US House Speaker Announces Formal Impeachment Inquiry

[Cope]

It depends if you want to believe Mulvaney when he suggested withholding the aid was exclusively based on investigating 'the server' and that the two requests (investigating Biden and the server) are separate as ep1c is suggesting. Personally, that strikes me as rather generous.

Mulvaney's comments were clearly with regard to the 2016 election, not Joe Biden. This is from the article:

“Did he also mention to me in the past, the corruption related to the DNC server? Absolutely. No question,” Mulvaney said, referring to Trump. “But that’s it. That’s why we held up the money.”

“The look-back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the things that he was worried about in corruption in that nation,” Mulvaney said, referring to Trump.

A reporter told Mulvaney that what he just described was a quid pro quo. “We do that all the time with foreign policy,” Mulvaney responded.

The alleged comment that "we [the US] do that [barter] all the time" is completely accurate. The desperate fussing over the phrase "quid pro quo" - as though it implies some sort of impropriety - is nonsensical drivel.

He made both requests in the infamous memo.

This is exactly what I was referring to when I mentioned people "attempting to conflate" the issues and generate suspicion. We had the exact same problem in 2016 with regard to the theft of DNC emails and Clinton's use of a private email server.

Yet withholding the aid was now only related to the server issue, despite them previously denying that it was related to either? Doesn't make sense to me.

What was denied previously was the existence of a "quid pro quo". This, however, is a clearly an argument about semantics rather than substance.

[Squiggle]

Its painful from an outside perspective, to watch Americans twist themselves through knots to justify obvious corruption and abuse of power. Republicans do it endlessly with Trump, Democrats do it endlessly with Biden, Hillary, etc. It really is one of those cases where, on the outside, the obvious self delusion and ad hoc rationalizations are embarrassing to watch. But then again this is the same people who only recently [partially] realized they even had an empire, decades after they had sent rape gangs after trade unionists around the world, killed democratic leaders etc. Americans are as delusional and unaware as the worst Chinese Nationalist. This thread has been less a display of political discussion amongst Americans, than it was a display of which bits of propaganda and tribe each member subscribed to as they debased themselves making excuses for their favoured tribes leaders.

[Katsumoto]

Mulvaney's comments were clearly with regard to the 2016 election, not Joe Biden.

Yeah I know what his comments were, but as my post said, I'm saying I don't buy the idea that the aid was withheld solely to force the server investigation and not the Biden one as well.

[Cope]

Yeah I know what his comments were, but as my post said, I'm saying I don't buy the idea that the aid was withheld solely to force the server investigation and not the Biden one as well.

The "whistleblower" floated the "quid pro quo" theory in his complaint; so far we haven't seen any genuine evidence of it. The Mulvaney comments tell us nothing that wasn't already known. They're being used to keep the narrative ticking over.

[B. W.]

The Controversy


I have never heard of a historic example of what Trump did here.



The faux concern is lovely, thank you.

The President "can't" solicit campaign aid from a foreign government (especially with military aid on the line for them), yet here we are. The POTUS "can" do pretty much anything he wants, it's just up to the checks on the system to do something if the context calls for it. Given this is (in your view) a dramatic and fabricated coup event, Trump has precedents for some extreme executive actions, does he not?

You were saying?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-quid-pro-quo/

BTW, it's official, you can no longer deny that you believe the President can suspend Congress. You doubled down on it too many times. Don't worry, I'll be reminding you.

[Gaidin]

You were saying?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-quid-pro-quo/

BTW, it's official, you can no longer deny that you believe the President can suspend Congress. You doubled down on it too many times. Don't worry, I'll be reminding you.

Sure Jan. We’ll remember next time you get hyperactive with your wording.

[The spartan]

You were saying?

https://www.washingtontimes.com/news...-quid-pro-quo/

You may want to keep up, goalpost-runner McGee, the unprecedented part was: "Historians, diplomats, and former White House officials of both parties have said that it was unprecedented for a U.S. president to solicit foreign interference in American elections for his own personal and political benefit. The controversy led to an impeachment inquiry against Trump."

Whether you think a prior POTUS was involved in any old "quid pro quo" dealings is besides the point unless you are talking about involving a foreign government in one of our elections.

BTW, it's official, you can no longer deny that you believe the President can suspend Congress. You doubled down on it too many times. Don't worry, I'll be reminding you.

I can do you one better: the POTUS "can" do whatever he goddamn wants, it's just a matter of if the other 2 branches of government would do anything about it (checks and balances, you know). You may want to brush up on your core concepts of government about what Commanders-in-Chief "can" and "cannot" do. If Trump and his followers truly believe that this is a rogue government attempt to stage a coup against the presidency, surely he could justify the use of many emergency powers, no? It is for the good of the country, after all. Please, by all means, bring SCOTUS in on this too, I am sure they would agree Congress has gone rogue under Pelosi and is a danger to the Constitution.

[Gaidin]

I can do you one better: the POTUS "can" do whatever he goddamn wants, it's just a matter of if the other 2 branches of government would do anything about it (checks and balances, you know). You may want to brush up on your core concepts of government about what Commanders-in-Chief "can" and "cannot" do. If Trump and his followers truly believe that this is a rogue government attempt to stage a coup against the presidency, surely he could justify the use of many emergency powers, no? It is for the good of the country, after all. Please, by all means, bring SCOTUS in on this too, I am sure they would agree Congress has gone rogue under Pelosi and is a danger to the Constitution.

That'd be some hilarious interpretation of Articles 1 and 2 there.

[Love Mountain]

That'd be some hilarious interpretation of Articles 1 and 2 there.

Wouldn't put it past Trump.

[The spartan]

That'd be some hilarious interpretation of Articles 1 and 2 there.

We've seen it happen with other governments.

Idk, if I genuinely believed a shadow government was literally fabricating evidence to overthrow a justly elected POTUS, I would probably support some extreme measures myself.

[Gaidin]

We've seen it happen with other governments.

Idk, if I genuinely believed a shadow government was literally fabricating evidence to overthrow a justly elected POTUS, I would probably support some extreme measures myself.

We've seen Presidents or Militaries just outright throw Legislatures and Courts out on their ass....what you're describing is the Courts saying the act being well and totally legal even though the Constitution says how the House passes its bills is and runs its stuff is its business.

[The spartan]

We've seen Presidents or Militaries just outright throw Legislatures and Courts out on their ass....what you're describing is the Courts saying the act being well and totally legal even though the Constitution says how the House passes its bills is and runs its stuff is its business.

Well no, I wouldn't expect SCOTUS to side with Trump on that, though they could do bupkis about removing Trump from office (and I would be shocked to see them say that a "national emergency" declared by the POTUS isn't actually a legitimate one). In the other instances of foreign Executives shedding their internal checks, they also provide nice narrative wallpaper as to why they did so maintain an air of legitimacy. I was just curious as to how far BW was willing to take his propaganda campaign. Again, from his "view" the government is already in a state of failure with a rogue Congress on a coup attempt. Forget an impeachment inquiry, that is a desperate state of affairs for the government to be in. Previously in history, the POTUS has a large swath of powers to draw from in such an emergency.

[Gaidin]

Again, from his "view" the government is already in a state of failure with a rogue Congress on a coup attempt.

It's too bad for BW that the House is literally designed to be able to do this. The President gets no say in whether he gets impeached. He doesn't nor should he get to defend himself. That is in the trial. Which happens in the Senate. All 19 times the House has impeached someone in the United States at the Federal level, the official has had zero opportunity to defend themselves until the impeachment went to the Senate for trial. And that includes Presidents Johnson and Clinton.

BW can get over himself.

[alhoon]

From what I understand from the weird high high high things, impeachment is not a trial, it's kinda like an indictment. It's a "should we prosecute this person congress? Yes or No?" If they choose to impeach, then it goes to senate for trial. It's kinda like that in other countries too. In my country a couple of ministers were accused of corruption. It first went to the parliament to see if they could be prosecuted and once the parliament said "Go on" then they went to trial, and then in prison. Not before.

[The spartan]

From what I understand from the weird high high high things, impeachment is not a trial, it's kinda like an indictment. It's a "should we prosecute this person congress? Yes or No?" If they choose to impeach, then it goes to senate for trial. It's kinda like that in other countries too. In my country a couple of ministers were accused of corruption. It first went to the parliament to see if they could be prosecuted and once the parliament said "Go on" then they went to trial, and then in prison. Not before.

It's not a trial in a traditional sense. The houses of Congress set their own rules to determine if the POTUS should be removed from office, ostensibly for violating his office or abusing his power. But it is wholly a congressional process, the judicial branch of government can't touch him unless the POTUS is "convicted" by the Senate and removed from office.

[Cyclops]

Quite right, in the US system the impeachment is the indictment, the formal statement of a charge against a person to be adjudged.

Trump could be impeached and found not to have committed high crimes and misdemeanors: its happened both times an impeachment has been voted for s far in US history (just found out about the Jackson one).

The current "impeachment inquiry" is just noise, really. Until the actual impeachment motion is put its nothing. Both presidents who were impeached were not convicted and I guess it was grandstanding by the opposition: Nixon resigned because he'd gone too far and alienated his own party and stood to be convicted. I don't think Trump has done this yet, unless the Republicans are serious about the Kurds.

[B. W.]

You may want to keep up, goalpost-runner McGee, the unprecedented part was: "Historians, diplomats, and former White House officials of both parties have said that it was unprecedented for a U.S. president to solicit foreign interference in American elections for his own personal and political benefit. The controversy led to an impeachment inquiry against Trump."

Whether you think a prior POTUS was involved in any old "quid pro quo" dealings is besides the point unless you are talking about involving a foreign government in one of our elections.


I can do you one better: the POTUS "can" do whatever he goddamn wants, it's just a matter of if the other 2 branches of government would do anything about it (checks and balances, you know). You may want to brush up on your core concepts of government about what Commanders-in-Chief "can" and "cannot" do. If Trump and his followers truly believe that this is a rogue government attempt to stage a coup against the presidency, surely he could justify the use of many emergency powers, no? It is for the good of the country, after all. Please, by all means, bring SCOTUS in on this too, I am sure they would agree Congress has gone rogue under Pelosi and is a danger to the Constitution.

So says the person who believes that the US President can suspend Congress! Laughable!

The only documented evidence of a US President soliciting a foreign government to interfere in a US election is Obama, along with VP Biden and SecState Hillary to induce Ukraine to work against Trump's election.

And if you don't think Obama engaged in Quid pro quo what do you think the article was referencing with this:

“[The] Obama administration insists there was no quid pro quo,” The Wall Street Journal wrote in a separate piece in August, 2016.Guess it was just coincidence those Americans were released at the same time the White House was directing secret loads of cash onto an airplane bound for Tehran. Onto an unmarked cargo plane.

It's too bad for BW that the House is literally designed to be able to do this. The President gets no say in whether he gets impeached. He doesn't nor should he get to defend himself. That is in the trial. Which happens in the Senate. All 19 times the House has impeached someone in the United States at the Federal level, the official has had zero opportunity to defend themselves until the impeachment went to the Senate for trial. And that includes Presidents Johnson and Clinton.

BW can get over himself.

What are you talking about? Johnson wasn't impeached.

The fact that the Senate is where the "trial" will be held is the very reason why the Dems in the House are unlikely to vote to impeach because the President will be allowed to supeanna all the records of the secret meetings the Democrats have had on the issue. When and if that happens the Dems can kiss goodbye a couple of dozen house seats and control of the House.

[Gaidin]

What are you talking about? Johnson wasn't impeached.

This is you being wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac...Andrew_Johnson

[B. W.]

This is you being wrong.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Impeac...Andrew_Johnson

I thought you were talking about Lyndon Johnson because you used Johnson in the same sentence with Clinton and lest you forget, Hillary was in on the Watergate investigation that helped bring down Nixon. I'll call this one even, but the next time also use the first name for clarification.

[Gaidin]

I’ll just keep calling you wrong.