Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Pelosi said the following: "No one is above the law." Do you suppor that? |
Anonymous
Your source says "effectively" and Napolitano "had framed". These are opinions. |
Anonymous
A new narrative. This is called 'revisionist history'. |
Anonymous
Ah, but you have not answered my question, and I asked first. What's your source for the claim that a House vote has to be held before an investigation can be held by subcommittee? |
Anonymous
And a majority of Congressional Democrats shared that opinion. The whistleblower shared that opinion. The ICIG shared that opinion. The Acting DNI shared that opinion. Guess what? That's enough to open an impeachment INQUIRY, which they wanted to do ASAP so evidence would be preserved. |
Anonymous
"Ukraine’s new president, Volodymyr Zelensky, told Trump in July that he plans to launch his own wide-ranging investigation into what happened with the Bidens and Burisma." Nothing to see here ..... "Burisma’s American lawyers contacted the replacement prosecutor within hours of the termination and urgently seek a meeting in Ukraine to discuss the case. Ukrainian prosecutors say they have tried to get this information to the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) since the summer of 2018, fearing it might be evidence of possible violations of U.S. ethics laws. First, they hired a former federal prosecutor to bring the information to the U.S. attorney in New York, who, they say, showed no interest. Then, the Ukrainians reached out to President Trump’s personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani." Some media outlets have reported that, at the time Joe Biden forced the firing in March 2016, there were no open investigations. Those reports are wrong. A British-based investigation of Burisma's owner was closed down in early 2015 on a technicality when a deadline for documents was not met. But the Ukraine Prosecutor General's office still had two open inquiries in March 2016, according to the official case file provided me. One of those cases involved taxes; the other, allegations of corruption. Burisma announced the cases against it were not closed and settled until January 2017. After I first reported it in a column, the New York Times and ABC News published similar stories confirming my reporting. We've heard all about that on DCUM. Problem is, the bolded above You really should read the article I'm linking. But I'm sure you will stick your nose up and sneer "Solomon" instead: https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463307-solomon-these-once-secret-memos-cast-doubt-on-joe-bidens-ukraine-story#.XY02ewYDEV8.twitter |
Anonymous
DP...pay for the darned news yourself. And yes, it is a high crime (which refers to the position of President, not the nature of the crime) |
Anonymous
|
I read that article. It's like looking at events in a mirror, he's got everything reversed. I know, that's his shtick -- he's the conservative journalist who knows how the world works while the other 99% of people are seeing everything wrong.
Whatever. I can see events with my own eyes, I don't need to look at their reverse in a mirror. |
Anonymous
The cry here is to more forward formally to impeach the President. From every Dem that takes the mic. THAT requires a vote. That's what I am referring to - the screaming from the Democratic party and from DCUM that he must be impeached, not investigated. You guys have been holding "inquiries" for his whole time in office, which, frankly, are starting to resemble the hysteria of the Salem witch trials. When Democrats start being honest with the American public, I'll be happy. Schiff took a phone call from what he thought were two Russian officials who said they had dirt on Trump. He had a lengthly discussion with them, asking them the 'nature of the kompromat' and how he could get hold of it. Obama was caught on a hot mic telling a Russian official that he had more flexibility after the election with regards to nuclear weapons. None of that even rattled Democrats. That's fine with you? My guess is absolutely. My guess is you also believe that Steele's report is not only accurate, but was not paid for by the Clinton campaign. How about that parody Schiff said he engaged in. That was fine with you too? No exaggeration there? |
Anonymous
How about you start reading the linked documents before you come to that conclusion? |
Anonymous
And if everything is reversed, why did the NYT publish a story confirming his reporting? Thank you for solidifying what I already knew - you are not interested in actual documentation and facts. Just speculation and emotion. |
Anonymous
It's funny how you call out emotion while being impervious to facts. |
Anonymous
|
Andrew Johnson was impeached in 186, and Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998. (Both were eventually acquitted.)
Richard M. Nixon resigned in 1974 to avoid impeachment. Johnson's story played out on the public stage. After the Reconstruction Acts were passed, Johnson blocked their enforcement. After passage of the Tenure of Office Act in 1867, Johnson continued to dismiss government officials without the permission of the Senate in defiance of the act -- including suspending Stanton and appointing Grant in his place. Then Congress reconvened and overruled Stanton's suspension, but Johnson next formally dismissed him. So articles of impeachment were brought forth by the House. There was no need to do an investigative inquiry, as there wasn't disagreement about what happened. It was all about the matters that happened in public and which were fully acknowledged by all players. In contrast, for both Nixon and Clinton, the process began with the House Judiciary Committee first holding an investigation (WITHOUT a full House vote), and then, based on the results of that investigation, recommending articles of impeachment to the full House, which then held a summary vote of the whole House. |
Anonymous
| ^^Johnson in 1868 |
Anonymous
|
When people are silent on the substance, but complain mightily about the methods, it’s because they’ve lost. If Trump has done no wrong, then we can investigate him and confirm that. Same for Biden, although since he’s not President, the stakes are much, much lower. After all, you’re willing to spend taxpayer money on Benghazi and email investigations... Please welcome this chance to exonerate your President. Funny, though, he’s not acting like an innocent man 
|