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This discussion has been archived.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 barbara hudson on Friday November 01 2019, @05:59PM (14 children)

    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Friday November 01 2019, @05:59PM (#914705) Journal
    You're confusing a trial with an investigation. Investigations of crimes aren't usually done in front of tv cameras, and the police are usually tight-lipped so as to not jeopardize any eventual trial.
    --
    SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +4  
       Insightful=3, Interesting=1, Total=4
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   5  
  • (Score: 2, Touché) by fustakrakich on Friday November 01 2019, @06:14PM (1 child)

    by fustakrakich (6150) on Friday November 01 2019, @06:14PM (#914719) Journal

    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

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @06:25PM (#914726)

      fustakrakrick seems to be easily confused. These must be rough times for him.

  • (Score: 2) by arulatas on Friday November 01 2019, @06:58PM

    by arulatas (3600) on Friday November 01 2019, @06:58PM (#914745)

    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)

    by slinches (5049) on Friday November 01 2019, @07:06PM (#914755)

    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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @07:38PM (#914774)

      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)

        by Thexalon (636) on Friday November 01 2019, @09:39PM (#914818)

        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?

        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)

          by EEMac (6423) on Saturday November 02 2019, @12:54AM (#914890)

          I'd bet good money you weren't complaining about it being some kind of stupid or unfair deal.

          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)

            by dry (223) on Saturday November 02 2019, @06:14AM (#914976) Journal

            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)

              by EEMac (6423) on Sunday November 03 2019, @11:45PM (#915483)

              Fair enough. I concede the point. The whole thing was, frankly, bullshit.

              • (Score: 2) by dry on Monday November 04 2019, @12:35AM

                by dry (223) on Monday November 04 2019, @12:35AM (#915499) Journal

                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

              by All Your Lawn Are Belong To Us (6553) on Monday November 04 2019, @07:59PM (#915874) Journal

              No. He was asked if he has a sexual relationship with her.

              Wikipedia's coverage, which read accurate to me:

              A much-quoted statement from Clinton's grand jury testimony showed him questioning the precise use of the word "is". Contending that his statement that "there's nothing going on between us" had been truthful because he had no ongoing relationship with Lewinsky at the time he was questioned, Clinton said, "It depends upon what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the—if he—if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not—that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement". Starr obtained further evidence of inappropriate behavior by seizing the computer hard drive and email records of Monica Lewinsky. Based on the president's conflicting testimony, Starr concluded that Clinton had committed perjury. Starr submitted his findings to Congress in a lengthy document, the Starr Report, which was released to the public via the Internet a few days later and included descriptions of encounters between Clinton and Lewinsky. Starr was criticized by Democrats for spending $70 million on an investigation that substantiated only perjury and obstruction of justice. Critics of Starr also contend that his investigation was highly politicized because it regularly leaked tidbits of information to the press in violation of legal ethics, and because his report included lengthy descriptions which were humiliating and irrelevant to the legal case.

              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

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 04 2019, @07:34PM (#915855)

          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)

      by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 01 2019, @11:56PM (#914869)

      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

        by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday November 09 2019, @09:55PM (#918402) Journal
        It's a matter of trust. You lie under oath, you can no longer be trusted. He could have taken the 5th and his refusal to answer, by itself, cannot bye used to draw an inference, as a matter of law.
        --
        SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.