Full House vote on impeachment inquiry rules to be held Thursday

[thilanliyan]

But when the report was complete, no evidence of that collusion could be found.

This is false. There was even obstruction and campaign finance violations (FOR WHICH ONE PERSON HAS ALREADY GONE TO JAIL AND TRUMP IS A CO-CONSPIRATOR) but he's not being held to the same standard as others. He's not in jail because he's president, not because he's not guilty. And this Ukraine thing is just icing on the cake...more actual crimes but he's president so he can do it apparently with impunity. Failing to punish someone so obviously corrupt and criminal WILL come back to bite the USA in the butt someday....and who knows he/she might be a Democrat next time.

 

[TheVrolok]

I think we will find that the two other branches are unable to control the executive.

The only reason it worked in the past was because the executive bought into the system. Trump doesn’t care about the Constitution or the system though, only himself, and in the end the other two branches have no way to compel their decisions by force.

Exactly this, we are seeing the limitations of the constitution. To be clear, I don't think the constitution is intended to cover all cases, and is clearly a guiding document of foundational principles.

Unfortunately, the system of checks and balances collapses when the branches aren't ACTUALLY independent (see politicizing the judiciary, partisanship supporting a "unitary executive" in the legislature).

 

[Jaskalas]

It's great if one is an anarchist who wants to destroy our Federal government but that's hardly in Mitch's best interest.

But see, if Mitch and company scooped out their brains and listened only to Fox News's late night dogma, then it's the Democrat's destroying our Federal government. Hannity said so! IMO, far as the Republican leadership is concerned, Party IS Country. They may already be convinced that one party fascism is their best interest.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

But see, if Mitch and company scooped out their brains and listened only to Fox News's late night dogma, then it's the Democrat's destroying our Federal government. Hannity said so! IMO, far as the Republican leadership is concerned, Party IS Country. They may already be convinced that one party fascism is their best interest.

That may be the case for some but Mitch has some idea that his head will be on a pike for the crows. He may be despicable but he knows he is mortal.

 

[outriding]

Yes. The US with holds funds for various reasons all the time.

Not in regards to this instance. After congress approved it then they have to be released. It was almost to the expiration date

 

[Jaskalas]

That may be the case for some but Mitch has some idea that his head will be on a pike for the crows. He may be despicable but he knows he is mortal.

Or has he already crossed the Rubicon in his own head?
At some point the only way to survive is to carry on.

 

[interchange]

The scope of Mueller's investigation was limited such that the Trump campaign directly assisting Russia in the commission of their crimes was required to support a finding against him for election interference. Since the evidence only found mutual contact, benefit, and encouragement rather than assistance to commit the crimes, Mueller could not find against Trump for election interference. Additionally, his investigation was hampered by many instances of false testimony, inconsistent testimony, refused cooperation, and destruction of evidence. Additionally, 10 instances of Trump's behavior were considered for obstructing the investigation. Mueller found evidence supporting all elements of the crime in 7 of those instances.

 

[fskimospy]

The scope of Mueller's investigation was limited such that the Trump campaign directly assisting Russia in the commission of their crimes was required to support a finding against him for election interference. Since the evidence only found mutual contact, benefit, and encouragement rather than assistance to commit the crimes, Mueller could not find against Trump for election interference. Additionally, his investigation was hampered by many instances of false testimony, inconsistent testimony, refused cooperation, and destruction of evidence. Additionally, 10 instances of Trump's behavior were considered for obstructing the investigation. Mueller found evidence supporting all elements of the crime in 7 of those instances.

Yes, it is correct to say that Mueller found insufficient evidence to charge members of the campaign with violation of criminal conspiracy statues related to Russia's interference efforts.

It is blatantly false to say that Mueller's report didn't find evidence of collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. The evidence it presents is extensive. Anyone saying otherwise is either delusional or lying.

 

[zzyzxroad]

Yes, it is correct to say that Mueller found insufficient evidence to charge members of the campaign with violation of criminal conspiracy statues related to Russia's interference efforts.

It is blatantly false to say that Mueller's report didn't find evidence of collusion between the Russian government and the Trump campaign. The evidence it presents is extensive. Anyone saying otherwise is either delusional or lying.

Plus, unless you are actively monitoring someone as you would an organized crime organization investigation, catching them in the act of collision is very tough. Otherwise the person would have to be extremely stupid and say something like Trump did on the Zelensky call while sane people are listening in. Trump wasn't surrounded by people loyal to their country while he was campaigning.

 

[Victorian Gray]

Greenman continues to claim a report that details Trump’s eldest son, son in law, and campaign manager meeting with representatives of the Russian government for the express purpose of getting dirt on his opponent is a report that shows no evidence of collusion.

At this point he has been corrected enough times the only reasonable answer is that Greenman is purposefully lying.

Oh dear. I'm so very shocked and surprised that you might reach such a conclusion.

 

[rommelrommel]

Yes. The US with holds funds for various reasons all the time.

Can you please cite an example of someone withholding funds for personal political gain?

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

Evolution of defending Trump.

1. Claim there is no evidence
2. Overwhelming evidence provided ergo switch to - attacking source of evidence
3. Multiple independent sources provided ergo switch to attacking process
4. Overwhelming guilt proven - claim its a witch hunt
5. repeat

 

[zzyzxroad]

Can you please cite an example of someone withholding funds for personal political gain?

My guess is withholding funds for personal political gain happens all the time under the current administration. I'd also guess is that his base will never care.

 

[DarthKyrie]

My guess is withholding funds for personal political gain happens all the time under the current administration. I'd also guess is that his base will never care.

But they are deeply concerned that Vice President Joe Biden carried out President Obama's official policy with regard to corruption in the Ukrainian government, the same policy that the EU and the UK supported Joe Biden carrying out.

 

[zzyzxroad]

But they are deeply concerned that Vice President Joe Biden carried out President Obama's official policy with regard to corruption in the Ukrainian government, the same policy that the EU and the UK supported Joe Biden carrying out.

Can you blame them? He is a dem after all.

 

[DarthKyrie]

Can you blame them? He is a dem after all.

That's true, I forgot just working for the Kenyan, Muslim, Fake Birth Certificate, Commie, Socialist, Tan Suit Wearing, Dijon Mustard Eating, Absolute Worse President in history that is responsible for all of the debt that the United States has racked up since Reagan, Usama Bin Obozo makes you a traitor to the country because he spent his Presidency apologizing to the world over George W. Bush.

Does that cover the usual rightie claims against Obama?

 

[zzyzxroad]

That's true, I forgot just working for the Kenyan, Muslim, Fake Birth Certificate, Commie, Socialist, Tan Suit Wearing, Dijon Mustard Eating, Absolute Worse President in history that is responsible for all of the debt that the United States has racked up since Reagan, Usama Bin Obozo makes you a traitor to the country because he spent his Presidency apologizing to the world over George W. Bush.

Does that cover the usual rightie claims against Obama?

I'd mention the founder of ISIS thing but that's a personal preference.

 

[darkswordsman17]

The scope of Mueller's investigation was limited such that the Trump campaign directly assisting Russia in the commission of their crimes was required to support a finding against him for election interference. Since the evidence only found mutual contact, benefit, and encouragement rather than assistance to commit the crimes, Mueller could not find against Trump for election interference. Additionally, his investigation was hampered by many instances of false testimony, inconsistent testimony, refused cooperation, and destruction of evidence. Additionally, 10 instances of Trump's behavior were considered for obstructing the investigation. Mueller found evidence supporting all elements of the crime in 7 of those instances.

It needs to be noted that the reason he ended up saying he didn't have sufficient evidence is because of lies and persons involved refusing to co-operate. In other words, he did not say it didn't happen just that because of the lies and non-cooperation he was not able to provide absolute unrefutable evidence that would have made it 100% clear that they did collude. Of course he also, despite the many lies spouted by right wingers claiming the opposite, that he didn't feel that he could prosecute a sitting President due to the fact that he would be a member of the DOJ, which is part of the executive branch, which is headed by the President, and as such would be a conflict of interest for him to even do so. Hence him leaving it up to Congress to impeach the President (removing him from that office) first.

Mueller straight up said that Turmp lied to him and that was one of the reasons he didn't bother questioning him more as he felt he'd just get more lies. Since the President was not under oath it was not perjury, and as I just stated Mueller excused himself from prosecuting a sitting President. But it sure points to the fact that if Turmp were required to testify under oath about the 2016 election, at minimum, he'd likely commit perjury. He committed obstruction of justice multiple times as well.

 

[pcgeek11]

What I am wondering is why frame this as Democrat inaction or Democrat duty to act presently? I don't understand, if impeachment should be non-partisan, why any action or urgency to act applies any differently to any member of Congress.

To me it sounds like your words are to criticize Democrats. Well, if you think they're so bad for not pursuing impeachment when the evidence has been there for 2 years, what do you think of Republicans who have actively tried to make the duty a hyperpartisan issue to protect the President from impeachment?

Personally, I don't care at this point about the past failures of Congress, but I do care about diffusing partisanship. And here you are engaging with me stating you agree with that goal while starting the conversation with a dig against Democrats.

It isn't a dig it is an observation.

They ( Democrats ) have claimed to have all they need to impeach Trump for two years.
They ( Democrats ) have done nothing until now to address their conviction that Trump should be impeached.

The Republicans have done no more or less to make it a hyperpartisan issue than the Democrats. I think they are on par with one another on that point.

It is underway now and will play out however it does...

 

[pcgeek11]

They did have all they need from the Mueller Report. However they didn't have enough to convince a plurality of the electorate. They now have that. This Ukraine stuff is easy for people to understand. Extortion.

"However they didn't have enough to convince a plurality of the electorate."

Then they didn't have enough or all they needed and lied about it.

 

[pcgeek11]

So your argument is that Trump was only asking for investigations into the families of his political opponents so it’s fine?

No. My argument was that I see nothing I consider impeachable in his phone transcripts.

And before anyone says it. I know what I think doesn't matter, its about the feelz etc.... Just as well as what all of you guys think on this subject doesn't matter either. So I would say we are pretty even.

Obviously the process the Democrats have put into motion will continue to its conclusion regardless of the opinion of you or I. And if they toss him out I'm sure you will gloat and have a party or something and we can all come together with President Pence. And if they don't toss him out of office you will continue to rant and rave to no good end and the people at the election will make the decision.

 

[ivwshane]

No. My argument was that I see nothing I consider impeachable in his phone transcripts.

And before anyone says it. I know what I think doesn't matter, its about the feelz etc.... Just as well as what all of you guys think on this subject doesn't matter either. So I would say we are pretty even.

Obviously the process the Democrats have put into motion will continue to its conclusion regardless of the opinion of you or I. And if they toss him out I'm sure you will gloat and have a party or something and we can all come together with President Pence. And if they don't toss him out of office you will continue to rant and rave to no good end and the people at the election will make the decision.

Does violating any part of the constitution on multiple occasions warrant a president being impeached? We are speaking in generalities, not about any particular president. I’m just trying to get a sense of where your bar is for acceptable behavior of a president is that would warrant an impeachment.

Like is lying under oath a line that shouldn’t be crossed regardless of what the circumstances were for that lie? Or is lying ok under oath ok in certain circumstances?

 

[Jhhnn]

It isn't a dig it is an observation.

They ( Democrats ) have claimed to have all they need to impeach Trump for two years.
They ( Democrats ) have done nothing until now to address their conviction that Trump should be impeached.

The Republicans have done no more or less to make it a hyperpartisan issue than the Democrats. I think they are on par with one another on that point.

It is underway now and will play out however it does...

So what? I mean, it's bullshit anyway and an attempt to dismiss the facts of the matter at hand. What we're seeing is a concerted effort to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens to serve Trump's campaign, which is illegal even if he didn't strong arm Ukraine to do it, which he did. And then he tried to cover it up by instructing the DNI to not send a credible & urgent whistleblower complaint to Congress as required by law. Now he & his sycophants are leveling scurrilous attacks against anybody who'll speak the truth.

That's what you're defending. You're also defending numerous acts of obstruction of a legitimate special counsel investigation into confirmed extensive Russian meddling in 2016 on his behalf. You're defending his & Barr's obstruction thereafter. All for an insane grifter who doesn't deserve your respect or support at all.

 

[pcgeek11]

But they are deeply concerned that Vice President Joe Biden carried out President Obama's official policy with regard to corruption in the Ukrainian government, the same policy that the EU and the UK supported Joe Biden carrying out.

So Obama acting as the President of the US made the foreign policy that said the prosecutor in the Ukraine had to go and Biden was only acting on that policy.

I don't care what the EU or UK support. that is irrelevant.

 

[ivwshane]

So Obama acting as the President of the US made the foreign policy that said the prosecutor in the Ukraine had to go and Biden was only acting on that policy.

I don't care what the EU or UK support. that is irrelevant.

From an article in 2016, way before any of this Biden conspiracy bull shit was spread.

Ukraine Ousts Viktor Shokin, Top Prosecutor, and Political Stability Hangs in the Balance (Published 2016)

Mr. Shokin had been criticized for turning a blind eye to corruption, but political observers said he played an important role in balancing competing interests.

www.nytimes.com

The United States and other Western nations had for months called for the ousting of Mr. Shokin, who was widely criticized for turning a blind eye to corrupt practices and for defending the interests of a venal and entrenched elite. He was one of several political figures in Kiev whom reformers and Western diplomats saw as a worrying indicator of a return to past corrupt practices, two years after a revolution that was supposed to put a stop to self-dealing by those in power.

As the problems festered, Kiev drew increasingly sharp criticism from Western diplomats and leaders. In a visitin December, Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. said corruption was eating Ukraine “like a cancer.” Christine Lagarde, the managing director of the International Monetary Fund, which props up Ukraine financially, said last month that progress was so slow in fighting corruption that “it’s hard to see how the I.M.F.-supported program can continue.”

Since his appointment a year ago, Mr. Shokin had been criticized for not prosecuting officials, businessmen and members of Parliament for their roles in corrupt schemes during the government of former President Viktor F. Yanukovych. He also did not press cases for sniping by the police and opposition activists during the street protests in 2014 that killed more than 100 people and wounded about 1,000.