US House Speaker Announces Formal Impeachment Inquiry

[The spartan]

Whether or not the President asking Zelensky to "look into" Biden's affairs in Ukraine was tantamount, in and of itself, to an abuse of power is contingent on one question: did Trump have any reason to suspect that Biden had behaved improperly? If the answer to that question is yes, which, as the facts I presented show that it is, then, unless substantial new evidence comes to light, there is no abuse of power whatsoever.

Think again what you are saying: "abuse of power is contingent on one question: did Trump have any reason to suspect that Biden had behaved improperly." That's insane. A POTUS should be able to use their powers to solicit a foreign chief executive to help find dirt on a political opponent for "any reason" of suspicion? You honestly believe that?

So you're right that this has nothing to do with whether Biden is actually guilty of anything (as I've stated repeatedly throughout the thread) only whether the President had reasonable cause to ask Zelensky to look into his dealings.

Then why the hell are you trying to prove Biden's guilt in this thread? It's irrelevant.

No, the purpose of the post was to highlight the double standards at play here.

I agree, the double standard you have on whataboutisms is ridiculous.

Where did the President ask Zelensky to start a criminal investigation?

This line of our discussion was based on your question to me back on post 165 (page 9) asking: "Well would you continue to think it was improper for a president to request an investigation into the actions of a former administration if there was a genuine basis for assuming that it had acted illegally?"

I was responding to that about how asking an AG would be different than asking a foreign power.

The President didn't ask Zelensky to "dig up dirt" on Joe Biden. He asked him - with justification - to "look into" Biden's dealings vis-a-vis Shokin. So unless you can prove that Trump sought to coerce or bribe the Ukrainians into manufacturing evidence against Biden in order to smear him (certainly not something shown in any of the evidence so far) then I will continue to not care.

This doesn't have to do with "making up" anything, you still seem stuck on the idea that "with justification" means anything here. The POTUS isn't allowed to solicit information from foreign agents on political opponents. That you think that is totally fine thing is insane.

You're missing the point. I wasn't using HRC's dirt digging as a justification for the President asking Zelensky to look into Biden. I was using it to indicate that many of his accusers are acting in bad faith.

Yeah, that's literally what a whataboutism is. You are attempting to discredit them by calling them hypocrites using a separate event. It's not an argument, it's a fallacy. The post had nothing to do with the actual topic of the thread, it was just an attack on your "opponents" of the thread.

I don't care that HRC looked into Trump.

You apparently didn't care enough to know when HRC stopped being Secretary of State or what abuses she could have committed in that office. Which then makes it a weird thing to use as a charge of hypocrisy.

The Republicans are not in control of whether Trump is impeached because they don't control the House.

"Trump could, in fact, shoot a person on 5th avenue and it would be perfectly 'legal' as long as the Republicans can hold their nerve and promise to not convict on impeachment."

I wonder when non-Republicans started becoming classified as Trump lemmings simply for rejecting clearly contrived scandals and self-serving press hysteria. Oh yeah, June 16 2015. That was the date.

I was more tipped off by the sad appeal to HRC. Classic Trump lemming move.

There was no conspiracy: the coordination was blatant.

They announced they were working together to commit a "coordinated assault" on Trump? Could you link that to me, I must have missed that announcement.

[Coughdrop addict]

It's official, the "whistleblower" is a registered Democrat:

https://www.breitbart.com/clips/2019...ered-democrat/

I love how some Republicans are crowing about this as a big "gotcha!" moment. Just as liars always assume everyone else lies all the time and the corrupt justify their behavior with "Everybody does it.", it's clear these Republicans assume that any and all investigations a Democrat is in any way involved in must be as baseless and partisan as one of their Hillary smear jobs. The idea that an investigation was started because Trump is honestly believed to have done something wrong has not so much as crossed their minds.

[Katsumoto]

This is also fine.

US diplomats told Ukraine’s president, Volodymyr Zelenskiy, that a prestigious White House visit to meet Donald Trump was dependent on him making a public statement vowing to investigate Hunter Biden’s company, and a Ukrainian role in the 2016 elections, according to texts released on Thursday night.

The texts, released by three congressional committees holding impeachment hearings, show that the diplomats made clear that any improvement in Kyiv’s relations with Washington would be dependent on Zelenskiy’s cooperation in Trump’s quest to find damaging material about son of his leading political opponent, and on the Democrats in general.

In August, Zelenskiy’s government became aware, through a US press report, that military aid for its struggle with Russia, had been withheld by Trump, in an apparent effort to increase the pressure on the Ukrainian government.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-investigation

[Exarch]

Funny how the Democrats were fine with all of Trump's policies up until he wanted to dig up dirt on one of the American oligarchs. Then all of a sudden, it's impeachment time, baby.

Jimmy Dore breaks it down beautifully:

[Cope]

This is also fine.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...-investigation

You didn't even bother reading the evidence did you? Unless the Guardian journalists who wrote that article were referring to something other than the evidence they cited in the report, their analysis is straight up fake news. The interactions show that the US diplomats explicitly stated that they wanted a transparent and unbiased investigation into the events of 2016 and that they had no interest in a quid pro quo. Neither The Democratic Party, the Bidens nor the 2020 election are mentioned once.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[B. W.]

UhOh! If true, this puts the "whistleblower" in a big heap of doo doo:

https://twitchy.com/samj-3930/2019/1...so-much-worse/

Obama prosecuted whistleblowers as spies. I think Trump should do the same.

[Cope]

I'm only answering part of this, because most of what you wrote is just a repetition of points which have been rebuffed or explained previously.

Think again what you are saying: "abuse of power is contingent on one question: did Trump have any reason to suspect that Biden had behaved improperly." That's insane. A POTUS should be able to use their powers to solicit a foreign chief executive to help find dirt on a political opponent for "any reason" of suspicion? You honestly believe that?

When I say "any reason" I mean any legitimate reason. Showing that Trump had cause to believe that Biden may have acted inappropriately in Ukraine was important because it illustrates that the president had a legitimate reason for wanting Biden investigated.

They announced they were working together to commit a "coordinated assault" on Trump? Could you link that to me, I must have missed that announcement.

Something doesn't have to be formally "announced" to be blatant. It was reasonably clear, for instance, that Schiff (or members of his staff) had coordinated with the "whistleblower" in advance, but it has now been confirmed that he was at least indirectly involved prior to the complaint even having been filed. Aside from this being a breach in protocol, it opens up the potential that Schiff (or his staff) had a hand in the wording of the complaint - which, were it true, would be wholly unsurprising considering the text's meticulous legalism and deliberate attempts to create a linguistic continuity between itself and the Russia hoax.

[Gaidin]

Something doesn't have to be formally "announced" to be blatant. It was reasonably clear, for instance, that Schiff (or members of his staff) had coordinated with the "whistleblower" in advance, but it has now been confirmed that he was at least indirectly involved prior to the complaint even having been filed. Aside from this being a breach in protocol, it opens up the potential that Schiff (or his staff) had a hand in the wording of the complaint - which, were it true, would be wholly unsurprising considering the text's meticulous legalism and deliberate attempts to create a linguistic continuity between itself and the Russia hoax.

Just because the document used legalese?

Wow. That's a new one. I'm not sure you're aware of just how many lawyers these federal agencies have for policy generating purposes as law gets passed.

Do better.

[Love Mountain]

The Hill

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell's (R-Ky.) reelection campaign is seizing on the fight over impeachment, pledging in Facebook ads that he will lead Republican efforts to stop President Trump from being removed from office.

"Nancy Pelosi's in the clutches of a left wing mob. They finally convinced her to impeach the president. All of you know your Constitution, the way that impeachment stops is a Senate majority with me as majority leader," McConnell says in an ad that began running on Thursday.

Yeah, imagine that. At least he's on record for saying it, not that anyone ever doubted which way he leaned.

[Ludicus]

Do people honestly not see what is odd about these two facts... without the influence of his father misusing his position. All this media exposure revealed by the campaign to oust Trump, really doesn’t improve America’s image.

Well, its happens everywhere. Measuring nepotism: is it more prevalent in the US than in other
As someone else has already said,

Joe Biden is appointed the point-person to two countries on policy: China and Ukraine. And in both of those countries, they happen to be the epicenters of Hunter Biden's business activities.
The problem is, just like in China, in the case of Ukraine, he has no background that would warrant him getting this position. He has no background in energy policy, and he certainly has no background and Ukraine.

According to David Richter, the president of Hill International. "It really helps, to have the brother of the vice president as a partner".
Ironically, the ex-Vice President Biden promises now "an absolute wall" between government and his family's financial interests" should he be elected President.
We can conclude that nepotism is a form of political corruption exclusive only to Vice-Presidents.

[Exarch]

Well, its happens everywhere. Measuring nepotism: is it more prevalent in the US than in other
As someone else has already said,

According to David Richter, the president of Hill International. "It really helps, to have the brother of the vice president as a partner".
Ironically, the ex-Vice President Biden promises now "an absolute wall" between government and his family's financial interests" should he be elected President.
We can conclude that nepotism is a form of political corruption exclusive only to Vice-Presidents.

As it happens, it's been scientifically proven that the United States is an oligarchy:

The US is dominated by a rich and powerful elite.So concludes a recent study by Princeton University Prof Martin Gilens and Northwestern University Prof Benjamin I Page.
This is not news, you say.
Perhaps, but the two professors have conducted exhaustive research to try to present data-driven support for this conclusion. Here's how they explain it:
Multivariate analysis indicates that economic elites and organised groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on US government policy, while average citizens and mass-based interest groups have little or no independent influence.
In English: the wealthy few move policy, while the average American has little power.

https://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-echochambers-27074746

And funnily enough, when the report came out, the researchers tried to do some damage control given the prickly nature of their oligarch bosses.

[Exarch]

COUP IMMINENT: US MARINES JUST GOT PERMISSION TO DEPLOY IN THE CONTINENTAL USA
https://twitter.com/cali_crissy/stat...348225/photo/1

Trumps is finally doing what he should've done a long time ago and purge the traitors.

EDIT: also, the news articles and reddit threads have been deleted in the few hours since it came up on twitter. If that aint a sign that 's about to hit the fan i dont know what is.

[The spartan]

Twitter: the most thorough of news sources.

I'm only answering part of this, because most of what you wrote is just a repetition of points which have been rebuffed or explained previously.

I agree, channeling Basil wasn't a smooth move.

When I say "any reason" I mean any legitimate reason. Showing that Trump had cause to believe that Biden may have acted inappropriately in Ukraine was important because it illustrates that the president had a legitimate reason for wanting Biden investigated.

"Legitimate" is just a throwaway word here; you know there is no legal standard as to what a "legitimate" concern would be. It would de facto be up to the POTUS's discretion on what a "legitimate reason" to ask a foreign government to look into an opponent would be. And you are saying that is fine and legal.

Now, if Trump wanted to actually do what you seem to be desperately trying frame narratively, he would have gone through his own Justice Department; but instead he decided to (as acting POTUS) call up the President of a foreign power and ask for "a favor" after there has been contention over the military aid Ukraine was getting from the US. The ask for Ukraine to contact Trump's personal, non-office holding lawyer about the information was also pretty weird there.

Something doesn't have to be formally "announced" to be blatant. It was reasonably clear, for instance, that Schiff (or members of his staff) had coordinated with the "whistleblower" in advance, but it has now been confirmed that he was at least indirectly involved prior to the complaint even having been filed. Aside from this being a breach in protocol, it opens up the potential that Schiff (or his staff) had a hand in the wording of the complaint - which, were it true, would be wholly unsurprising considering the text's meticulous legalism and deliberate attempts to create a linguistic continuity between itself and the Russia hoax.

Well no, but if there is any suppression or denial of this information (a "coordinated assault" as you put it), that would be a conspiracy. How "obvious" you think it is that a "coordinated assault" occurred isn't really relevant; unless the organizations are admitting to it, you are effectively saying they are engaging in a conspiracy. It would just be one you think they are pulling off poorly.

[Prodromos]

The Hill

Yeah, imagine that. At least he's on record for saying it, not that anyone ever doubted which way he leaned.

I'm pretty sure McConnell would like nothing more than to get rid of Trump, he just can't say so openly right now. But things are looking up.

Mitt Won’t Primary Trump—But He’s Trying to Bring Him Down | Vanity Fair

When it comes to impeachment, the Republican Senate, resting on the bedrock of Donald Trump’s base, has been viewed as an unbreachable wall. But what would it look like if it started to crack? The first sign might be an ominous quiet. The emergence of a second intelligence-agency whistle-blower, this one reportedly with a firsthand account that Trump withheld military aid from Ukraine to pressure its government to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden, complicates the president’s deep state conspiracy defense—and the senators on whom Trump’s political survival rests are mostly lying low. “The messaging is missing this time,” a former West Wing official told me. Even Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell said last week that he would be forced to hold a Senate trial if the House impeached Trump. “There’s been a real increase in nervousness over the past three or four weeks,” a prominent GOP member told me. “Everybody sees what Trump did as such a clear abuse of power,” said another prominent Republican. “Whether it’s criminal or not is another issue. But it’s so blatantly over the line.”

There’s no flood of GOP refugees yet—but there’s unmistakable drift. Trump’s approval rating among Republicans is 87%, a drop of four points since mid September, according to the latest Gallup tracking poll. Meanwhile, Trump’s firewall at Fox News, a vital bulwark that protects his GOP base, has also shown signs of cracking. Tucker Carlson conceded in an op-ed that Trump’s actions were indefensible, though not impeachable. Fox News legal analyst Judge Andrew Napolitano called Trump’s Ukraine actions “criminal and impeachable behavior” last week. Behind the scenes, Fox board member Paul Ryan has privately told Fox Corp CEO Lachlan Murdoch to cut ties with Trump.

In the Senate, Ben Sasse and Susan Collins have made their usual equivocal noises—but not surprisingly, its Mitt Romney, longtime Trump antagonist and sometime suck-up, who’s become the standard-bearer, leading to questions as to what his game is. According to sources, donors have in recent days called the Utah senator and encouraged him to run against Trump in the primary. “There is a half-billion dollars on the sidelines from guys who are fed up with Trump,” a GOP donor told me...

According to people close to Romney, he’s firmly decided against primarying Trump... Instead, a Romney adviser told me, Romney believes he has more potential power as a senator who will decide Trump’s fate in an impeachment trial. “He could have tremendous influence in the impeachment process as the lone voice of conscience in the Republican caucus,” the adviser said. In recent days, Romney has been reaching out privately to key players in the Republican resistance, according to a person briefed on the conversations. “Romney is the one guy who could bring along Susan Collins, Cory Gardner, Ben Sasse. Romney is the pressure point in the impeachment process...

GOP elected officials and donors are privately war-gaming what an endgame for Trump would look like. “It’s clear the House is going to impeach,” the prominent Republican told me. Making matters worse for Trump, a policy wedge has opened up between Trump and the Republican Senate at a moment when he needs its support most. Trump’s surprise decision to pull back American troops in Syria and allow Turkey to take on our Kurdish allies has enraged Trump’s closest GOP allies, including Lindsey Graham. “The Syria decision is a much bigger deal,” another former West Wing official said. “No one on the inside can hold Trump accountable. The Senate Republicans are the only check on power right now.”

Mitt Romney to the Rescue? - The Bulwark

The opportunity afforded to Romney by Trump here is enormous. The first Republican officeholder of consequence (sorry, Justin Amash) who backs Trump’s impeachment and removal will have a chance to become one of the most pivotal figures in American history. Romney could lead some of his Senate colleagues to join him in calling for removal. For other senators, he could provide much-needed cover.

Until someone with gravitas in the GOP sticks his or her head out of the foxhole, Republican elected officials will feel themselves trapped. Right now, their only options are to support President Trump or to support an impeachment inquiry controlled exclusively by Speaker Pelosi and the House Democrats. By coming out strongly in favor of the impeachment inquiry, and perhaps also the removal of the president, Romney could give the members of his party a third choice: They could stand with the Constitution and they could protect the prerogatives of Congress...

In fact, Romney may already be putting the wheels in motion, as a new report suggests he’s working the cloak room to discuss removal with his “open-minded” Republican colleagues.

Poll: Majority of Americans say they endorse opening of House impeachment inquiry of Trump - The Washington Post

More than 8 in 10 Democrats endorse the inquiry and nearly 8 in 10 favor a vote to recommend that Trump be removed from office. Among Republicans, about 7 in 10 do not support the inquiry but almost 3 in 10 do, and almost one-fifth of Republicans say they favor a vote recommending the president’s removal. Among the critical voting bloc of independents, support for the impeachment inquiry is 57 percent, with 49 percent saying the House should vote to remove Trump from office.

Since a Post-ABC poll in July, movement toward an impeachment inquiry has occurred among all three groups, with support for the inquiry rising by 25 points among Democrats, 21 points among Republicans and 20 points among independents.

~30% of Republicans now support the impeachment inquiry, including ~20% who favor completely removing Trump from office. And the impeachment process hasn't even started yet.

As these numbers start inching up into the 30s and 40s, expect Senate Republicans to become increasingly more open about their opposition to Trump.

[Cope]

@The spartan

The top part of your post has already been answered. I'm not going over it again - especially since you obviously haven't bothered reading the primary source material.

Well no, but if there is any suppression or denial of this information (a "coordinated assault" as you put it), that would be a conspiracy. How "obvious" you think it is that a "coordinated assault" occurred isn't really relevant; unless the organizations are admitting to it, you are effectively saying they are engaging in a conspiracy. It would just be one you think they are pulling off poorly.

If you want to characterize it as a laughably poor conspiracy, be my guest. Schiff did, after all, openly lie about having been in contact with the whistleblower (who isn't really a whistleblower) prior to him filing the complaint. As far as I'm concerned, the coordination is so blatant and unapologetic that the word conspiracy isn't really appropriate; there really hasn't been anything secretive about any of this.

[Love Mountain]

I'm pretty sure McConnell would like nothing more than to get rid of Trump, he just can't say so openly right now. But things are looking up.

Mitt Won’t Primary Trump—But He’s Trying to Bring Him Down | Vanity Fair



Mitt Romney to the Rescue? - The Bulwark



Poll: Majority of Americans say they endorse opening of House impeachment inquiry of Trump - The Washington Post



~30% of Republicans now support the impeachment inquiry, including ~20% who favor completely removing Trump from office. And the impeachment process hasn't even started yet.

As these numbers start inching up into the 30s and 40s, expect Senate Republicans to become increasingly more open about their opposition to Trump.

Many Republicans are indeed opposed to Trump. I have no doubt that McConnell simply sees Trump as a tool through which to weaken the Democratic Party and push through his own agenda. He'll continue milking Trump for all he's worth. To add, while many Republicans would want Trump out of the office, I doubt that they would prefer a Democrat in office. Between Trump and a Democrat, I'm very confident that most Republicans would choose Trump.

[Cope]

The President has supposedly hired Trey Gowdy to offer him legal advice.

https://twitter.com/RyanAFournier/st...09802902294529

What I like about this - aside from the fact that Gowdy has a fine legal mind and reputation - is that you can tell that his only real interest is in preventing the Democrats from abusing the impeachment process rather than protecting Trump. He would've been a great presidential pick himself if he'd stayed in front line politics.

[alhoon]

Indeed things change quickly!!!

With the White House acting as it does and Trump going for very unpopular decisions in foreign policy drawing the ire of both sides, not to mention weird tweets of unmatched wisdom, I expect a bump on the pro-impeach side. It has been raising and with Trump saying he won't cooperate it will keep raising.

[Prodromos]

Many Republicans are indeed opposed to Trump. I have no doubt that McConnell simply sees Trump as a tool through which to weaken the Democratic Party and push through his own agenda. He'll continue milking Trump for all he's worth. To add, while many Republicans would want Trump out of the office, I doubt that they would prefer a Democrat in office. Between Trump and a Democrat, I'm very confident that most Republicans would choose Trump.

Depends on the Democrat. I don't think I've met any Republican who supports Warren or Sanders, but the number of Republicans I know who support Biden is obscene. Even a lot of Trump supporters admit a Biden presidency would be tolerable as long as there's a Republican Senate to keep him in check.

Maybe most Republicans will vote for Trump, but he can't afford to lose that minority. If a large enough chunk of Republicans vote Democrat, that's enough to render him a one-termer.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/10/01/polit...ling-analysis/

The problem for the President is that in the actual electorate, moderate and liberal potential Republicans make up about the same 25%-30% of potential Republicans as very conservatives do. (The other about 40% of the party is made up of somewhat conservative voters.)

When you dig deeper into the crosstabs, you see moderate and liberal Republicans may even have more power than the national polls indicate. In a combined sample of Michigan, Pennsylvania and Wisconsin Republicans in the 2018 midterm exit polls, about 40% call themselves either moderate or liberal. These, of course, were the big states that flipped the electoral college in 2016.

Now, I don't want to overplay the role of a group of voters who make up, at most, a third of the Republican Party. But when you look at the math, something's going to have to give for Trump: Either he's going to need to win a significantly larger chunk of moderate/liberal Republicans than these numbers suggest he's capable of winning, or the Democratic candidate will have to underperform among Democrats.

Because unless something happens, it's difficult to imagine Trump winning when only a little more than two-thirds of moderate/liberal potential Republicans approve of the job he's doing in office and nearly a third want him impeached and removed from office.

[Katsumoto]

The President has supposedly hired Trey Gowdy to offer him legal advice.

https://twitter.com/RyanAFournier/st...09802902294529

What I like about this - aside from the fact that Gowdy has a fine legal mind and reputation - is that you can tell that his only real interest is in preventing the Democrats from abusing the impeachment process rather than protecting Trump. He would've been a great presidential pick himself if he'd stayed in front line politics.

It'll be interesting to see how his previous views on Congressional oversight line up with any defense of Trump's unprecedented and blanket refusal to cooperate. From the Benghazi report: