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

 

[wardorican]

Funny watching Schiff cut off questions because they would identify the WB, all the while pretending not to know his identity.

It's simple. Republicans are trying to figure out by process of elimination. Eventually they would be correct, if they kept asking every national security officer who heard about this.

So, protect the entire IC and you de facto protect the whistleblower. So, he doesnt need to know who it is to know how to protect him.

 

[bdb13]

Why? What is suspect about the "official" story? The story is that the whistleblower contacted an aide to the Intelligence Committee with a vague description of the allegations. The aide instructed the whistleblower to contact legal counsel and file a report/complaint with the IG. The aide then told the head of the Intelligence Committee a portion of what the whistleblower told them.

So,it sounds like:

Whistleblower (to aide): "Hey, I have concerns that a high level individual in the intelligence committee may have abused their position."
Aide (to whistleblower): "Ok, contact a lawyer and file a report with the IG."
Aide (to Schiff): "Sir, just a heads up, I was contacted today by someone who said they had concerns about a high level individual so I told them to contact their attorney and file a complaint with the IG."

My default state is pretty much skepticism of all these guys. Schiff may not know the identity - and the identity doesn't matter at this point and shouldn't be revealed - and I wouldn't absolutely accuse Schiff of knowing the identity like the Republicans are doing, but realistically it wouldn't surprise me at all if Schiff wasn't entirely above board in his handling the whistleblower.

 

[wardorican]

Radcliff kinda wasted his time, but wanted to get the narrative out.

 

[brandon]

My default state is pretty much skepticism of all these guys. Schiff may not know the identity - and the identity doesn't matter at this point and shouldn't be revealed - and I wouldn't absolutely accuse Schiff of knowing the identity like the Republicans are doing, but realistically it wouldn't surprise me at all if Schiff wasn't entirely above board in his handling the whistleblower.

So go after Schiff, accuse him of a crime, put him on trial, and if he did something illegal, put him in jail.

None of that matters though--Trump still did the things he's accused of. Whether Schiff, the whistleblower, or anyone else did anything wrong is irrelevant. The president committed crimes, the WB's accusations have been corroborated multiple times, and Trump should be impeached.

End of story.

 

[bdb13]

So go after Schiff, accuse him of a crime, put him on trial, and if he did something illegal, put him in jail.

None of that matters though--Trump still did the things he's accused of. Whether Schiff, the whistleblower, or anyone else did anything wrong is irrelevant. The president committed crimes, the WB's accusations have been corroborated multiple times, and Trump should be impeached.

End of story.

I agree. Was just throwing out my opinion on Schiff and the WB because it had already been brought up.

 

[brandon]

I agree. Was just throwing out my opinion on Schiff and the WB because it had already been brought up.

Fair enough.

I'd also like to point out that this is a significant point that Trump supporters fail to miss.

The left has no loyalty to Adam Schiff, the whistleblower, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, or whoever. If they committed crimes, put them on trial and put them in jail. Our loyalty is to the country, not a person.

Trump supporters can't say that.

 

[Beach Friends]

It's simple. Republicans are trying to figure out by process of elimination. Eventually they would be correct, if they kept asking every national security officer who heard about this.

So, protect the entire IC and you de facto protect the whistleblower. So, he doesnt need to know who it is to know how to protect him.

So, the itel committee can't ask questions about any member of the intel community because someone in the intel community might be the WB.

I will agree, that certainly is "simple."

 

[bdb13]

Fair enough.

I'd also like to point out that this is a significant point that Trump supporters fail to miss.

The left has no loyalty to Adam Schiff, the whistleblower, Nancy Pelosi, Hillary Clinton, or whoever. If they committed crimes, put them on trial and put them in jail. Our loyalty is to the country, not a person.

Trump supporters can't say that.

Right. I feel the same. I have no loyalty to the Democrats and don't consider myself a member of the party though I'm currently a registered Dem so I can participate in a FL primary that matters.

But yeah, like I've said before, I'm confident that if it were Obama instead of Trump in this situation I'd feel the same way about it.

 

[FullMonte]

So, the itel committee can't ask questions about any member of the intel community because someone in the intel community might be the WB.

I will agree, that certainly is "simple."

No, that's not it at all. The whistleblower stated, directly, in his complaint, that he had spoken with other individuals in the intelligence community about the President's actions. Asking "who did you talk with about this" serves one of two purposes: 1) To work towards identifying the whistleblower. 2) To find another fact witness who was a part of the converstations.

I have no doubt that if anyone was able to provide a realistic reason why option 2 is their reason for the questions, it would be something that could be considered.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

No, that's not it at all. The whistleblower stated, directly, in his complaint, that he had spoken with other individuals in the intelligence community about the President's actions. Asking "who did you talk with about this" serves one of two purposes: 1) To work towards identifying the whistleblower. 2) To find another fact witness who was a part of the converstations.

I have no doubt that if anyone was able to provide a realistic reason why option 2 is their reason for the questions, it would be something that could be considered.

I would also like to add that trump has said that any individuals that have confided with the WB spies.

 

[wardorican]

So, the itel committee can't ask questions about any member of the intel community because someone in the intel community might be the WB.

I will agree, that certainly is "simple."

From my limited understanding, they just can't ask these individuals who voiced concerns about either the call, or other events between the US and Ukraine, who from the IC they voiced concerns to.

That would quickly limit who could be the whistle blower.

I'd assume many other questions to the IC are fair game. They know this.

 

[SaintForLife]

It's a broken link. Where did you get the image and the alleged access to his youtube account? Why do you believe that link was supposed to go to his actual youtube account?

That was supposed to be a direct link to his YouTube account and that list. You can search for his youtube account. His youtube account is MarkSZaidEsq

 

[MT15]

I would also like to add that trump has said that any individuals that have confided with the WB spies.

This should be emphasized. Trump has practiced his public witness intimidation routine for quite a while. He said they are treasonous, and they are like spies.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I am listening on radio. His opening statement and opening questioning, he was garbled and misspoke a few times...

Since then, he's a lot better. Think it was early nerves. Big spotlight for anyone.

I guess the question would be, is the focus on his speaking just a passing observation
Or is it a (perhaps subconscious) attempt to anticipate what the R spin cycle will do?

 

[JRad]

That was supposed to be a direct link to his YouTube account and that list. You can search for his youtube account. His youtube account is MarkSZaidEsq

This is not how the internet works. If you're logged into your Google account in Chrome, or just logged into YouTube period, anyone who "likes" something on YouTube will cause it to show on your account. Does he have kids? Nieces? Nephews? Did they use a computer his account was logged in to?

 

[LA - L.A.]

That was supposed to be a direct link to his YouTube account and that list. You can search for his youtube account. His youtube account is MarkSZaidEsq

Why won't you simply provide the source of the alleged youtube image you posted as well as your source for the link that allegedly is to his youtube account?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Ouch

I guess that should put an end to the attacks on LTC Vindman

 

[insidejob]

I would also like to add that trump has said that any individuals that have confided with the WB spies.

He once said the whistleblower should be charged with treason. He is unhinged.