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This discussion has been archived.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.
Cum tacent, clamant. When they are silent, they shout. -Cicero
(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.