Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Trump Impeachment: House Votes to Formalise Inquiry

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

An Anonymous Coward writes:

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This discussion has been archived.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.
Trump Impeachment: House Votes to Formalise Inquiry | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 319 comments | Search Discussion
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: 1) by khallow on Saturday November 02 2019, @12:36AM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 02 2019, @12:36AM (#914884) Journal

    Being a purely partisan effort, the accusers don't have much credibility.

    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)

    by barbara hudson (6443) <barbara.Jane.hudson@icloud.com> on Saturday November 09 2019, @10:20PM (#918412) Journal
    Trump is the one describing the edited notes as a transcript. We now know from other witnesses that words were changed and dropped to make it seem less incriminating. So why doesn't Trump release the audio recording, which is now also sitting on a secure server? Or the original unedited notes?
    --
    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

      by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Saturday November 09 2019, @10:33PM (#918418) Journal

      Trump is the one describing the edited notes as a transcript.

      "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.