SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50246324
"The US House of Representatives has passed a resolution to formally proceed with the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.
The measure details how the inquiry will move into a more public phase. It was not a vote on whether the president should be removed from office.
This was the first test of support in the Democratic-controlled House for the impeachment process.
The White House condemned the vote, which passed along party lines.
Only two Democrats - representing districts that Mr Trump won handily in 2016 - voted against the resolution, along with all Republicans, for a total count of 232 in favour and 196 against."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
Trump Impeachment: House Votes to Formalise Inquiry
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 319 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Where you stand depends on where you sit.
-- Rufus Miles, HEW
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @02:32PM (26 children)
wake me up when they start taking input like this from the house.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by The Mighty Buzzard on Friday November 01 2019, @03:03PM (25 children)
The House matters as well. Without an indictment there is no trial in the Senate. At least they've decided to at least ostensibly drop the shady, backroom bullshit now and do things in the open.
My rights don't end where your fear begins.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @05:30PM (24 children)
Rep. John Ratcliffesaid it well: "The person who planted fake evidence shouldn't be the one ruling on the admissibility of fake evidence"
(Score: -1, Troll) by aristarchus on Friday November 01 2019, @06:23PM (23 children)
But that is the very reason they were holding the closed sessions, to keep the Republicans from colluding and coordinating their false stories, That, and to keep out Florida Man, Matt Gaetz. Rather standard procedure in any instigation, one wonders why TMB would be opposed, unless . . .
(Score: 2, Troll) by slinches on Friday November 01 2019, @07:02PM (20 children)
That the evidence gathering was behind closed doors wasn't the problem. That's standard investigative procedure. But if they were really trying to determine the truth, why not allow republicans to call witnesses? A real investigation looks for evidence that both supports and undermines the allegations. Then you try to build a case and determine if there's enough of one to justify a formal accusation/impeachment.
That's not what's happening here. The outcome is predetermined. The house will impeach the president for something. They have been calling for it since the 2016 election and would disappoint their base if they don't follow through. And the senate will acquit, regardless of the merit of whatever allegations are brought forward because the republican base would be enraged if they allowed the "witch hunt" to succeed.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @07:40PM (11 children)
The outcome is "predetermined" because Trump's crimes are ridiculously obvious and we've all seen the evidence. Obstruction of justice, emoluments violations, beyond crazy nepotism (not a crime that I know of, but since yall are so worked up over Biden's son)
You mention merit, so again I'd like to repeat that we have the publicly available evidence of Trump's crimes, there is no "merit" required. It isn't hearsay, it isn't a witch hunt, try developing a conscience and a respect for facts.
(Score: 1, Troll) by slinches on Friday November 01 2019, @08:00PM (2 children)
Yes, that's why they were calling for impeachment before he even took office.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @09:45PM (1 child)
I, for one, don't recall any mainstream discussion impeaching Trump before he took office. Admittedly that's "no true Scotsman" fallacy, but you can always find some extremist who says anything. Case in point, do you really think the Queen of England is a lizard alien?
Moreover, many people on the left hated Bush, but there were no widespread calls for his impeachment.
On the other hand, I do remember Trump and numerous Republicans demanding over and over that Obama present his birth certificate... even after more and more evidence was presented, including (as a recall) a photocopy of it.
I feel like this is a case of Republicans projecting and preemptively accusing others of their own playbook. It's a classic gaslighting technique... accusing the victim of the very action being done. (e.g. a spouse-abuser filing reports with the police that they are in fact the victim being abused by the other.)
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @11:42PM
One of Obamas parents was some kind of intelligent agent, with some still classified activities. That is why they had to release a fake birth certificate and ran McCain against him as controlled opposition so they could pass this: https://www.congress.gov/bill/110th-congress/senate-resolution/511 [congress.gov]
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @11:46PM (4 children)
People like you who get their information from the fake news are in for quite a surprise. All the info on whats coming is out there, even this fake whistleblower is just another corrupt bureaucrat involved in the same illegal scheme. He is the previously unknown "Charlie" (mentioned in the Strozk-Page texts. It is all out there for you to see.
All these "crimes" have been fabricated in an attempt to cover up a massive web of corrupt dealings by the republicrats.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @12:05AM (2 children)
You bots are lazy, just deny deny deny and fake newz fake newz fake newz
Guess you drank the trump-aid, fatal only to intelligence.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @12:15AM (1 child)
Anything to let you ignore reality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @11:17PM
When reality is Trump saying these things himself, "transcripts" that are summaries cleaned by the WH and still incriminating, his constant lies like "TOTAL EXONERATION" when the report explicitly said it does not exonerate.
Hmmm, yeah, totally me ignoring reality here o.O
(Score: 1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @12:28AM
The mysterious "Charlie": https://saraacarter.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/2019-04-25-CEG-RJ-to-DOJ-Surveillance-of-Trump-Transition-Team.pdf [saraacarter.com]
(Score: 2) by coolgopher on Saturday November 02 2019, @01:52AM (2 children)
Of course the outcome is predetermined. Nothing sticks to that guy. Particularly not the truth. I'll be mightily surprised if he actually gets impeached.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @06:16PM
If his conduct is considered not impeachable, then the next Presidents are going to really tear the place up. Foreign govts supporting domestic candidates? Using US money (tax money) to leverage personal favors? Plain and simple using tax money to pay yourself. Openly and without consequence? That's the Libya model.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @07:57PM
Nothing sticks because he is actually not corrupt (in the sense that he follows the law). You standard DC criminal just cannot comprehend such a monstrosity in their midst and repeat lies over and over until it is drummed into the skulls of idiots like you.
If a substantial percent of people really believthis BS, the US deserves what it is going to get.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @09:21PM (5 children)
The same reason the defense doesn't get to call witnesses at a grand jury hearing: because it's not a trial, and presenting a defense is a thing you only do at trial.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday November 01 2019, @11:35PM (4 children)
But a grand jury should call all relevant witnesses to testify rather than only those that support the accusation. That is, if they really want to determine if a formal indictment is warranted.
Although, technically, they don't really even need evidence to indict.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ilPapa on Saturday November 02 2019, @04:14AM (3 children)
But what they NEVER do is allow the lawyers for the soon-to-be defendant in the grand jury proceedings. The defendant doesn't get to introduce witnesses, ask questions or take part in the grand jury in any way at all.
There are absolutely no rules regarding impeachment stated in the Constitution. The House makes the rules - period. No requirement of due process or "fairness". If the Republicans didn't want Trump impeached, they should have thought about that when they went over the cliff with him in the 2018 elections and lost control of the House.
And right now - today - there is so much evidence against Trump that the big problem is knowing where to start. From emoluments to bribery to extortion to obstruction to abuse of power, Trump has put it all on the line, thinking he was John Fucking Gotti and could never be touched. So now he's out of moves and can only cry about it to his faithful followers.
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: 0, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @07:54PM (2 children)
Such as...
If you actually knew of such evidence you would link to it.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by ilPapa on Sunday November 03 2019, @11:38PM (1 child)
You should know better than to challenge me on facts. Consider this a lesson.
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf [justice.gov]
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6537542-LEOPOLD-BUZZFEED-NEWS-FBI-Mueller-302s-FOIA [documentcloud.org]
https://www.theusconstitution.org/litigation/trump-and-foreign-emoluments-clause/ [theusconstitution.org]
You are still welcome on my lawn.
(Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 06 2019, @03:49AM
Please provide actual evidence as I am genuinely interested in it. First link is 450 pages of irrelevant bs and I assume other two links are of similar quality, especially since one of them has BUZZFEED in the name. If these links indeed contain compelling evidence please let us know which pages to look at. Thank you.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @02:15AM (1 child)
As has been *repeatedly* stated, the current inquiry is akin to Ken Starr's investigation of Clinton back in 1998. I don't recall Starr bringing "defense" lawyers into the investigative process. In fact, Starr wasn't even tasked with policing Clinton's sex life. What's more, Clinton was only allowed a lawyer inside the *investigation* when he brought one when testifying before a grand jury.
What's more, if you've *ever* been deposed (whether a criminal or civil case), you'll know that even if you do have a lawyer, they can only advise you as to whether or not to answer specific questions. I've been deposed and can confirm this from my own experience.
Rather, there were allegations of financial improprieties for which no evidence was ever found. In fact, the "impeachable" offense "committed" by Clinton was one of stupidity and a desire to keep legal (Lewinski was over 18, despite the creepiness of Clinton's actions) behavior that had exactly *zero* to do with the functioning of the administration and/or the alleged (and never found) financial misdeeds/mismanagement that led to the appointment of the special counsel. In fact, while I didn't support Clinton's lying about his sexual activity, it seems relatively minor compared with the raft of dubious activities (across the entire government -- e.g., soon you'll have more toxic metals [nytimes.com] in your drinking water, the credibility of the US has been compromised repeatedly, etc., etc., etc.).
The Trump administration has not (as the Clinton administration did) done its job in appointing an investigative team to look at the allegations deemed credible by Trump appointees.
Once the *investigative* phase is complete, the "defense" will have *much more* access to evidence and witnesses than a defendant in a criminal case does.
The weepy claims of "secret" hearings (R's are both present and allowed to ask questions of the witnesses even now), and "illegitimate" investigations are ridiculous on their faces.
Let's gather the facts and let the chips fall where they may. There will be plenty of time for the administration and its lawyers to review all the facts, call and question witnesses, and make their case based on the evidence. But the R's don't seem to want the facts to come out. In fact, they have attempted to derail this investigation despite the fact that allegations (deemed credible by *Trump* appointees) posit that administration officials have jeopardized American national interests in favor of partisan political interests.
Is that true? Let's get all the facts and get this all out into the open (which is what yesterday's vote created the process for doing so) and let everyone make their arguments and let the people decide. What's wrong with that?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 04 2019, @07:17PM
Agree 100%.... EXCEPT.... The Soviet Union was very much known for trying to employ "honeytraps," that is, turn someone to their advantage by blackmailing them with illicit sexual materials that would (for example) cause humiliation such to resign or (more actively) cause a forced revocation of security clearance and/or firing.
Rumors swirl about this today, and I don't give a damn about them.
The point is, hell yes a President's sex life is fair game.... IF that can be used to destablize the public trust in a government when the games played become public. AND the deal about the Impeachment WAS NOT that Clinton necessarily just played around with Lewinsky (although that's fair game). The deal was Perjury to a Grand Jury - he lied under oath about saying no such relations took place by trying to slickly play with words.
If that was grounds for impeachment.... then this sure as hell is. (And not saying you were commenting on that, either).
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday November 01 2019, @09:46PM
No, it wasn't:
1. Republicans were part of those closed sessions all along. The whole Matt Gaetz thing was a media stunt, nothing more. About half of the Republicans who "stormed" the proceedings could have just walked in without any problems, but instead barged in as part of events created for the TV cameras to make it *seem* like impeachment was some sort of shadowy Democratic conspiracy.
2. The problem wasn't Republicans coordinating their stories, which of course has been going on since before this administration took office. The problem was and remains ongoing Republican attempts at witness tampering, destruction of evidence, and obstruction of justice.
3. The rules the Democrats were following, at least up until this point, were the rules that had been created by a Republican-controlled House. Apparently, the high-minded principles Republican-controlled House members had about the House majority being the peoples' representatives curbing a lawless and unaccountable president went by the wayside as soon as they weren't the House majority. (I'm not suggesting the Democrats don't pull that kind of crap too, but as far as I'm concerned what's good for the goose is good for the gander.)
As for the validity of the charges: Based on what is currently in public evidence, the charges are evidently true. About all that's happening behind closed doors is reducing the ways the president's defenders might try to weasel out of the charges, eliminating the technicalities, etc until the senators are left with 2 possibilities: Either back an obvious crook, or vote to impeach.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday November 04 2019, @10:03PM
But that is the very reason they were holding the closed sessions, to keep the Republicans from colluding and coordinating their false stories...
Oh not that old gag [thedailybeast.com] again!
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Interesting) by fustakrakich on Friday November 01 2019, @02:43PM (53 children)
The secrecy was a bit too much. Now let's see if they can dig up real evidence and not just hearsay, in full public view, the way it's supposed to be. Being a purely partisan effort, the accusers don't have much credibility.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @05:07PM (23 children)
The secrecy thing is a red-herring. The House's job is to determine whether a crime has been committed, not to hear pleadings of the relevant actors. The public phase of impeachment is in the Senate, wherein evidence is made public, and pleadings from opposing parties are pertinent. There is no doubt the President will have his day in court, and no one wishes otherwise.
Impeachment became inevitable once the Mueller report was released and competent (non-partisan) lawyers had a look at it. The Ukraine fiasco merely underscores the urgency of the proceeding.
The current vote in the house is only one act in the Kabuki theater which will be played out for the entertainment of the public. This is a done deal behind the scenes, and the results predetermined. Anyone who is at all in suspense over this is unaware of how power is actually structured in USA.
(Score: -1, Troll) by fustakrakich on Friday November 01 2019, @05:31PM (22 children)
Unacceptable. The whole thing has no credibility if it's not public, with the cameras and mics on the whole time, and preferably with the color commentary on a separate audio channel that I can mute. We should not allow secrecy during peacetime, especially on domestic matters.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Insightful) by barbara hudson on Friday November 01 2019, @05:59PM (14 children)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2, Touché) by fustakrakich on Friday November 01 2019, @06:14PM (1 child)
police are usually tight-lipped so as to not jeopardize any eventual trial.
Yes, exactly! [themarshallproject.org] See why we need cameras?
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @06:25PM
fustakrakrick seems to be easily confused. These must be rough times for him.
(Score: 2) by arulatas on Friday November 01 2019, @06:58PM
But that is what they see on Law and Order....
----- 10 turns around
(Score: 2, Insightful) by slinches on Friday November 01 2019, @07:06PM (10 children)
Agreed. Although actual investigations try to gather all evidence and then decide if there's a case. The House had already decided they wanted to impeach once the mid-term election results came in. Now they are just trying to dig up something to justify it.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @07:38PM (7 children)
Correction: A sizable portion of the Democratic majority of the House wanted to investigate the President with an eye towards impeachment over varied issues such as emoluments and failure to honestly divest himself of his business interests, obstruction of justice in the Mueller probe, hush money for his sexual escapades, and genuine incompetence to be President. Nancy Pelosi did everything in her power to try and avoid allowing the impeachment, for political (rather than factual) reasons. Then the President went and did something so bald-face corrupt, and doubled down on his stupid by publicly admitting it both in documentation and in person on the White House lawn, that she could not hold them back any more.
Think about this one little factoid: With Senators Biden, Sanders, and Warren each consistently polling individually above Trump, Biden in particular by double digits in many polls, that lead being only likely to only increase when a singular candidate is settled, why would Senator Pelosi want to rock that boat at all? President Pence would be far harder to beat.
Quite aside from that, it's a foregone conclusion that without secret voting that Trump will never be convicted in the Senate anyway. So all Trump's supporters will get to hear another round of, "See, look how innocent I am!!!" and have that shoved in the Democrats' faces.
So no, I don't think an impeachment would have been forthcoming without the President having given them something even more understandable than Watergate. He supplied his own rope.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday November 01 2019, @09:39PM (6 children)
Correction: Nancy Pelosi's correct title is Speaker or Congresswoman, not Senator. Other than that, your analysis is absolutely right.
I would also remind the presidents' defenders that the last time we impeached a president, it was because he had lied about getting a blowjob from someone other than his wife, and I'd bet good money you weren't complaining about it being some kind of stupid or unfair deal. There's a lot of evidence currently in the public record that the current president has done far worse, most notably the kind of open bribery by foreign governments which the Constitution specifically lists as grounds for impeachment. If your ethics amount to "It's fine if my side does it, but bad if their side does it", I'm not impressed.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by EEMac on Saturday November 02 2019, @12:54AM (4 children)
He did lie under oath, but I still thought the whole thing was stupid. And I said so publicly before he was convicted.
(Score: 2) by dry on Saturday November 02 2019, @06:14AM (3 children)
I thought the way it played out was that he was asked if he had sex with Monica, he asked for a definition of sex, was answered with copulation and he honestly answered no. Strictly speaking, getting a blow job is not fucking. Like the girl who claims to be a virgin because she only takes it up the ass.
(Score: 1) by EEMac on Sunday November 03 2019, @11:45PM (1 child)
Fair enough. I concede the point. The whole thing was, frankly, bullshit.
(Score: 2) by dry on Monday November 04 2019, @12:35AM
Yea, dealing with lawyers is dealing in bullshit.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday November 04 2019, @07:59PM
No. He was asked if he has a sexual relationship with her.
Wikipedia's coverage, which read accurate to me:
In short, Clinton says that because at the time of the testimony he was not in a relationship is what he said. He did not say that he never had a relationship with her. In court. (Although the famous TV moment in a televised speech was, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman," and then when the blowjob was public he said that was truth because 'sexual relations' is intercourse and he only got sucked and among other things shoved a cigar up her vagina and then tasted the cigar tip. Yeah.)
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 04 2019, @07:34PM
I stand corrected and am grateful for the correction. I do indeed know Pelosi is in the House and not Senate.
And +1 informative, although I think the most solid basis for the impeachment allegation (aside from Impeachable offenses are what the House agrees to by majority and convictable ones are what the Senate agrees to by supermajority) was actually that Bill Clinton perjured himself before a Grand Jury - an actual Felony under Federal Law. The blowjob had nothing to do with it, the attempt to pass off that there was no current relationship when the real question everyone knew was "Did you have sex with her or not?" no matter how technically worded was the straw that broke the camel's back. That and the proof that Clinton very much manipulated things such that the truth of the blowjob got covered up - by lying in court documents and trying to get others to lie for him to the court.
(Just like the most solid basis on Trump right now as being inquired about is a federal elections violation as incredibly strongly implied by the FEC Chair's tweet [twitter.com], in fact the last Tweet she made on June 13 and long before this brouhaha became public. Which makes me wonder if she was referring to that (how?), or something different (what?)) A promise to investigate a political rival (and only in used in the political context) is indeed a quo.)
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @11:56PM (1 child)
well no shit. just like newt grinch and his toadies felt about Slick Willy from their day one. And THAT process was begun on even lesser actual evidence, because the R's at the time could really not believe all the other investigations into Whitewater had found no wrong doing up to then. Starr had even said as much. then before things were closed up, breaking news! The Bill was banging a young staffer on the sly? And he Lied To Congress about it? IMPEACH HIM!
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday November 09 2019, @09:55PM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @06:37PM (1 child)
Troll
Ah yes, here come the democrats!
You will conform!
(Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @09:10PM
Why do you hate facts bro? Just trying to have intelligent conversations about criminal politicians.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @06:54PM (1 child)
The House is the Grand Jury. The Senate is the jury trail. Get that dummy?
(Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @07:10PM
You shame your masters by mixing up those two simple steps.
(Score: 5, Informative) by edIII on Friday November 01 2019, @10:02PM
You're deeply confused. There is a part of the investigation that is not public, and is "secret". That is still being conducted by the appropriate committees, and whatever occurs in there will be made public, if something actually comes out of it.
They're discussing possibly top-secret information for all we know. There are no rights being suppressed, because nothing has actually happened yet. Somebody made a claim, this committee reviewed it, and now everything will be made public because they determined there is something impeachable and the evidence is credible.
I haven't verified the procedures myself, but word is that the Republicans help craft them and voted for them. These procedures didn't arise out of the ether, but were crafted by the same people complaining about them. It's disingenuous at best for Republicans to complain at all.
Trump still has rights, and there will be ample time and opportunity to question the witnesses and have access to the evidence. Acting otherwise with great hyperbole is just for show. It's deliberate ignorance to create drama out of nothing. The procedures will be followed, and it will be PUBLIC. You and I will have the opportunity to watch C-SPAN and make up our own mind about the evidence.
Personally, I don't need to. Orange Anus released a transcript that he says is correct, and everything damning has been out in the open the whole damn time. The only thing that could occur, is more damning evidence will be uncovered. Nobody is disputing the facts on this you realize? If nobody is disputing the facts, and everybody is stipulating to them, then what can they possibly be discussing in secret that matters at all? That's what I'm curious about. Whether or not Trump is guilty is something I can already decide on based on the evidence he gleefully provided to me.
Technically, lunchtime is at any moment. It's just a wave function.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @02:19AM (1 child)
And when the investigation is complete and all the evidence is released (as the resolution passed yesterday ensures), what will you say then?
More excuses and deflections, I'm sure.
Let's have the facts and let the chips fall where they may.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @07:00PM
More excuses and deflections, I'm sure.
Of course you are! As any presumptuous person would be! Am I supposed to find that shocking?
You all are showing why there is much more to fear from the democrat tribe, using Trump as a form of extortion to frighten people into reelecting the very people people that made Trump into a winner in the first place. You people are a simple mob.The drive-by moderation is another example.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by sjames on Friday November 01 2019, @05:58PM (22 children)
The "secrecy thing" was a smokescreen thrown up by the GOP. Discussion in committee then (if merit is found) presenting the matter for open debate has been standard procedure for centuries. The committees included members of the GOP and everyone else got a summary.
That some of the Republicans that "stormed" the committee proceedings demanding to participate were actually members of the committees in question and were free to participate (some might even say obligated) just reveals the farce. It was like a juror standing up in the middle of testimony demanding to hear the testimony that he is currently interrupting.
As for evidence, we have transcripts of the call from the White House, we have the whistle blowers, and we have testimony from Ukraine. Pretty much the same sorts of things we might have in any trial.
Being a purely partisan effort, the defenders don't have much credibility.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Friday November 01 2019, @06:09PM (21 children)
The "secrecy thing" was a smokescreen thrown up by the GOP.
And that is just a smokescreen thrown up by the DNC
We permit too much secrecy all around. Removing an elected official from office has to be a public affair from start to finish. It's just a rule change we have to demand. It can be in a closed room, but with live cameras and microphones. It's the only way to keep it honest and reduce speculation and gossip.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 5, Informative) by sjames on Friday November 01 2019, @07:12PM (7 children)
Sorry, no. Republicans who were actual members of the relevant committee protested their lack of access. That's just a farce.
The house is currently following established procedure. Effectively, the committee deliberations were discussions within the DAs office. Now it goes to a more or less grand jury process.
Do you believe that every DA's office should be televised?
(Score: 3, Insightful) by fustakrakich on Friday November 01 2019, @09:07PM (6 children)
This is an impeachment, not a criminal case.
No, we should not tolerate secrecy. "Established procedure" be damned. The public has interest in the entire matter.
Do you believe that every DA's office should be televised?
There is enough history of corruption and prosecutorial misconduct in those offices that we should definitely consider it. We need much more oversight and to put these people under the Sword of Damocles.
Put all the partisan bullshit on it you want. If the roles were reversed, I would be with the vast majority and modded up to infinity. We must demand transparency.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Sunday November 03 2019, @12:10AM
Well, then you can blame the Republicans in the last congress. They passed the rules that are currently being followed. For some insight here is an interview with the one person who has been present in all three modern impeachments.
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/11/2/20941954/rep-zoe-lofgren-impeachment-trump-ukraine-house-pelosi [vox.com]
The GOP is just pissed their member got to be the first to test the new rules. Plus they have been part and parcel to the proceeding since the beginning. Including many in their smokescreen fake protest who could just walk through the doors as they had access all along. I say fake protest because they are protesting the Democrats following the procedures they put in place to make sure they could fuck with a D president. Just like the Dems voting in favor of using the nuclear option so long ago, it came back to bite them in the ass, hard. Because eventually the other side always gets to play on the playground. They write rules to give themselves more power, then shit themselves when the other team gets a chance at bat.
Perhaps the GOP should not of run a known grifter as a candidate?
Anyway, this is an investigation. Investigations are not done publicly anyway. It is NOT a trial, that is the Senates job.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Sunday November 03 2019, @10:24PM (2 children)
The prosecutorial conduct generally shines through during the trial. The problem isn't lack of transparency, it's lack of consequences for the prosecutors when they misbehave.
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Monday November 04 2019, @12:11AM (1 child)
Those lack of consequences are made possible by the lack of transparency. There is no reason to cut them this kind of slack. Private citizens are entitled to privacy. Those in authority are not.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 2) by sjames on Monday November 04 2019, @12:21AM
If there was no transparency, we wouldn't know about the misconduct. We DO know, but nothing happens.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 04 2019, @07:49PM
You know, you're right.
So, we should still do what was done in the past: The Department of Justice should appoint a Special Investigator in the Ukraine matter who has the full credence and might of the Executive department and reports to the Legislature with all due haste and extreme care for determination of the law and the truth whether or not the President has now engaged in any activities whatsoever which benefit him personally at the expense of the Nation's security for political purposes and that person would be allowed by the Attorney General of these United States to fully determine whether or not offenses were in fact committed that the House might then vote for impeachment on and I'm sure that it will all be at arm's length and that there would be no attempts by President Trump or AG Barr to sway this investigation or obstruct it or allow our Law Enforcement to fully..............
OK, can't do it anymore. Laughing too hard.
Put all the "Oh it should be sunshine and light" spin on it you want. The President is corrupt and the way he operates there is no way that the Executive can be trusted with the investigation aspect of the case. Mueller proved that.
And, by the way, you're about to get all the openness, light, and publicity you want. Fuck any notion of "too late." It will prove JUST how dirty this President is, and hopefully in a way that the entire Republican establishment will be shown to be corrupt in a way that they NEVER retain power again and and that party will dissolve to others who understand the difference between working for politics and working for the nation's interest when it comes to foreign relations. Because Trump and his ENTIRE asshole staff of sycophantic yes people from the AG to SecState to his ass licking Chief of Staff does NOT know how to do this.
Now let me tell you what I really think about your comment......
But seriously, that half of the country is taken in by this purest grade bullshit is the worst fear I have at showing America may well be entering the twilight of an empiric fall. Or that the Presidency is finished and must become an Emperor or King in order to hold the country together. Hope not. But Trump is sure as shit acting that way, ain't he?????
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday November 09 2019, @10:10PM
The republicans are making arguments based on the idea that the people are dumb as shit and will swallow whatever they feed them. And as far as their base is concerned , it skews strongly to the lesser educated - the "white trash" who are afraid they will be just another minority in 2024 so this is their last shot.
Their problem isn't their base - their base will do what they're told. The problem is independents. Clinton was too much to swallow so they either stayed home, voted 3rd party, or voted for their local republican candidate. The only way for republicans to win is for Clinton to run again. That the old guard Democrats are pushing this shit yet again shows just how much influence money has on both sides.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @12:33AM (12 children)
Troll Flamebait
Mod bombing demagogue democrats on parade! Accept no challenge!
(Score: 2) by Azuma Hazuki on Saturday November 02 2019, @02:04AM
I haven't been modbombing you (and would be a modbombing Independent anyway...) but might I make a suggestion?
Git gud, scrub. By this I mean produce evidence, facts, and legal precedent to support your claims.
I am "that girl" your mother warned you about...
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @03:06AM (10 children)
Looks like I'll have to come back for days to correct troll mods.
I say this as non-trump voting left of centerish independent: anyone who thinks this impeachment is not partisan bullshit has been wallowing in the bullshit so long, they can't smell the stink. If it works, this will probably be the time when historians look back at the ashes of America, and point to it as when the divisions became so deep and intractable that civil war was inevitable. Republicans are not actual nazis and Democrats are not actual communists. There are however, authoritarian assholes in both parties and it seems that Dems and Repubs are drawing up battle lines.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Reziac on Saturday November 02 2019, @03:45AM (9 children)
I agree, this is a watershed event -- because if this impeachment circus goes as the Dems hope -- henceforth NO president, of any party and however innocent, will be safe in office -- the opposition will find or invent whatever is required to take him down.
So, consider carefully: do you want our government to devolve into an ongoing series of coups? Because that's what this is going to produce.
[And mark my words: if they do manage to eject Trump, Pence's remaining life will be short.]
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @06:57PM (8 children)
In your world, what crime could the President ever be impeached for? Blowjobs, yes. Involving foreign governments in our elections, no.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @08:55PM (7 children)
Involving foreign governments in our elections
Unproven purely partisan allegations by sore losers!
(Score: 2) by Pslytely Psycho on Sunday November 03 2019, @12:21AM (3 children)
Well now, as it is now moving into the public arena, we shall see shan't we?
My prediction: The evidence will be overwhelmingly bad, but the senate will give him a pass to stay elected, Moscow Mitch has insinuated as much.
After that it will indeed become a very interesting time.
Alex Jones lawyer inspires new TV series: CSI Moron Division.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 03 2019, @02:21AM (2 children)
The evidence will be overwhelmingly bad
If the senate and the public is shown evidence confirming the witness testimony, they will convict. So far, all we are seeing is hysterics. Who ever thought that Chinese Whispers would become evidentiary? It's truly fascinating, could become terrifying...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 03 2019, @05:20PM (1 child)
Boring, the evidence us publicly available. Stop trying to fake news reality ya stupid shill.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 04 2019, @12:14AM
Only a corrupt system would admit hearsay as evidence. You have none so far. If you do have some, I will believe it when I see it.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday November 04 2019, @08:06PM (1 child)
Yeah. Believe that as you like. Or read the truth. [nytimes.com] And with the other facts, as NYT and any number of other sources will prove, you might understand the answer that the President has proven, and has publicly stated, he is fine with allowing foreign powers to bring him dirt on his political opponents.
Or..... where is the President's OTHER calls to other nations with corruption issues asking for investigations of specifically named individuals that have absolutely no political benefit to Mr. Trump. Yeah. He was asked that question and he'll get back to us on that one. Probably about the same time he freely releases his tax returns.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 04 2019, @10:20PM
The Times... The Truth! That's funny! They have you people climbing all over each other to buy limited Brooklyn Bridge time shares!
So sad to see how weak the rational intellect is against the tribal savage beast. It truly is the more dangerous and frightening aspect of this whole affair. The dark ages are alive and well
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday November 09 2019, @10:15PM
Heck, last election foreigners were not allowed to buy campaign hats from either side because foreign donations to election campaigns are also illegal.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @06:07PM (2 children)
More evidence you're a partisan hack trying to influence as a supposed centrist.
Just stop already, go back to your original SN account.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 03 2019, @03:33AM (1 child)
Are you seriously suggesting that fistulacrapich is one and the same as the realDonaldTrump? Hmmm, the one did start posting about the time the other ceased. . . Could be, could be.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 04 2019, @04:58PM
Oh Ari... So embarrassing
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 02 2019, @12:36AM (2 children)
Well, you can't count on Trump's supporters to do that digging.
All I can say is that the current efforts are laughable and mendacious, for example, one witness's description of Trump's meeting with the Ukrainian president is a "transcript", which ascribes a bogus reliability to the witness testimony. Or the claims of treason and collusion with Russian intelligence degenerating into some rather trivial perjury offenses and felonies tangential to the accusations (which would have been prosecuted anyway and probably to greater effect).
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday November 09 2019, @10:20PM (1 child)
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 09 2019, @10:33PM
"The one"? There are apparently a couple of different things called a "transcript", the testimony of the witness who brought up the claimed act of wrongdoing and said "edited notes" provided by Trump's administration. My take is that characterizing the witness's statement as a "transcript" is highly deceptive. Meanwhile, I haven't heard any reason to suppose Trump's description of the documents as a transcript provided by his administration in response is inaccurate. Even editing the "transcript" doesn't necessarily make it not a transcript.
(Score: 2) by Snotnose on Friday November 01 2019, @02:47PM (74 children)
Much as I'd like to see Trump booted from the oval office into a prison cell, I don't think he's actually done anything impeachable. Which, considering the amount of noxious shit he's pulled, is a sad state of affairs.
When the dust settled America realized it was saved by a porn star.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Rosco P. Coltrane on Friday November 01 2019, @03:43PM (27 children)
Trump should be impeached on the sole ground that he and his antics make the world a much more unstable place, hence threatening the safety of the United States.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @04:05PM (1 child)
So you're of the school of thought that it's strictly a political process?
That's one position, sure, but it's not uncontroversial. Check out the Laws and Sausages comic for an overview.
Seriously, it's a good one, and should be in grade schools nationwide.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday November 01 2019, @04:32PM
I had never heard of "Laws and Sausages", thanks. I glanced at a few- very informative, and hopefully factually accurate.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 01 2019, @04:27PM (24 children)
Perhaps you should define "stable". I can make a pretty strong case that Saddam Hussein made the world a more stable place, and that Bush made the world far more unstable with his regime changing. Does ISIS or DAESH ring any bells? Overall, Trump seems to be more stabilizing than not. He's pried Li'l Kim's ass out of North Korea to begin peace talks, has he not? Yeah, Trump's an ass, but he's not so unstable as many believe. But, for variable definitions of stability, I suppose you can condemn anyone you like.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday November 01 2019, @04:37PM (13 children)
At the time I remember there were strong arguments for keeping Saddam Hussein in place for overall stability. However, and I'm not sure what my vote would be, what if someone like Hussein was maintaining stability, but also committing atrocities? I've heard similar argument regarding Bashar al-Assad of Syria, and that forcefully removing him (if possible) would pave the way for expansion of ISIS.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Runaway1956 on Friday November 01 2019, @05:02PM (8 children)
I feel that slippery slope here, but I'll try - - -
An "atrocity" in our western society is pretty easy to define. An "atrocity" in the Mid-east is something else. I don't think that any of us, who grew up outside of that tribal culture can truly understand it. In their views, it's pretty much acceptable to kill off the population of a village filled with rivals. Or, better yet, kill off the men, and steal their women, their goats, their camels, and rape their sons. That is the apex of civilization in the Mid-east.
It is for this reason that Saddam Hussein can be credited with maintaining stability. He was hated, but his methods earned respect among his peers.
Now, please don't presume that I "like" that. Or that I "approve" of it. I am merely stating fact, as clearly as I am able to. Arabs, Persians, and most of the rest of those people are NOT Christian, not western, not Euro, not American. The thing that ties most all of them together, is their history under the Ottoman. The Ottoman nurtured this tribalism.
Bleahhhh - I'm not walking any further out on that slippery slope unless you insist, and I may not then . . .
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Friday November 01 2019, @05:33PM (4 children)
Yeah, thanks, it's very very complicated, with deep cultural roots, norms and values very different from Western, such that we Westerners just can't empathize or understand.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday November 04 2019, @08:10PM (3 children)
No, it's understandable and can even be empathasized with. But it takes a heck of a lot more study, dedicated academic study, than what soundbite news will tell one. Just like thinking that because one has been to Virginia and Kentucky and watched HBO one understands and empathizes with the Hatfields and McCoys.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by RS3 on Monday November 04 2019, @11:02PM (2 children)
I agree with you. In my effort to be brief, I often fail to write that which seems obvious to me: yes, sure, given enough time and mental focus, most people could understand it, but too many have other priorities. As you described it well, they just accept what they hear in news soundbites, and miss much (most?) of the underlying story. "Popular misconception" is too prevalent in society.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday November 05 2019, @11:37PM (1 child)
Yeah and you do have the core that even if the situation is understandable not many will produce the effort to do so, and people will continue to make judgments without all the information. And no, one can't know everything about everything within a lifetime, either.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Wednesday November 06 2019, @02:47AM
Right there's the problem (that bugs me much- overconfidence!)
But that said, how does a reasonable person know when they know enough about something to have valid opinions, worthy of sharing them such that others are enriched and society maybe enhanced?
(ugh, me the non-philosopher...)
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @06:14PM
I've never forgiven them for that terrorist group Al Gebra.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @06:29PM (1 child)
Oh NOes! Lookout! Runnyway is getting aroused!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @11:29PM
Runaway is only interested in getting peoples' goats.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday November 09 2019, @10:25PM (3 children)
Americans never got to see it. Between government censorship and self-censorship by the media, you got duped into an unnecessary war.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Sunday November 10 2019, @12:21AM (2 children)
Thanks. Actually, we did have some news coverage, I did watch it closely, and I was infuriated that the US military was invading Iraq. I remember that there were problems with inspectors and inspections, but it wasn't reason enough to attack. Something is terribly wrong, and I've never been quite sure what it was/is. I've heard of over-zealous and brutal police, but the US govt. doing so on that large of a scale?
And, my frustration and embarrassment of the US govt. / military / lack_of_intelligence was just that: you mean to tell me the US intelligence community is THAT inept? Just what WERE they doing?
BTW, I felt Powell was being a yes-man- telling Bush (it was Bush?) what he wanted to hear. Again, not sure why though. What a mess... And it just pissed them off and we had/have created Isis, Taliban, etc...
(Score: 3, Insightful) by barbara hudson on Sunday November 10 2019, @01:31AM (1 child)
The moral decline in the presidency goes back to Kennedy, who was a womanizer and paid for it with his life (he had thrown his back during a sexual liaison and was wearing a back brace, so couldn't duck when the shooting started.
Then there was Johnson's secret war. Followed by Nixon. Ford wasn't really president long enough to do much damage, but was finally convinced he couldn't run because of the taint from pardoning Nixon. Nobody was buying his excuse that he had to pardon Nixon. Carter was the only president who, even decades later, is regarded as having integrity. Bush de was CIA - enough said. Clinton was another adulterer who lied under oath, and passed laws favouring neocon ideology. Bush jr was an alcoholic. With a history of cocaine use. Obama was a crackhead who had a hit list of over 3,000, backed by an opinion that he could order assassinations. He also sucked up to the banks, spending more taxpayer funds to bail them out of the consequences of their illegal frauds while it would have been cheaper to just take over the bad mortgages at a discount and not force people into bankruptcy. Trump - a crook.
The contagion is spreading. Justin Trudeau illegally interferes with the prosecution of SNV-Lavalin for bribes to Libya's dictator. Alexander Boris Johnson wants to be a mini-me to Trump.
What a mess!
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Sunday November 10 2019, @01:57AM
That was an excellent summary!! Pulitzer candidate. Thank you.
I'm not much of a conspiracy theorist, but sometimes I cynically wonder if it's all a smokescreen for what's really going on. Keeps the press busy and off of the real crap going on.
Yes, I've always liked Carter. He inherited an impossible mess. We (US) were too invested in the Shah of Iran and when that whole mess happened, well, we know what happened.
Oh yeah, the "energy shortages" of the '70s- 2 major times OPEC cut petroleum production, caused huge gas lines (queues waiting for petrol), huge price increases, etc., all hurt Carter's image.
From what little I know, I always thought that Nixon was mostly good for the US and world. He ended the horrible Vietnam mess and did much good overall. He said he was not a crook, right? I dunno, a little clever spying- I was a kid but I thought it was all very entertaining. I mean, how else do you follow a moon landing! ;)
(Score: 5, Insightful) by barbara hudson on Friday November 01 2019, @06:13PM (1 child)
Trump keeps sucking up to the guy, same as he does to other dictators. He's jealous.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @12:05AM
Kim Jong Un is Xi's puppet. If these missile tests were not authorized that is China's problem. If they were, then whatever blame is deserved lies with China.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @09:12PM (5 children)
No, he has not.
1) Nothing whatsoever has been meaningfully done about reunification or actually settling peace between the Koreas.
2) Nothing whatsoever has been meaningfully done about denuclearizing North Korea. Just a lot of noise where Trump has been pacified and can be "in love" with Kim while Korea continues it's proliferation effort.
He uses instability as a bargaining tactic, which is stupid given the characters he is dealing with. And he doesn't have the brainpower nor does he rely on the tools of statecraft. That's about as loose cannon as it gets.
(Score: 2) by c0lo on Saturday November 02 2019, @02:39AM (1 child)
Not gonna happen any time soon. There was too much time the two societies diverged in values.
Has been, what, almost 30 years already and the inner reunification of Germany is still a thing in progress [wikipedia.org].
Bottom line: if you expect any American president to do it or consider them a failure, all American presidents will be a failure.
"Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best. Otto von Bismarck"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 04 2019, @08:19PM
Other American Presidents have not presented themselves as capable of solving the NK issue, or rather, presented that they're now succeeding where past ones failed. (Not without a success like Nixon actually going to China. Trump going to NK wasn't that because there is no substance behind the gesture.) Or actively PR'ing themselves that they have "made it happen" when they literally haven't done shit that's meaningful. Other Presidents much more meaningfully show the packed fist of why an NK attack is suicide for NK (i.e. joint military exercises). They use economic tools that work to constrain NK and they use diplomatic tools to get China to make sure NK still heels on the necessary level (oops! harder to do in a trade war!)
Bottom line: Other Presidents haven't tried to claim what Trump is falsely claiming he delivers, nor have other Presidents been taken in by NK's political maneuvering the way Trump has been completely suckered. And Trump doesn't even realized he's been played - he still personally thinks he's winning that one. Because THEY know Trump and Trump refuses to pay attention to what his experts can tell him about Kim. Just like all the others he is losing because he doesn't understand. Trump may or may not understand dealmaking (I think he understands how to con others and profit-by-weasling, not to make deals) but even if we give him that bit he does not understand diplomacy except in the "If I bully them they'll give me something good for me and I'll let them have something I don't care about" sense. Not dealmaking, really, and surely not the art of the possible which diplomacy is.)
Anyway...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @06:56AM (1 child)
2) Nothing whatsoever has been meaningfully done about denuclearizing North America.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 04 2019, @08:21PM
Show me where denuclearizing the United States has been on the table in relations with NK, then we'll talk.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday November 09 2019, @10:34PM
He's functionally near-illiterate, talks like a 4th grader, refusing to read anything more complicated than single line paragraphs and bullet points - and even then he can't retain much.
He clearly has dementia. And to add insult to injury, before it used to be his hair that was the brunt of jokes; now it looks like large chunks of his face have worked lose from the underlying flesh.
He's unstable, and never been a genius. It would take a genius to keep all his lies straight, and a stable genius would be smart enough not to need to lie in the first place.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @02:27AM (1 child)
Except there are no talks. And Kim is still testing his nuclear weapons delivery systems [militarytimes.com] (that was *yesterday*, November 1 2019).
What's more he's targeting the US with malware [us-cert.gov]:
(again, this report was released yesterday).
Whatever "effort" the Trump administration *might* be making is a dismal failure, just like most of everything these incompetent bastards do.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @07:01PM
Exactly - he gave away the prize, which was giving Kim international recognition - without getting anything in return. Now Kim is rattling his pram toys again and Trump better come up with another gift.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @04:01PM (7 children)
Just out of curiosity, what do you think would be compelling grounds for impeachment? Does he have to shoot someone in the middle of 5th Ave in front of a crowd of onlookers? What would push you over the line to be in favor of impeachment?
For my part, I think Trump should be impeached just for being an embarrassment to the nation.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 02 2019, @12:41AM (6 children)
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Saturday November 02 2019, @02:44PM (4 children)
Volume II of Special Counsel Robert Mueller's Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election [wikipedia.org] lists ten counts of obstruction of justice [wikipedia.org]. Under federal sentencing guidelines that apply to everybody but the President of the United States, obstruction adds two levels to the sentence for any other federal crime, which can elevate a misdemeanor to a felony. And given how elected officials are in a unique position to obstruct justice, obstruction is among the "high crimes" (abuses of an office's power) that can get a President removed from office.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 02 2019, @07:27PM (3 children)
Alleged.
(Score: 2) by Pino P on Sunday November 03 2019, @01:54PM (1 child)
And it's the House's job to follow up on these allegations of bribery, obstruction, and other high crimes, and lay the evidence before the Senate.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday November 04 2019, @04:02AM
Only if there's evidence for the allegations. Trials are punishments in themselves and shouldn't be allowed on frivolously contexts. Just because a prosecutor can "indict a ham sandwich" doesn't mean that the threshold is appropriate. I think it's notable here that there's never been probable cause for the Mueller fishing expedition and none of the charges mentioned have anything to do with the purported purpose of the investigation.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday November 04 2019, @08:22PM
Then let them be tried.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday November 09 2019, @10:43PM
Obstruction was the charge that brought Nixon down, both in the eyes of the public and the republicans in the senate. He resigned when he was told that the votes weren't there to save his ass.
Of course, treason is also supported by trying to make it look like Ukraine, and not Russia, was behind the hacks of Clinton's email. And he can't pardon himself for treason since any action he took after any treasonous act is null and void.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bussdriver on Friday November 01 2019, @04:56PM (20 children)
Redundant news post.
Trump has been doing impeachable acts LITERALLY (actual definition) since day one! Unbiased rational review of his actions has him down for probably at least a dozen offenses. It just shows the sorry state of the collapsing democracy of the USA and the ignorance of the public. In a democracy, it should be obvious that using the government to undermine the democracy is the #1 worst thing you can do.
You don't need formal crimes-- I encourage people to read the bits in the constitution! It lays out a political process limited only by the threat of voter backlash; it's not a civil or criminal process. The BS out there about due process rights, 5th amendment, etc. are ALL lies and BS by people who know better. You don't get any of those rights; the constitution says so. It's not a criminal proceeding so the 5th doesn't apply; just for an example to get you started. Oh, and any nimrod knows investigations are done in private; when determining facts, you can't have suspects/witnesses corroborating their accounts! Later you have public testimony. In fact, the whole entire thing can be completely secret (almost like a grand jury...which is what impeachment is similar to) and the testimony comes in the trial... which itself could be secret and the votes could be in private. (As Jeff Flake said, if it was a secret vote 30 senate republicans would vote to remove him.) The current rules of the Senate put too much power into 1 man, whose wife working for Trump! There should be a law against that; it gives the Exec branch undue power over the Leg branch! She's committed violations; if not crimes, in her job already which sets up Mitch for political blackmail.
Nobody has done more harm to this democracy than Donald Trump. That alone should be enough; but like I said, it's a political process and large tribe of ignorant people don't care about reason, logic, decency, morality, even their own professed religious beliefs. Tribalism is STRONG and it's biological. A reasonable person can see how much more strongly the other tribe would fight for removal if Obama only did 1 of the many things Trump has.
Perhaps the Democratic side has some ethics left but you can't be sure of that when anybody on the side of good is labeled as being tribal by the side of evil. Oh yes, I went there-- the side of evil is about as clear as Italy in the 1930s... which is to say, it's not crystal clear to the slow people yet... It will take a massive war for them to learn... and a few will still not learn. This "Make Italy Great Again" crap should be politically radioactive because of it's history as should "Lying Press" was taboo because of Germany's history (modern translation easily is "Fake News".)
FYI, I used to read/watch propaganda as a hobby. Now, I just try to avoid it...
(Score: 0, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @07:02PM (18 children)
How come nobody wants to look at the also criminal Democrats?
Bill Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall. I think that is up there or worse than anything that Trump has done.
See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass%E2%80%93Steagall_Act [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 4, Touché) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Friday November 01 2019, @07:44PM (8 children)
Because this is not whataboutism.
Next.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday November 01 2019, @08:06PM (7 children)
What a convenient way to dismiss your hypocrisy.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @10:25PM (6 children)
Because Bill Clinton has no bearing on the topic at hand. You are just searching for some way to say "well you're protecting YOUR side when it is blatantly corrupt tooooo!"
Which is absolute horse shit. Democrats have gotten in trouble and resigned over improprieties, Republicans do not and continue to support criminals and pedos. Even "saint Obama" is criticized regularly by liberals for his mistakes and broken promises.
The fuck is wrong with you conservatives? Just don't have the fortitude of character to admit when you're wrong and stick to basic morality and ethics? The. Fuck?
(Score: 2) by slinches on Friday November 01 2019, @11:24PM (4 children)
When/if the investigation is complete and the articles of impeachment are sent to the Senate, I will evaluate the merits of the case then. The investigation is still ongoing and we have only the parts of the evidence that were leaked from closed door sessions and what the White House has said publicly. It's quite possible that new evidence may be revealed that conflicts with what we have seen so far, favorable and unfavorable.
I just hate the term "whataboutism". It's all too often used to deflect criticisms of hypocrisy or analogous situations that are relevant to the discussion.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @11:22PM
Except you're already crying about the impeachment inquiry and crying foul. Try again.
Hint: pay attention to Trump's lies and the publicly available evidence of his crimes. If you don't already understand he needs to go then I doubt you ever will, and "When/if the investigation is complete and the articles of impeachment are sent to the Senate, I will evaluate the merits of the case then" just seems like a way to escape admitting that you are defending a criminal POtuS.
What will you do if the investigation is damning but McConnell decides to sink the whole thing? Do you declare victory even with obviously corrupt bullshit going on? Do you have any shred of dignity and decency as an American? Or would you rather create a conservative dictatorship just so you can "win"?
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday November 04 2019, @08:23PM (2 children)
Bill Clinton and Glass-Stegall has NOTHING to do with Trump and Ukraine. NOTHING.
It's whataboutism.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by slinches on Monday November 04 2019, @11:31PM (1 child)
The way to deal with off topic lines of conversation is to state that they are off topic and move on. So, calling out "whataboutism" isn't necessary and makes available a tool to dismiss valid parallel lines of inquiry.
(Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Tuesday November 05 2019, @11:07PM
Yes. I am intentionally attempting to dismiss it as not relevant to the subject at hand. It is more than off topic to me for it reads as an attempt to distract focus away from the very real problems at hand concerning the impeachment by introducing an irrelevancy to the topic at hand. And done so in a thread that is already swollen with commentary.
That does not mean your point is not valid or should not be raised in another forum at another point in time. But until it is relevant it is trying to name the sins of the Democrats instead of the conduct of the Presidency. Thus you are asking, "well, what about this thing here?" I thus still fail to see how this is not a textbook definition of whataboutism and thus my criticism and dismissal is more than valid, it is apporpriate.
This sig for rent.
(Score: 2) by hemocyanin on Saturday November 02 2019, @06:43AM
Any real investigation of DC, would see the whole place walled off and the gate key thrown away.
You know the worst part about impeaching Trump (and Pence) -- you get Democrats. It's like extricating yourself from a cesspool to land in a sewer.
(Score: 2) by SpockLogic on Friday November 01 2019, @07:48PM (2 children)
Bravo.
Nice bit of Whataboutism to deflect from the current unrepentant Adulterer in Chief's crimes.
Don't forget to invoice the RNC for your effort.
Overreacting is one thing, sticking your head up your ass hoping the problem goes away is another - edIII
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @06:46AM (1 child)
Shouting "whataboutism" -- the ultimate dodge. It's cheap, transparent, and it doesn't make your shit not stink.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday November 03 2019, @05:22PM
Using whataboutism, lame cheap and shows you know you're wrong so you need to use distractions of reality.
(Score: 2) by sjames on Friday November 01 2019, @10:13PM
Bill's been out of office for some time now. It's a bit late for impeachment now.
The repeal of Glass-Steagall was a giant bi-partisan blunder, but unfortunately not a crime.
(Score: 2) by bussdriver on Friday November 01 2019, @10:29PM
You can't place that all onto Clinton because the disgraceful repeal of Glass-Steagall passed with like 90% support! VETO PROOF MAJORITY, not even just barely it was way over what was needed. At that point Clinton's support was completely irrelevant; furthermore, it was at the end of his term and he had huge $ debts...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @02:35AM
And 535 members of Congress *passed* that bill with broad *bipartisan* support.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00354&TB_iframe=true&width=720&height=540 [senate.gov]
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll570.xml [house.gov]
Although, I'd point out that signing a bill passed by both houses of Congress is hardly criminal, regardless of the contents of such a bill.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @02:35AM
And 535 members of Congress *passed* that bill with broad *bipartisan* support.
https://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=106&session=1&vote=00354&TB_iframe=true&width=720&height=540 [senate.gov]
http://clerk.house.gov/evs/1999/roll570.xml [house.gov]
Although, I'd point out that signing a bill passed by both houses of Congress is hardly criminal, regardless of the contents of such a bill.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday November 02 2019, @11:25PM
Clinton signed it, but it was passed by both the House and Senate, both with Republican majorities. If the Democrats had control of either chamber of congress, the repeal would never have passed. Since the day it originally became law the Republicans have railed against it and worked to repeal it. It was a pet dream of Representative Jack Kemp, who first began serious efforts to repeal it in the 80's. That most Republican voters blame Democrats for the repeal of Glass-Steagall is the perfect example of the effectiveness of the conservative propaganda machine at work. Four legs good, two legs better and all that...
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday November 09 2019, @10:49PM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @09:03PM
Are you some kind of medium channeling the stuff then?
(Score: 5, Informative) by LVDOVICVS on Friday November 01 2019, @05:01PM (2 children)
He jeopardized national security for his own political gain. He held held foreign aid hostage for personal benefit. If that's not impeachable, nothing is.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @02:49AM (1 child)
well, banging an intern and obfuscating Congress about it was enough back in the day.
Now we have a president who brags about his gaslighting of (aka lying to) Congress on a perpetual basis and THAT isn't impeachable?
By the Republicans' own actions, burden of proof and processes from the Clinton era, Trump is impeachable many times over, and they should have no problems here.
(Score: 2) by LVDOVICVS on Saturday November 02 2019, @05:34AM
They *should* have no problems with calling him out. But it appears once you've sold your soul to the Orange Devil there's never even the faintest hope of ever getting it back.
But he might toss a few bucks into your re-election fund if you stand naked on the Senate desks and sing his praises from the top of your lungs one more time.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by JoeMerchant on Friday November 01 2019, @05:19PM (3 children)
Congress writes the laws, including Constitutional amendments. If a geriatric trust fund baby with a mail order bride from the #1 hostile foreign state ever gets elected president again, Congress should be giving themselves the tools to deal with that effectively.
🌻🌻 [google.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @05:29PM (2 children)
"mail order bride from the #1 hostile foreign state"
Slovenia? You fucking idiot.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @07:12PM (1 child)
Do you mean the "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia"? Which for the first 21 years of Melaina's life was a part of the Eastern Block. Or do you mean Ivana from Czechoslovakia, which from the end of WWII was a part of the Eastern Block until 1989 (the first 28 years of her life before she married D. Trump? Is there a pattern here other than Marla Maples?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @09:44PM
Go ask Hillary whether Maples is a Russian asset too.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @05:29PM
Then you fundamentally do not understand what “impeachment” is.
Absolutely anything at all is an impeachable offense if the House so deems it.
(Score: 0, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @06:45PM (2 children)
Seriously? this is not bad enough for you?! Its one thing to attempt to rig an election with weasel games in the voting regulations and it is quite another to coerce foreign governments into interfering in the election! Sure other governments do things but they are not asked (russia) or coordinate with your staff (russia) and especially are not forced into it (ukraine.) This would allow any implied attacks without any means to counter it because the other government doesn't have to play by any legal rules here... especially a government with a history of big corruption problems; it has to be easy to find somebody to cook up things that look bad long enough to do great damage that fall apart later on.... or in that country's case-- they can jail innocent people for trumped up crimes and they have in recent years!
After trump is gone we may find out ukraine had recordings and more evidence of blackmail. They won't dare risk it now. Besides, the "transcript" is NOT a transcript! That is the edited clean version the white house impeached themselves with, due to their incompetent english skills! Just like that idiot chief of staff moving 1 step ahead and admitting to the crime openly and it wasn't an "out of context" situation they are claiming. But just watch, it's their MO: deny everything, then deny the worst bits, then admit it and extend what is "normal" and even brag about it. The whole time during their typical corporate PR game they libel and attack everybody who dares point out the truth... even people on their own side.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @06:49AM (1 child)
If we are to take the RussiaRussiaRussia thing seriously, it's pretty clear Republicans should take up the UkraineUkraineUkrain refrain because it appears pretty clear Ukraine was trying to interfere in the election to get HRC in office.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @07:04PM
Boring - try harder. Moar conspiracy needed.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by bussdriver on Friday November 01 2019, @07:13PM (3 children)
Nixon had "plumbers" who incompetently broke into the watergate building 4 times trying to find dirt. illegal but also immortal, unethical, etc. At least Nixon hired AMERICAN "plumbers"! Since the whole mess wasn't completely investigated who knows if he had "electricians" or others ... he trashed the evidence instead of handing it over as it was REQUIRED by the constitution to do. Abuse of power; obstruction was on his impeachment. (well, abuse of power is basically the whole purpose for impeachment.)
Stupid Watergate 1: Russia collusion. Saved like every mobster-- by using obstruction; nobody talks against the don...or has physical evidence since stooges do the work. The mobster professes their innocence over and over and over plus how unfair it's being pinned on them... There is no murder! You don't have the body! as their stooges obstruct (contempt etc.) to insulate from a direct connection. Leaving it to the IRS or accountants at the FBI to go after the money laundering.... but never get the crimes behind all those coverups. Better to get a few years of contempt than life for the actual crime. Loyalty is how it all works and why it's so extremely important.
Stupid Watergate 2: Ukraine; but it's a shakedown... it even involves protection money! "Find" some dirt or else I'd hate to see my FRIEND Putin have his way with you... He can't even have Americans do the shakedown! Could he have found more shady looking/sounding Ukrainians to handle the job?
This is like a children's spy movie... Spy Kids? the villain is a fool and hires fools whose incompetence is largely tolerated. 1 henchman is punished as an example to others because the FOOL thinks loyalty is the problem when it's always incompetence why they fail to stop the Spy Kids. (the heroes who are extremely lucky too.) Biden should learn from his grandchildren's movies! Go turn himself into Trump to confess but instead get him to monologue...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @07:16PM (2 children)
Johnson spied on Nixon but was never outed publicly. Both parties are criminal in similar ways
(Score: 2) by bussdriver on Friday November 01 2019, @10:47PM
I listened to the Johnson declassified tapes a few times... they drop some new ones now and then.
Nixon actually traveled abroad and made a deal with the ENEMY (Vietnam) to not make any deals with Johnson who was beginning to negotiate a deal with them. Johnson was aware of Nixon's TREASON but you can hear it in his own words on the tape. Dig it up. He didn't like the political mess it would create in doing so. Obviously, they were spying on Nixon... because the enemy was being spied on along with ANYBODY who did business with them! That is something you must to if you are going to find any traitors or spies...
During Obama they were watching Russian agents who ended up dealing with some Trump people so obviously they ended up aware of such interactions. Hell, Trump can be clean but you sure as hell want to know what some employee is doing with the enemy agent! you don't stop recording when the traitor turns out to be somebody important; that makes it possibly an even more important case! This is really basic stuff; it's nothing like the patriot act BS expanding into listening to all our phone calls.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @11:38PM
Nixon committed treason before his election but Johnson let it go.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Thexalon on Friday November 01 2019, @09:58PM (1 child)
Why are each of these crimes not impeachable:
- Receiving bribes from foreign governments. (Bribery is specifically listed as grounds for impeachment in the Constitution)
- Sexual assault (at least 25 counts, including 1 of a minor).
- Public corruption that directs federal spending to his personal accounts. (also specifically listed as grounds for impeachment)
- Witness tampering.
- Obstruction of justice (this one cost Nixon his presidency).
- Involvement with organized crime (RICO).
- Extortion. (Specifically, if Ukraine didn't get the aid that the president was dangling in front of him, they'd likely be taken out by Russia, and everyone involved knew it)
- Business fraud (TrumpU).
- Threatening the life of public officials (most notably Ilhan Omar).
- Tax evasion.
- Crimes against humanity (treatment of migrants at the border in violation of the Geneva Conventions).
- Campaign finance violations (payoffs of Stormy Daniels and several other victims of sexual assault by the president, as detailed by Michael Cohen).
Evidence of all those crimes is currently in the public record.
Additional crimes there's good reason to think he may have committed but aren't yet proven in the public record include:
- Money laundering.
- Murder of a witness (namely, Jeffrey Epstein, although a lot of other people had means, motive, and opportunity for that one).
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 2) by barbara hudson on Saturday November 09 2019, @11:00PM
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.