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This discussion has been archived.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.
TOO BAD YOU CAN'T BUY a voodoo globe so that you could make the earth spin
real fast and freak everybody out.
-- Jack Handey, The New Mexican, 1988.
(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..