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This discussion has been archived.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.
If the thunder don't get you, then the lightning will.
(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.