what was discussed is evidence of a conspiracy to commit a crime.

It is not proof of that crime. But it is evidence.

Evidence does not equal proof (always).

 

[SaintForLife]

we actually have a thread about the Roger Stone conviction

I was responding to N.O. Bronco who brought up the Stone trial first.

 

[MT15]

Yeah not blaming any one person, but just wishing this thread would get back on topic.

 

[SaintForLife]

The question still remains, do you care about it or not, and if so, why are you refusing to condemn Trump for doing this very thing with Ukraine and deflecting to things like Shiff possibly overstating on a similar matter 2 years ago about incidents we have other threads for?

Why are you trying to tell me what I should be posting or talking about?

 

[SaintForLife]

I'm posting this strictly for the video.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Why are you trying to tell me what I should be posting or talking about?

Posing questions is not dictating, so do you have a response on the substance of what I posed?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I'm posting this strictly for the video.

When procedure was eventually properly followed she was given nearly ten minutes to speak. Did you not see that?

Without any context, this video is partisan gaslighting.

 

[MT15]

Show me in the Mueller Report where there was evidence of a conspiracy to commit a crime (not obstruction).

I hate to further this derail, but I’m just basking in the fact that Jim had to specifically exclude obstruction.