Pelosi Announces Impeachment Inquiry of President Trump
After months of resisting an impeachment inquiry into President Trump, Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the House would move ahead with an â€śofficialâ€ť effort after reports that the president withheld aid to Ukraine while he was pressing the country to investigate Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden and his son.
Her chosen route avoids a full House floor vote on opening a probe, a step that has occurred each of the three previous times the House has launched impeachment proceedings against a president. Such a resolution would require 218 votes to pass; as of Tuesday evening, there were about 160 lawmakers who publicly supported moving forward on impeachment....
Jim Lincoln wrote: It already looks like it's going to be a whitewash for Trump anyway, a dismissal of the charges without even a semblance of a trial, would certainly confirm that opinion. ---
It wouldn't be that unusual for a court to dismiss a charge if the charge was found to be made up hopes without evidence other than a louder accusation followed by an even louder accusation. Trouble for you Jim, is noise isn't the equivalent of evidence. Now be sure to make more noise, maybe I'll change my mind.
Prime Minister Morrison may have gotten himself into some problems. It will be interesting how he will handle this.
Brett Worthington wrote: Labor is intensifying its demands for the Prime Minister to release the transcript of a conversation with Donald Trump, accusing Scott Morrison of cosying up to the US President at the expense of Australia's national interest. Key points:
â€˘ US President Donald Trump called Prime Minister Scott Morrison in September seeking Australia's help â€˘ He's launched an inquiry into the origins of the Mueller investigation, which he's repeatedly dubbed a "witch hunt" â€˘ Labor is demanding answers from Mr Morrison, but Foreign Minister Marise Payne says he's acted appropriately
https://tinyurl.com/y2d9gy9j (Labor pressuring Scott Morrison to release transcript of phone call with Donald Trump)
Australia always had a keen interest in American politics, or at least there national news service, the Australian Broadcasting Corporation, I wonder if their interest will be dulled after this?
Well one thing with a parliamentary system, I don't think they have any impeachment, the PM has to lose a vote of confidence before anything else can be done to him?
Mike, I was surprised that Nancy Pelosi actually decided to go ahead with the impeachment, even to the point where she said even if the Democrats would lose the Houseâť— now she made that comment in another article not the one I'm giving a URL for. She says that she thinks that the Democrats wouldn't lose the House.
A painfully long article -- I am an Independent rememberâť—đź‘Ť - - so the tedious details became just that in this long article.
https://tinyurl.com/y3pmxj2u. (Nancy Pelosiâ€™s long road to impeachment â€“...)
As David Brooks point out I would think impeachment will be killed in the Senateâť—
Jim Lincoln wrote: No doubt, Nancy Pelosi being a smart lady that she is, would look at this as a microcosm of the debate between Democrats and Republicans, philosophically no doubt:-- she agrees with Mark Shields, but from a very practical standpoint she probably agrees with David Brooks đź‘Ťâť— excerpt from, "Shields and Brooks on the politics of impeachment" https://tinyurl.com/yxnf2g9t ---
Don't be surprised if Nancy and her House do not proceed with it. Noise is made to pacify the radical base, while likely not having any more intention than that. Even smart lady Nancy knows it would cost the Democrats more than she wants to pay. Evidence is what matters at trial, not accusation, hearsay or mangling of words.
No doubt, Nancy Pelosi being a smart lady that she is, would look at this as a microcosm of the debate between Democrats and Republicans, philosophically no doubt:-- she agrees with Mark Shields, but from a very practical standpoint she probably agrees with David Brooks đź‘Ťâť—
PBS News Hour wrote: David Brooks:
...as we look at impeachment â€” I vaguely remember Watergate. I was young. But I remember a sense of gravity, a sense that we're stepping outside our party lines. At least some people did that, Sam Ervin, other people, Howard Baker. And we're going to weigh the evidence. And this is so serious, we can't just play normal politics.
That's not going to happen this time. To me, this is already feeling like very normal politics, where the Democrats are going to be all here and the Republicans will be all here, and the idea of stepping outside your partisan affiliation for the sake of the truth, that's just not the way the game is played anymore....
excerpt from, "Shields and Brooks on the politics of impeachment"
CNN has several interesting articles about the whistleblower complaint. For example:
Marshall Cohen, Katelyn Polantz, David Shortell, Tammy Kupperman and Michael Callahan, CNN wrote: .... Caving to Democratic demands, the Trump administration let Congress release a declassified version of the complaint, one day after releasing a rough transcript of the Trump-Zelensky call. The developments triggered a flood of Democratic lawmakers to publicly support impeachment.
Trump has maintained that he didn't do anything wrong, while simultaneously promoting unfounded conspiracy theories about the Bidens, Ukraine, and Russian meddling in 2016. There is no evidence of wrongdoing by either Joe or Hunter Biden....
excerpt from, "Whistleblower says White House tried to cover up Trump's abuse of power"
Mike, I already gave an interesting article URL from the Australian broadcasting corporation,
https://tinyurl.com/yyqkt72g (Eight reasons why impeaching Donald Trump is a big risk for the Democrats (and three reasons why it's not)).
The Democrats have a moral and legal obligation to impeach Trump. They have had several occasions to censure Trump and didn't do it. But no matter, the election of 2020 will settle the
Jim Lincoln wrote: --- Censure would be a better answer than impeachment. I don't know why the Democrats haven't done something like that, and earlier for example. (Censure the President) let the election of 2020 solve the Presidential issue
Agree, let the election solve the issues. Makes you wonder why the Dems are so afraid of letting that happen.
Why, Milly why do I have to put in my own words that our allies can't trust US oh, or go back on our word or leave the possibility of going back on our word, we won't give them the aid that we promised them?! Unless of course, they help out the American leadership with their political problemsâť—đź‘Ž the article covered that quite well
Now, perhaps the first instance that people are talking about is the Bromance between Trump and Putin. Censure would be a better answer than impeachment. I don't know why the Democrats haven't done something like that, and earlier for example.
https://tinyurl.com/y3xp3oom (Censure the President) let the election of 2020 solve the Presidential issue
I don't see it either. That relatively small like of one year money will be expended toward debt or existing orders waiting for the go ahead. What a huge smoke-and-mirrors bit of trickery. Where's the fire? I'm certain this whole thing was contrived.
An interesting opinion piece that you may not agree with Still, he makes some excellent points. this is just the start of tunnel, we aren't seeing the light at the end of it.
David Ignatius wrote: If youâ€™re wondering why it matters that President Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine while he was requesting political favors from its new president, think about the Ukrainian soldiers who are fighting a nasty proxy war against Russian-backed separatists.
The United States is Ukraineâ€™s ally in this fight. Ukrainian commanders, battling to hold their country together against a five-year onslaught by Russia, have been depending on U.S. promises of military assistance. In life-or-death situations like this, Americaâ€™s word is its bond....
https://tinyurl.com/y64gqe5u (This isnâ€™t just another spat. Trump compromised our security for his gain.)
SAINTS: NO ONE, I REPEAT +++NO ONE+++: NOT EVEN GOD THE FATHER, SON(/WORD) Or HOLY GHOST(/SPIRIT) WILL +++EVER+++, +++EVER+++
IMPEACH +++THE TRUMP OF GOD+++ !
"BUT I WOULD NOT HAVE YOU TO BE IGNORANT, BRETHREN, CONCERNING THEM WHICH ARE ASLEEP, THAT YE SORROW NOT, EVEN AS OTHERS WHICH HAVE NO HOPE.
FOR IF WE BELIEVE THAT JESUS DIED AND ROSE AGAIN, EVEN SO THEM ALSO WHICH SLEEP IN JESUS WILL GOD BRING WITH HIM.
FOR THIS WE SAY UNTO YOU BY THE WORD OF THE LORD, THAT WE WHICH ARE ALIVE AND REMAIN UNTO THE COMING OF THE LORD SHALL NOT PREVENT THEM WHICH ARE ASLEEP.
FOR THE LORD HIMSELF SHALL DESCEND FROM HEAVEN WITH A SHOUT, WITH THE VOICE OF THE ARCHANGEL, AND WITH +++THE TRUMP OF GOD+++: AND THE DEAD IN CHRIST SHALL RISE FIRST:
THEN WE WHICH ARE ALIVE AND REMAIN SHALL BE CAUGHT UP TOGETHER WITH THEM IN THE CLOUDS, TO MEET THE LORD IN THE AIR: AND SO SHALL WE EVER BE WITH THE LORD.
WHEREFORE COMFORT ONE ANOTHER WITH THESE WORDS."-1 THESSALONIANS 4:13-18
"For ALL The Saints And Elect Of GOD Are GATHERED, PRIOR TO THE TRIBULATION To Come, And Are TAKEN TO THE LORD, Lest They Should See The Confusion That Is To Come Upon The World Because Of [Man's] Sins."-ST. EFREM (306-373 AD) From HIS Treatise "ON THE LAST TIMES, THE ANTICHRIST & THE END OF THE WORLD" ! ! !
So, President Obama could open a politically motivated national security investigation of Candidate Trump, violating Mr. Trump's Fourth Admendment rights. But if President Trump insists on an investigation of shady overseas deals, he's the criminal? Trump isn't squeeky clean by any means, but there is such a thing as the rule of law and justice. The Democrats have completely shown their colors here.