• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

House Investigations: Impeachment inquiry is officially on

Ph is partisan. I think unapologetically so.

These days, sadly, there’s only one of our two major parties that’s worthy of sane or informed support. ‘Tain’t yourn.
 
Axios: Impeachment Day


More momentum built yesterday among Democrats for impeachment proceedings than on any other single day of the Trump presidency.

Why it matters: One summer phone call by President Trump is proving to be more of an impeachment catalyst for House Democrats than two years of drip-drip revelations from Robert Mueller's investigation. Today, the behind-the-scenes action could burst into view.

"The horse is out of the barn," tweeted Geoff Garin, a pollster for House Democrats. "Saddle up."

What's happening: Pelosi meets today with her six committee chairs leading different strands of the Trump investigation.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), a 28-year House veteran and Pelosi ally, issued a statement yesterday calling Trump's phone call with the Ukrainian president "a new chapter in Trump’s egregious conduct," "a reckless abuse of power" and "a turning point."

Last night, seven freshman Democrats — all with military and national security backgrounds — published a Washington Post op-ed saying it will be "an impeachable offense" if, as alleged about the Ukraine phone call, Trump "used his position to pressure a foreign country into investigating a political opponent, and ... sought to use U.S. taxpayer dollars as leverage."
Pelosi, who has tried to tamp down impeachment fever, talked privately yesterday with lawmakers and allies about where they are on impeachment in light of the Ukraine revelations, to gauge whether there is a broad shift within the caucus, sources tell Axios' Alayna Treene.

"The Speaker is a numbers girl," a Democratic leadership aide said. "The public sentiment has to be there."
Between the lines: You could see the dam breaking Sunday, when House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff took a newly aggressive stance on impeachment — comments he made, Axios reported, after consulting Pelosi.

One of the main drivers of Pelosi’s reluctance to embrace impeachment was to protect moderate freshmen in swing districts who won her the majority in 2018. But some of those vulnerable Dems joined last night's op-ed.

The backdrop: All of this is unfolding while Trump is in New York meeting with foreign leaders at the UN General Assembly.

The president has complained in the past when controversies distract from the narrative he wants when he is with other heads of state.

Why Ukraine is different: Axios' Zach Basu points out that the Mueller investigation played out through press reports and occasional indictments across two years — softening the blow from the most damning revelations.

The Ukraine story has unfolded in less than a week.

What to watch: House Democrats meet today, and members will be swarmed by reporters. On Thursday, Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, will testify in open session before the House Intelligence Committee.

Maguire will be asked about an intel whistleblower's complaint that may have been triggered by the Ukraine conversation. His answers — or even non-answers — could be impeachment bait for Democrats.

Later this week, Trump is to meet at the UN with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was on the other end of the phone call.

🗞️ How it's playing ... WashPost lead story: "Trump ordered hold on military aid days before calling Ukrainian president" ... N.Y. Times lead story: "TRUMP IS ACCUSED OF FREEZING AID DAYS BEFORE CALL."
 
Newenglanddeac said:
Axios: Impeachment Day


More momentum built yesterday among Democrats for impeachment proceedings than on any other single day of the Trump presidency.

Why it matters: One summer phone call by President Trump is proving to be more of an impeachment catalyst for House Democrats than two years of drip-drip revelations from Robert Mueller's investigation. Today, the behind-the-scenes action could burst into view.

"The horse is out of the barn," tweeted Geoff Garin, a pollster for House Democrats. "Saddle up."

What's happening: Pelosi meets today with her six committee chairs leading different strands of the Trump investigation.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), a 28-year House veteran and Pelosi ally, issued a statement yesterday calling Trump's phone call with the Ukrainian president "a new chapter in Trump’s egregious conduct," "a reckless abuse of power" and "a turning point."

Last night, seven freshman Democrats — all with military and national security backgrounds — published a Washington Post op-ed saying it will be "an impeachable offense" if, as alleged about the Ukraine phone call, Trump "used his position to pressure a foreign country into investigating a political opponent, and ... sought to use U.S. taxpayer dollars as leverage."
Pelosi, who has tried to tamp down impeachment fever, talked privately yesterday with lawmakers and allies about where they are on impeachment in light of the Ukraine revelations, to gauge whether there is a broad shift within the caucus, sources tell Axios' Alayna Treene.

"The Speaker is a numbers girl," a Democratic leadership aide said. "The public sentiment has to be there."
Between the lines: You could see the dam breaking Sunday, when House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff took a newly aggressive stance on impeachment — comments he made, Axios reported, after consulting Pelosi.

One of the main drivers of Pelosi’s reluctance to embrace impeachment was to protect moderate freshmen in swing districts who won her the majority in 2018. But some of those vulnerable Dems joined last night's op-ed.

The backdrop: All of this is unfolding while Trump is in New York meeting with foreign leaders at the UN General Assembly.

The president has complained in the past when controversies distract from the narrative he wants when he is with other heads of state.

Why Ukraine is different: Axios' Zach Basu points out that the Mueller investigation played out through press reports and occasional indictments across two years — softening the blow from the most damning revelations.

The Ukraine story has unfolded in less than a week.

What to watch: House Democrats meet today, and members will be swarmed by reporters. On Thursday, Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, will testify in open session before the House Intelligence Committee.

Maguire will be asked about an intel whistleblower's complaint that may have been triggered by the Ukraine conversation. His answers — or even non-answers — could be impeachment bait for Democrats.

Later this week, Trump is to meet at the UN with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, who was on the other end of the phone call.

How it's playing ... WashPost lead story: "Trump ordered hold on military aid days before calling Ukrainian president" ... N.Y. Times lead story: "TRUMP IS ACCUSED OF FREEZING AID DAYS BEFORE CALL."
Click to expand...

This misses the second crime regarding the Ukraine episode, the suppression, cover up and and with holding of the whistle blower account. Trump is engaging in a multi scale abuse of power.
 
Junebug said:
Lol. Nice backtracking. I sense a theme. You didn’t say the president’s cabinet needed replacing. You said the entire executive branch needed replacing, which would include people the president doesn’t have the power to replace. You want a unitary executive, but only if the executive is a democrat.

And, there, is the difference in you and I. When I think about separation of powers / the structure of government, and constitutional law more generally, I think about it in non-political terms. Should the executive have this or that power, regardless of his (or her) party? If Bill Clinton should have the power to fire Ken Starr, then Donald Trump should have the power to fire Robert Mueller. You are utterly incapable of thinking this way. You are a political animal through and through. The structure of government is irrelevant for you. The only question for you is whether this or that interpretation of the constitution benefits your party. This is your guiding star — political expedience. It’s precisely to safeguard against people like you that we have a written constitution to begin with, with rules that apply regardless of which party is in power.
Click to expand...

Who in the Executive Branch are you talking about who isn’t under the purview of the President or his Cabinet appointments? And when did you advocate for firing them based on unitary executive theory? All I’ve seen you say is that you agree the President does not have to allow himself to be checked and balanced by the House. I haven’t said that at all.
 
Junebug said:
Good to see you’re a believer in the unitary executive, if only for democrat presidents.
Click to expand...

What kind of fucktard circle jerkery is this bullshit? You can't purge the enablers of this unitary executive nonsense because that would be an endorsement of it? Gtfo.
 
ConnorEl said:
Brief summary...What Were The Bidens Doing In Ukraine? 5 Questions Answered
Click to expand...

Democrats need to step away from the JCDing over Biden on this. Most people are not going to accept the nuance involved in trying to weed out corruption in the Ukraine. And Biden and Trump both being in the wrong here are not mutually exclusive, but clearly not to the same degree.

Appearances matter, which is the very reason Biden's son stepped away from his board position.
 
I dunno. There is no evidence that there was anything fishy there. It’s been previously vetted. They’re making up bullshit. I think it just legitimizes the bullshit further if you give them any opportunity to both-sides it.
 
06deacon said:
I dunno. There is no evidence that there was anything fishy there. It’s been previously vetted. They’re making up bullshit. I think it just legitimizes the bullshit further if you give them any opportunity to both-sides it.
Click to expand...

We have been tilted for months that our nation's newly appointed top prosecutor has swept aside an investigation into corruption...
 
I still think Pelosi was just waiting until closer to the election to impeach, so Pubs didn't have enough time to get a new candidate established -- which was maybe not the correct move morally, but may be politically. This might force her hand earlier than she wanted.
 
Shooshmoo said:
I still think Pelosi was just waiting until closer to the election to impeach, so Pubs didn't have enough time to get a new candidate established -- which was maybe not the correct move morally, but may be politically. This might force her hand earlier than she wanted.
Click to expand...

I agree with this.
 
I doubt Pelosi was assuming Republicans would vote to impeach and convict and choose another candidate.
 
PhDeac said:
I doubt Pelosi was assuming Republicans would vote to impeach and convict and choose another candidate.
Click to expand...

I don't think it would be necessary for them to impeach and convict for them to choose another candidate, but I should have added that the impeachment proceedings would distract and move public opinion even if there was no new candidate selected.
 
Let’s just be real for a second.

1) Trump isn’t getting convicted
2) The GOP will not abandon Trump under any circumstances
3) Neither if the above points should cause Democrats to reject impeachment

All the pundit talking points about “ThIs WiLl EnErGiZe HiS bAsE” are stupid. Trump already has 90%+ from Republicans. What votes could be lost because Democrats impeach Trump? Where are these mythological fence-sitting voters that will look at the current situation and think “well I was maybe not going to vote Trump but now that the Democrats are impeaching Trump so Trump can’t get foreign election help again, I think this Trump guy isn’t getting a fair shake”?

Pelosi probably disagrees on every level with what Trump stands for, but one thing is for damn sure: Trump gives her job security. In my eyes, that’s why Pelosi is so reluctant to impeach. Once the specter of impeachment becomes real and the cards are played, what purpose does she serve? Her legislative prowess is noted and appreciated. She presided over some significant Democratic Houses and has at times been the key Democratic lawmaker on the Hill. But we have passed the point of no return and Pelosi is not the leader we need in the House for what’s to come.
 
AsesinoDeTortugas said:
Let’s just be real for a second.

1) Trump isn’t getting convicted
2) The GOP will not abandon Trump under any circumstances
3) Neither if the above points should cause Democrats to reject impeachment

All the pundit talking points about “ThIs WiLl EnErGiZe HiS bAsE” are stupid. Trump already has 90%+ from Republicans. What votes could be lost because Democrats impeach Trump? Where are these mythological fence-sitting voters that will look at the current situation and think “well I was maybe not going to vote Trump but now that the Democrats are impeaching Trump so Trump can’t get foreign election help again, I think this Trump guy isn’t getting a fair shake”?

Pelosi probably disagrees on every level with what Trump stands for, but one thing is for damn sure: Trump gives her job security. In my eyes, that’s why Pelosi is so reluctant to impeach. Once the specter of impeachment becomes real and the cards are played, what purpose does she serve? Her legislative prowess is noted and appreciated. She presided over some significant Democratic Houses and has at times been the key Democratic lawmaker on the Hill. But we have passed the point of no return and Pelosi is not the leader we need in the House for what’s to come.
Click to expand...

This.
 
Hakeem Jeffries just came out for an impeachment inquiry. Pelosi must be almost there as he wouldn't come out against her without this being so.
 
RJKarl said:
Hakeem Jeffries just came out for an impeachment inquiry. Pelosi must be almost there as he wouldn't come out against her without this being so.
Click to expand...

I would be for removing Pelosi if she continues to hold up impeachment. Not sure how the procedures of the House work (e.g. whether a speaker can be removed/changed at any time), though.
 
John Lewis is going to make a statement in the next couple of hours. This could easily be the opening of the floodgates.

EDIT:

He just said "the future of our democracy is at stake" and "we must not delay".

It's on.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top