The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (22 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

 

[Dadsdream]

Not gonna fly here. The stock market has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not the president committed high crimes and misdemeanors.

Otherwise, we really should have given Al Capone/El Chapo/basically any mob boss a break. They made lots of money for their constituents, too.

Earlier, somebody mentioned "shiny objects" and such.
If I were a Democrat, I wouldn't want people noticing things like the stock market, historically low unemployment, low inflation.
Impeachment hearings are nothing but a "shiny object" . . . a slight-of-hand misdirection?
Could be.
It's certainly not going to pass in the Senate. Even Ken Starr is saying we haven't reached impeachment territory.

Ken Starr: Witnesses Haven't Accused Trump of Breaking the Law

Former independent counsel Ken Starr said impeaching President Donald Trump given present facts would be an "extravagant" move.

freebeacon.com

 

[JRad]

I don't think he has any kids.

My fault for not clarifying this - I'm not saying you're right or wrong, dude could be a total creep. To draw that conclusion from just his YouTube history is a bit of a stretch is all. I've had more than one coworker join some Facebook groups because they left their stuff unlocked

Granted, someone may have been taking the pictures, but who goes to Disney alone?

 

[SaintForLife]

So this is what I saw happening: before the WB allegations were thoroughly confirmed and corroborated by multiple witnesses, sure the House committee wanted to hear from the WB. But, once they got their testimony from the actual people involved, they no longer needed to hear from the WB who was basing his complaint on secondhand information after all, correct? I mean the Rs complained day and night about secondhand information.

About this same time Trump and the right wing fringe media went into overdrive defaming the WB and causing Trump’s disciples to get all worked up. His or her safety and security is a real concern. There would be death threats and possibly worse.

When there are simple and realistic explanations it’s usually not a huge conspiracy. It’s just not.

I guess it's just a coincidence that Schiff changed his tune about the whistleblower testifying as soon as it was reported that Schiff's staff coordinated with the whistleblower. Does that not make you curious at all especially knowing how Schiff was shown to be extremely dishonest during the Russia investigation?

If it's all just a big conspiracy theory there is one way to end that conspiracy. The whistleblower should testify. If not it just fuels the "conspiracy" that Schiff and the Democrats are hiding something.

For the record I do think the Ukraine situation is concerning, but it doesn't rise to the level of impeachment in my opinion. If we had leaked calls and transcripts from any other president's I have a feeling we would see plenty of questionable things.

 

[samiam5211]

In a judicial sense the whistleblower, in this case, operates somewhat similarly to a CI in a criminal trial. And I find that allowing a I to remain anonymous is an injustice to defendants. It is an injustice even when a defendant cannot articulate a reason that the CI is material. The argument appears circular - I don't know if the CI is material because I don't know anything about him/her, etc.

But the bigger problem I have touches on your last paragraph - this is not a criminal case or a child welfare case. It is not even a true judicial case - its mostly a political case - which is exactly what impeachment was designed to be. And the idea that "the press" appears to be taking a side in this by not actively attempting to identify the person who started the process of impeachment strikes me as incredibly odd - almost as if they are taking a political side.

I think that the media’s reluctance in this case has to do with a well founded fear for the safety of the WB and would rather not be responsible for spreading the identity should a mentally ill person or anyone decide to harm the WB.

Even foxnews has generally avoided trying to out the WB.

 

[SaintForLife]

I think that the media’s reluctance in this case has to do with a well founded fear for the safety of the WB and would rather not be responsible for spreading the identity should a mentally ill person or anyone decide to harm the WB.

Even foxnews has generally avoided trying to out the WB.

How would the whistleblower be in any more danger than any of the other people who have testified?

 

[B4YOU]

And I find that allowing a I to remain anonymous is an injustice to defendants. It is an injustice even when a defendant cannot articulate a reason that the CI is material.

If a CI said Joe is selling crack on 5th and Main and the police show up and catch Joe selling crack, then does the CI need to testify and should their information be released? What if Joe and his gang are known to intimidate witnesses? What if there are multiple people on the corner testifying Joe was selling crack, does the CI’s name still need to be released? I reason you don’t release CI names to encourage others to come forward and to protect your sources.

Again, the whistleblower doesn’t matter when Trump releases a memo showing him committing a crime and multiple people testifying that aid was withheld at the request of Trump and Giuliani.

 

[samiam5211]

Earlier, somebody mentioned "shiny objects" and such.
If I were a Democrat, I wouldn't want people noticing things like the stock market, historically low unemployment, low inflation.
Impeachment hearings are nothing but a "shiny object" . . . a slight-of-hand misdirection?
Could be.
It's certainly not going to pass in the Senate. Even Ken Starr is saying we haven't reached impeachment territory.

Ken Starr: Witnesses Haven't Accused Trump of Breaking the Law

Former independent counsel Ken Starr said impeaching President Donald Trump given present facts would be an "extravagant" move.

freebeacon.com

You never seem to address the substance of what is going on. You just dismiss and deflect.

If you can defend Trump on the facts without attacking the dems or the process then do it.

What do you believe was going on with Trump, Rudy and the gang and Ukraine?

Are you ok with it?

 

[SaintForLife]

If a CI said Joe is selling crack on 5th and Main and the police show up and catch Joe selling crack, then does the CI need to testify and should their information be released? What if Joe and his gang are known to intimidate witnesses? What if there are multiple people on the corner testifying Joe was selling crack, does the CI’s name still need to be released? I reason you don’t release CI names to encourage others to come forward and to protect your sources.

Again, the whistleblower doesn’t matter when Trump releases a memo showing him committing a crime and multiple people testifying that aid was withheld at the request of Trump and Giuliani.

I don't see how you can compare a criminal situation to a political situation. They are totally different despite possible similarities in analogies.

 

[samiam5211]

How would the whistleblower be in any more danger than any of the other people who have testified?

First, I’m not defending the media’s position. I don’t care if the WB is outed or not. They do not matter. Outing them would put to death yet another of the Republicans pathetic and irrational defenses.

The WB is different from the others testifying because their identity is already knownand acknowledged. The media isn’t responsible for their names being public.

 

[B4YOU]

I don't see how you can compare a criminal situation to a political situation. They are totally different despite possible similarities in analogies.

I can compare them because Trump’s action is a crime. It meets federal statutes on bribery and is an impeachable offense described in the Constitution.

 

[SaintForLife]

I found this recent quote by Snowden about Obama and surveillance interesting because of the reference to the Intelligence Community. It may or may not be relevant to the Ukraine situation, but it definitely peaked my curiosity.

Notorious leaker Edward Snowden ripped into former President Barack Obama, arguing that he was hypocritical on mass surveillance and made the issue worse under his administration.

“Maybe Barack Obama honestly did want to get to this later, but what we can say today is for all the good that may have been done in that White House, this is an issue where the president went through two full terms and did not fix the problem, but in fact made it worse," Snowden told podcast host Joe Rogan in a video posted on Wednesday.

When Rogan asked about Obama's campaign promise to protect whistleblowers, Snowden laughed. "Well, Obama also, during his campaign, he campaigned actively against the warrantless wiretapping [from] the Bush administration," he said.

Snowden went on to paint a picture in which career intelligence staffers effectively fearmongered newly-elected presidents into supporting problematic programs.

“If you’ve got the IC against you, they can stonewall you, they can put out stories that are gonna be problematic for you every day of your presidency," he added.

"And it’s not that it’s necessarily gonna cast you out of the White House, but it’s a problem as president you very much don’t want.”

Edward Snowden says Barack Obama made surveillance state 'worse' | Fox News

www-foxnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[JimEverett]

I can compare them because Trump’s action is a crime. It meets federal statutes on bribery and is an impeachable offense described in the Constitution.

That is debatable - but the more important point is that Trump is not being tried in a court of law. he will be tried before a political body by a political body.

 

[SaintForLife]

I can compare them because Trump’s action is a crime. It meets federal statutes on bribery and is an impeachable offense described in the Constitution.

Yovanovitch doesn't seem to think it was illegal.

 

[samiam5211]

I found this recent quote by Snowden about Obama and surveillance interesting because of the reference to the Intelligence Community. It may or may not be relevant to the Ukraine situation, but it definitely peaked my curiosity.

Notorious leaker Edward Snowden ripped into former President Barack Obama, arguing that he was hypocritical on mass surveillance and made the issue worse under his administration.

“Maybe Barack Obama honestly did want to get to this later, but what we can say today is for all the good that may have been done in that White House, this is an issue where the president went through two full terms and did not fix the problem, but in fact made it worse," Snowden told podcast host Joe Rogan in a video posted on Wednesday.

When Rogan asked about Obama's campaign promise to protect whistleblowers, Snowden laughed. "Well, Obama also, during his campaign, he campaigned actively against the warrantless wiretapping [from] the Bush administration," he said.

Snowden went on to paint a picture in which career intelligence staffers effectively fearmongered newly-elected presidents into supporting problematic programs.

“If you’ve got the IC against you, they can stonewall you, they can put out stories that are gonna be problematic for you every day of your presidency," he added.

"And it’s not that it’s necessarily gonna cast you out of the White House, but it’s a problem as president you very much don’t want.”

Edward Snowden says Barack Obama made surveillance state 'worse' | Fox News

www-foxnews-com.cdn.ampproject.org

That Joe Rogan podcast with Snowden was really good. It’s mostly Snowden talking, but everyone should listen to it.

I assume you quoted this part because you are hoping to try to defend Trump with a conspiracy theory about the deep state.

 

[JRad]

How would the whistleblower's safety be in any more danger than any of the other people who have testified?

Ask R David Edelman.

He was in that picture that was being falsely circulated calling him the whistleblower.

Edit: I'm just going to stop posting today, this is like the third time I've hit send too early. Apparently he was receiving death threats.

 

[JimEverett]

Ask R David Edelman.

He was in that picture that was being falsely circulated calling him the whistleblower.

Edit: Why I not think today. Apparently he was receiving death threats.

Aren't all the witnesses receiving death threats?

 

[JRad]

Aren't all the witnesses receiving death threats?

I don't know, are they?

 

[B4YOU]

Yovanovitch doesn't seem to think it was illegal.

I see that as does she have information on illegal activities by the President. Not as a commentary on the phone call or Giuliani's actions.

Is it a crime for a President withhold $400M in funds conditioned on a public statement announcing an investigation into political opponents?