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

 

[N.O.Bronco]

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

It is a weird qualifier.

Is obstruction not a crime worth sanctioning?

Is succesful obstruction like a videogame where you should be honored with an achievement badge of non-prosecution for being successful at it?

Because as I mentioned before, the Mueller Report and the guilty pleas today demonstrate that obstruction stifled the core investigation into the conspiracy. And it seems we are to accept that as long as the obstruction was successful in avoiding charges on the core investigatory matter, a person should be found fully innocent. I've yet to hear a legal theory that suggests that it is a healthy way to operate a legal system or a political accountability system. But I am open to hearing the argument(seemingly better suited in another thread).

 

[B4YOU]

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?

Because this isn’t a courtroom trial with honest jurors. The setting increases the possibility of two problems: information overload for the public and the Cochran defense.
My guess at the Dem thought process

1. If the public is overwhelmed with information from describing a pattern of behavior including actions involving Russia, they will tune out. If the Dems can’t sway public opinion enough to force Repubs to act as if honest jurors, then the process could backfire.
2. The more Dems put out the easier it is for the Repubs to find one inconvenient thing/mistake and argue “if the glove doesn’t fit you must acquit.” Repubs have thrown out a bunch of defenses and mostly are talking process. Many are admitting it was “inappropriate” but not impeachable. Those Repubs are searching for a defense. Limiting talking points to the most probable points limits this defense.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

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.

Elise Stefanik is speaking again.....Even being allowed to break protocol and drag unrelated WB material onto her soapbox theater sideshow. Such as pressuring to out him.

 

[Lazybones]

I'm posting this strictly for the video.

i think the video kind of speaks for itself. schiff is doing himself no favors. In this video he is acting like a 21 year old who just got the manager title.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

i think the video kind of speaks for itself. schiff is doing himself no favors. In this video he is acting like a 21 year old who just got the manager title.

Or perhaps like a guy that's in charge of something important and is insisting that everyone stick to the rules in order to keep the proceedings orderly.

 

[Taurus]

Finally!

Took you long enough, Madame Speaker.

It should have been bribery from the start.

 

[MT15]

i think the video kind of speaks for itself. schiff is doing himself no favors. In this video he is acting like a 21 year old who just got the manager title.

how so? The Republicans know the rules as well as everyone else. They were trying to pull something that was outside the mutually agreed upon rules, and Schiff recognized it and didn’t let them get away with it.

 

[FullMonte]

i think the video kind of speaks for itself. schiff is doing himself no favors. In this video he is acting like a 21 year old who just got the manager title.

yeah...when he pointed out that the rules don't allow Nunes to yield his time to someone else at that point, and allowed Nunes and others to yield their time at the appropriate point.....that shows how horrible he is at running something. The gall of him expecting everyone to follow the rules....

 

[Lazybones]

Or perhaps like a guy that's in charge of something important and is insisting that everyone stick to the rules in order to keep the proceedings orderly.

Uh, I can’t imagine anyone seeing it that way. But I don’t hate on anyone that does. I may laugh at them, but not hate on them.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

how so? The Republicans know the rules as well as everyone else. They were trying to pull something that was outside the mutually agreed upon rules, and Schiff recognized it and didn’t let them get away with it.

On top of that, they were allowed to pursue their questioning once they did so through appropriate processes.

Furthermore, Shiff ultimately allowed them to break the rules to drag in more WB nonsense.

The game, in a nutshell, has been certain Republicans soap-boxing and blatantly breaking the rules so they can then cry foul and give right-wing groups the out-of-context fodder they can use to gaslight and disengage their audience from taking the charges seriously.

 

[V Chip]

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

Again, collusion is not a legal term and therefore one cannot be charged with nor found guilty of collusion.

 

[V Chip]

That is not what the Mueller Report said, though.

There was no evidence of collusion. None. Zero.

That's not what the Mueller report said. I quoted it for you earlier. Obfuscate all you want to, but the Mueller report did not say there was zero evidence of collusion/conspiracy.

 

[crosswatt]

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

I'll speak on my view of him as a moderate. He strikes me as a pretty dedicated policy wonk without much personality or emotional range. Sort of like the Democrat version of Mitch McConnell, with a similar amount of jaw and chin meat and complete lack of a sense of humor.

I low-key wish he would have named Eric Swalwell as the person in charge of these proceedings, simply for the watchability of it all. Although that probably would end up with him and Jim Jordan shirtless and covered in baby oil, circling each other in some type of Greco-Roman face off, with the winner set to issue next week's subpoenas.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I guess the Trump Intimidation defense is taking shape, as always, this will be fun:


Trump: Freedom of Speech is absolute


Also Trump: If you speak incorrectly about me it is illegal and you should be arrested for treason.

 

[MT15]

I think the testimony so far today paints Trump in a particularly unflattering light. He has the absolute right to recall the ambassador, but the way it was done and the fact that Rudy is comporting with corrupt ex-officials and doing their bidding all the while still representing himself as the President’s personal lawyer is a big problem.

People tend to think that Igor and Lev were being employed by Rudy when it’s actually the opposite. They paid him $500,000 IIRC. And they get their money from the corrupt oligarchs that Yovanovitch was testifying about.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I think the testimony so far today paints Trump in a particularly unflattering light. He has the absolute right to recall the ambassador, but the way it was done and the fact that Rudy is comporting with corrupt ex-officials and doing their bidding all the while still representing himself as the President’s personal lawyer is a big problem.

People tend to think that Igor and Lev were being employed by Rudy when it’s actually the opposite. They paid him $500,000 IIRC. And they get their money from the corrupt oligarchs that Yovanovitch was testifying about.

The thing is the president has a right to do a lot of things, but that doesn't absolve him from being sanctioned for abuses of that power.

But that is the parlor game Republicans are trying to play, Trump has the authority, therefore anything he does with that authority is above board. But the constitution explicitly outlines that is not the case. The key framers disagreed on a lot, but made clear that granting the executive unlimited use of their presidential powers to whatever end he/she wished was not their intent.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Uh, I can’t imagine anyone seeing it that way. But I don’t hate on anyone that does. I may laugh at them, but not hate on them.

I see it that way because I actually listened to it as it happened. Nunes tried to do something against the rules that were laid out, Stefanik ignored the Chair multiple times, and yet... she still got to ask her questions during the allotted time.

How do you not realize that plenty of people see it this way, given that this is what actually happened?

 

[Lazybones]

I see it that way because I actually listened to it as it happened. Nunes tried to do something against the rules that were laid out, Stefanik ignored the Chair multiple times, and yet... she still got to ask her questions during the allotted time.

How do you not realize that plenty of people see it this way, given that this is what actually happened?

I stand my that he acted as man who got it first manager job and was in charge. Why does everything have to be so confrontational?