The official Impeachment thread.

Dec 2018
2,005
1,203
Unionville Indiana
right now it's an inquiry. also known as an "investigation"

6 committees, all with minority Republican members. even if a vote were held, anyone Republicans wanted to subpoena, it would have to pass majority Dem committees anyway. if articles are drawn, and pass the house, then it goes to the Senate for trial. That's where he will be able to defend himself. Also the Senate is majority Republican, so if the Republicans are still defending him, they will do so there as well.

if someone is being investigated, say by the police (inquiry), they don't get to defend themselves until charges are pressed (articles), and trial occurs.
Well taken points.

Pelosi is nowhere near as stupid as Trump and the GOP had hoped. Here's why:

There are numerous arguments cautioning against holding a vote to authorize a formal impeachment inquiry.

... First and foremost, as noted, is the futility. There is no indication that the White House would comply with a congressional investigation — with or without a formal vote. Time and time again we have seen the contempt with which this White House views congressional oversight. (As Trump has said: “We’re fighting all the subpoenas,” and “I don’t want people testifying.”) The insistence on a vote is likely no more than another delay tactic to give the White House time to come up with another excuse. The list of grievances in the intemperate 8-page letter by White House Counsel Pat Cipollone on Tuesday is further proof, if anyone needed it, that the demand for a vote is a placeholder for other reasons the administration will provide as a basis for further stonewalling the impeachment process.

Holding a vote now may also limit the efficacy of the subpoenas already churning through the justice system — or at least give Trump’s litigators an argument for starting over. House committees have already argued to federal judges that an impeachment investigation is underway, regardless of a formal vote to open one, necessitating Congress’s access to witnesses and documents. If a vote is taken now, the president’s lawyers are likely to argue that the prior requests were thus not included in the impeachment inquiry.

Such a vote may also limit the House investigators in what they can investigate. As we have seen repeatedly, this president appears determined to commit more abuses of power time and again. ...

 
  • Like
Reactions: Clara007 and se7en
Sep 2019
695
194
NYC
I take solace in your round-about admission you were wrong about a vote being required. You don't have to outwardly admit it for me to know.
lol, your comprehension issues, and lack of critical thinking skills is not my problem. ;)


"The reasons Pelosi is not planning a vote are both practical and political: Taking the step of passing a formal impeachment inquiry resolution is a complicated and time-consuming endeavor that has political downsides, from drafting the exact language of the resolution, to holding a complicated floor debate and to putting some members in a tough spot.


Moreover, having a vote on an impeachment inquiry resolution would give Republicans an opening to argue they should have subpoena power like in past impeachment proceedings, something that Democrats would almost certainly never allow."



Liberal CNN not even realizing how fascist this sounds, refusing to let the other side have the same power to investigate or defend trump if they so choose makes the whole thing illegitimate.

A Vote is "Required" to give democrat subpoenas teeth. without it the executive branch can tell the dems in the house to fuck off...


I hope this clears up your befuddlement.



Hopefully you won't be like the other trumpers, and go back to repeating the BS over and over, 10 minutes later, lol


You silly dependent class communists.... always lying about those who disagree with you. Why do you think I would be timid in admitting being a trump supporter if I was, Do I come off as meek and seeking your approval?


I disagree for example with trump on, (not a complete list, and some items have changed, obviously.


1. Reinstated Clintons 1033 program giving police tanks.
2. Sessions recent anouncement on enforcing federal marijuana rules.
3. his support for single payer (yes thats actually what he supports)
4. failure to pull us out of foreign conflicts.
5. failure to truly overhaul the tax system
6. failure to repeal and replace obamacare
7. hes far too statist/populist
8. his tweets are usually dumb. Some are very entertaining but usually they are cringe worthy
9. I am against the wall, instead dry up benefits upon illegal entry
10. against his infrastructure plan
11. I am against his pro-affirmative action stance
12. I am against stop and frisk, he is for it.
13. I am against his pro-prison stance
14. I am against his strong pro eminent domain views.
15. I am against paid family leave
16. against his view on cuba
17. I am against much of his import tax views
18. I am against the f-35 jet program
19. His travel ban forgets saudi arabia and other countries that should be on it.
20. he's for the patriot act, I am not.
21. hes for a higher minimum wage, I am for what the market bears,
 
Jul 2019
4,989
2,544
Georgia
Meanwhile, as subpoenas are being ignored.....
if trump ignores subpoenas, that can be added to the articles as obstruction. I personally think trump would rather have additional obstruction articles than turn over incriminating information which implicates him in much worse crimes.

anyone else who ignores can be charged with criminal obstruction
 
Sep 2019
695
194
NYC
if trump ignores subpoenas, that can be added to the articles as obstruction. I personally think trump would rather have additional obstruction articles than turn over incriminating information which implicates him in much worse crimes.

anyone else who ignores can be charged with criminal obstruction

your speculating.... I think what's happening, and I am speculating as well, is trump is beating this behive to a pure fury knowing these bees don't sting. you can add all these things to the impeachment, when the senate does not convict, the trump base which is already energized will be at a nuclear lever while the democrats will be completely deflated.

Its a disaster of thier own making, they are painting themselves into a corner.


"can be" is the operative word, but the justice dept historically does not prosecute such things against an administration.
 
Jul 2019
4,989
2,544
Georgia
"The slow-rising central horror of "Watergate" is not that it might grind down to the reluctant impeachment of a vengeful thug of a president whose entire political career has been a monument to the same kind of cheap shots and treachery he finally got nailed for, but that we might somehow fail to learn something from it." - Hunter S. Thompson

I sure wish he was around today to write about what's happening now
 
  • Like
Reactions: GluteusMaximus
Jul 2019
4,989
2,544
Georgia
newly obtained State Dept e-mails


WASHINGTON — American diplomats who had pushed for the Trump administration to restore security funding to Ukraine were advised by the White House to play down the release of the money when it was finally approved, documents show.

“Keep moving, people, nothing to see here …” Brad Freden, the State Department’s acting deputy assistant secretary overseeing issues in Europe and Eurasia, wrote in a Sept. 12 email obtained by The New York Times.

He said the National Security Council would not publicly announce that $141 million in State Department assistance was being restored after being held up in what the White House described as a normal review.



notice the word "hold" in quotes

also, important to the timeline, notice the date of this tweet (9/9)


hold on funds was released on 9/11, seemingly right after they knew they were caught
 
  • Like
Reactions: GluteusMaximus