Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Friday November 01 2019, @02:18PM   Printer-friendly
from the Red-Queen-Race dept.

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."


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by LVDOVICVS on Friday November 01 2019, @05:11PM (12 children)

    by LVDOVICVS (6131) on Friday November 01 2019, @05:11PM (#914671)

    Bill Clinton did lie under oath for something he never should have been asked about. Being held to account for this was appropriate. In my opinion the outcome was commensurate with the crime.

    Trump appears to be running an extortion racket that endangers national security. Being held to account for this would hardly seem to be a "partisan circus" considering the far more serious implications. He should be jailed in my opinion.

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +3  
       Insightful=3, Total=3
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @06:05PM (6 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @06:05PM (#914709)

    Do you mean Ukraine?

    Seriously, you call it "extortion" to tell the Ukraine that the extortion performed by Biden is no longer demanded by the USA?

    To recap: Joe Biden's son got paid to be on the board of a Ukraine gas company, despite having no industry experience and no ability to speak the language. Mysterious, eh? When a prosecutor in Ukraine started investigating corruption related to this, Joe Biden threatened to have the USA cut a $billion of foreign aid unless the prosecutor was fired within 6 hours. The prosecutor was indeed fired (asked to resign of course) and strangely Joe Biden even had the nerve to brag about it on video. Years later, Trump tells the Ukraine that that shit is over, and of course the USA would appreciate investigation of corruption.

    WTF. Trump is doing his job. He is supposed to fight corruption like what Joe Biden and Hunter Biden did. The federal prosecutors work for Trump, and may need to be reminded to do their damn jobs. The ultimate person for diplomacy, including asking foreign nations for law enforcement assistance, is Trump. It is a duty for Trump to insist on the investigation into the Biden family, even if the political appearance is bad.

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @06:29PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @06:29PM (#914728)

      Replace Biden's son with Jr., Eric and Ivanka?

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @07:06PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @07:06PM (#914754)

      You know that facts are available? You don't have to make up lies like Trump does.
      https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/business/media/fact-check-biden-ukraine-burisma-china-hunter.html [nytimes.com]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @06:52AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @06:52AM (#914986)

        How about citing a reliable non-biased source, you know, like one that didn't push lies to start a war in Iraq, one that isn't a mouthpiece for shitstains like HRC and other murderous cunts and dicks.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @08:46PM (2 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @08:46PM (#914804)

      And just in case you might not like the NY Times (since you are defending Trump):

      Associated Press [apnews.com], which noted the controversy but also states the current prosecutor finds no reason to take action.
      Bloomberg [bloomberg.com].
      Reuters. [reuters.com]
      Forbes. [forbes.com] Business Insider [businessinsider.com], if you don't like Forbes.
      BBC. [bbc.com]
      Deutsche Welle. [dw.com] and again [dw.com], although you might well feel Germany a little biased.

      Now, to the meat of what you said that's flatly wrong:

      Seriously, you call it "extortion" to tell the Ukraine that the extortion performed by Biden is no longer demanded by the USA?

      Extortion on Biden's part is questionable. Biden was carrying out U.S. policy backed not just by the executive but also by State and all other relevant government agencies. It was all done quite publicly in the public view - you can find many contemporaneous news articles stating that the U.S. was going to call for exactly that and that the move was supported internationally. It's not like it was a phone call that was suddenly classified and placed into systems intended for national security matters. Also policy which was widely agreed upon by the International Monetary Fund, and European community (EBRD and EU) as well. Nobody unbiased has questioned that the Ukraine was (and still may be) suffering from corruption.

      Joe Biden's son got paid to be on the board of a Ukraine gas company, despite having no industry experience and no ability to speak the language. Mysterious, eh?

      Where to begin... Mysterious, no. Burisma was clearly looking for a tie-in which might help them. That is not illegal. It's not nepotism like, say, employing your children as chief advisers in your administration. It's pretty much a given that children of Presidents (and similar officials) can do very well for themselves wherever they are. What is your evidence that the position was actually used corruptly?

      When a prosecutor in Ukraine started investigating corruption related to this, Joe Biden threatened to have the USA cut a $billion of foreign aid unless the prosecutor was fired within 6 hours. The prosecutor was indeed fired (asked to resign of course) and strangely Joe Biden even had the nerve to brag about it on video.

      Wrong. It was $1 billion in loan guarantees. That may seem like foreign aid to you, but it is quite different from funds that were appropriated and approved by Congress to be directly given to the country in question. Funds that the Executive Branch did not have discretion or choice as to whether they would be disbursed (what Trump ended up doing, and doing in a highly irregular method when the officials charged with that authority questioned the ability for the Executive to hold up the disbursement of those funds).
      Wrong again. Prosecutor Shokin actually inherited the investigation into Burisma's founder Zlochevsky, did nothing with it, and if you read Shokin's Wikipedia article [wikipedia.org], you'll see that the May allegations that he was investigating Burisma actively were debunked back in May - that investigation did not have activity during Shokin's time.
      Wrong again again. The claims about Burisma were settled in 2017, by a different prosecution.

      Years later, Trump tells the Ukraine that that shit is over, and of course the USA would appreciate investigation of corruption.

      Wrong again again again again. Trump did not request, "investigation of corruption." He specifically requested investigation into what are known to be dead and debunked issues: Cloudflare, and specifically named his chief political rival for the next election. He asked this in the the context of a "favor" (a quid, if you will) in the context of having Congressionally approved military aid (a quo, if you will) and immediately after the Ukraine President stated he wanted to purchase U.S. Military armaments (another quo). That's quite different from what occurred previously, that discretionary aid was used as a bargaining chip in order to remove a prosecutor who was not doing his job effectively.
      Now, shall we consider that Trump's method in doing so was to employ a personal lawyer who had no Congressionally-approved portfolio nor as an employee of the State Department, and seems to have established a shadow foreign policy apparatus for which the President then made the actual approved department (both AG and State) cooperate with? An unapproved invididual who now has two known associates under arrest for campaign finance law violations? No, I don't think we'll go there because that certainly does not help Trump.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @06:55AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @06:55AM (#914987)

        Cokehead son of VP with no experience or qualifications gets a job for somewhere between 50k and 180k per month, depending on reports. Take the low number for argument's sake. There is no amount of words that makes that not on its face, corrupt.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @07:12PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday November 05 2019, @07:12PM (#916448)

          If you'd like to take that angle then you'd better be prepared to pay every public figure enough to support their children for life, because any job ever given to any politicians child might then be "corruption."

          And even if "corrupt", not illegal. There was no crime present. And even if there was one the Republicans and the Ukraine government still have been unable to prove anything. Unsurprising because this is a dead and debunked issue.

          Trump wasn't trying to get the dead horse beat so that justice would be served. Trump was trying to get a pot stirred up against his chief political rival and using the tools of statecraft entrusted to him for the sake of the nation's security to play his partisan political games. Or, if you like, he was seeking information to help him change the course of the 2020 election and not because he decided to wear his Superman Underoos that day. That's not just corrupt. That's illegal.

          See the difference?

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @07:08PM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @07:08PM (#914756)

    Then Bill Clinton should have exercised his fifth amendment right: "nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself"

    Note that while national attention was on sexual matters, Bill Clinton signed the repeal of Glass-Steagall - a very big "crime" in itself.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @07:10AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @07:10AM (#914992)

      Wouldn't have worked. The Fifth Amendment does not apply to impeachment because it's not a criminal process. It's a political process that removes him from office, and there is no double jeopardy if they then charge him with crimes.

      "Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law. "

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @10:02PM (2 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @10:02PM (#914830)

    Trump appears to be running an extortion racket that endangers national security.

    Key word "appears" because that's how it has been spread out by the media (or some portion of the media) support a narrative.

    Whether it's true or not, less than a handful of people will really ever know. Where you in a meeting with Trump when questionable things went down? No. Neither was I.

    Presuming we the peons have all the facts in front of our eyes is ludicrous.

    It will play out in spite of the facts. You should be suspicious of the the outcome no matter which way it goes.

    • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @10:40PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @10:40PM (#914840)

      You should be suspicious of the the outcome no matter which way it goes.

      And you should be ashamed for being such a credulous idiot.

    • (Score: 2) by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us on Monday November 04 2019, @08:35PM

      by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday November 04 2019, @08:35PM (#915905) Journal

      1) Donald J. Trump released a Call Memo. Said call memo, combined with the military aid holdup, all by itself proves what Whistleblower has alleged. Trump gave us the rope.
      2) The people who were listening in on that call are now testifying about what exactly was said, going beyond the call memo into things not there. If there are witnesses who will say things like "Burisma wasn't actually named", the President will indeed have the opportunity to bring such witnesses forward.
      3) The people who surround the time of this call are testifying. The President said, "this ain't a quid pro quo," when all the true experts very much acknowledge this was indeed a quid pro quo and it can't be spun differently.
      4) Nobody is stupid enough to not know the Bidens are Trump's chief political opponent. This was political persecution of Republican versus Democrat using foreign relations to attempt to gain political (and NOT National Security) intelligence.

      These are all Facts, at this point. No Republican, from Trump through the Senate through the House are disputing the facts because they are indisputable. Instead they rely on distractions to try and keep their faithful in line.

      We will indeed know the truth in this matter. There are too many people to testify, and such testimony is now becoming open. While the Trump administration tries it's best to do damage control on a plainly visible plane crash.

      You do not have to be suspicious when both the prosecution has alleged and the defense has confirmed all the truly meaingful facts. You can only try to distract and mislead.

      --
      This sig for rent.