Shouldn't the Impeachment of a President Be Open and Transparent?

Jump to Last Post 1-10 of 10 discussions (118 posts)
  1. The Minstrel profile image80
    The Minstrelposted 7 weeks ago

    With something so serious, you would think that Pelosi and the rest of her conspirators would bring a level of respectability to their so-called impeachment inquiry by following a strict adherence to the Constitution and rules. No, they have chosen to use their majority to run a kangaroo court. Why? Why are the Democrats hiding the whistleblowers? Why are they not bringing this to a floor vote? Why are they conducting investigative sessions behind closed doors and leaking only certain information to the public? Do they think the American public cannot decide for themselves whether this impeachment is valid or not? Why? Because it is a sham! It's all a lie! The lack of transparency and honesty in this investigation proves that the Democrats are scared and desperate in their attempts to remove a duly elected president by this half cocked strategy of fake impeachment!

    1. wilderness profile image95
      wildernessposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      I would have answered your questions, but you already did that, and did it very well.

    2. James A Watkins profile image87
      James A Watkinsposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Wait a minute . . . are you trying to say the president of the United States should not be removed from office based on a rumor from an anonymous person that doesn't like him? Are you only saying that because he was duly elected by the citizens of his country?

      1. promisem profile image97
        promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        No, I think he is saying Trump should get kicked out of office if he is impeached and found guilty via a Constitutional process.

        Only people who want to undermine the Constitution will oppose it.

    3. Readmikenow profile image96
      Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      I think the biggest problem for the Democrats is that the transcript was released to the public.  Whistleblowers are irrelevant.  People getting upset by the call are irrelevant.  THAT is what makes this such a scam.  Like Congressman Al Green has said...if they don't impeach President Donald Trump, he could win the next presidential race.  THAT is called fear.  I believe THAT is the motivation behind this scam impeachment proceedings.  It has nothing to do with anything illegal but everything to do with trying to keep President Donald Trump from being elected again.  What a shame they don't have the decency to see if the electoral process could take him out of office.  I see who would be running against President Donald Trump and I understand why they're scared.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image91
        Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        What happened to the other 30+ minutes of the 40 minute call, Mike? Since no interpreter was needed, that's a lot of dead time. And if you really believe the transcript was complete, I've got some swampland you may be interested in....

      2. MizBejabbers profile image88
        MizBejabbersposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        Pelosi and the Democrats are respectably following the law and only the ignorant believe they are running a kangaroo court. The Whistleblower Protection Act of 1989 is the chief protection for a whistleblower, but there are other laws protecting them, too, such as the 1st Amendment to the Constitution, which by the way, does not give everyone the right to know everything when it involves National Security.

        https://searchcompliance.techtarget.com … ection-Act

        Otherwise, they would be subjected to death threats aimed at them and their families. Anonymity provides them the protection to appear before Congress and testify under oath without the fear and threats they would face if their identity is revealed before they testify. This hearing involves National Security because Trump admitted that he made the phone call soliciting the Ukraine President to investigate his political opponent. National Security, truth and safety actually take precedence over your curiosity. You Republicans believed that was important during the Clinton four-year witch hunt, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, it pinches and there is a lot of howling. Sorry, but that train moves in both directions.lol

        1. PrettyPanther profile image84
          PrettyPantherposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

          Is it just me, or is the Republican whining extra infantile lately? Trump has truly taken over the GOP....

          1. MizBejabbers profile image88
            MizBejabbersposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            It isn't just you, it is any thinking person. He certainly has taken over the Repubs just like Hitler took over his followers and ruled with a hand of fear, first taking over the press and using it to his advantage. The GOP is squawking about transparency, all the while hiding Trump's dealings, both business and government.
            Repubs aren't looking at the facts either. They keep squawking that Trump should take the Dems to court. He has and he is, but he is losing.
            https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/25/us/p … oenas.html

            Judge rules against Trump three times in one day on taxes, border wall, etc.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y5O-WJYTxkM


            Since Trump hasn't been able to take over the American Press, except for Fox, he is calling the others "fake news". God bless our free press and the 1st. Amendment.

            1. Jean Bakula profile image94
              Jean Bakulaposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              It's so sad that not one R had the guts to stand up for what was right in the hearing about the impeachment inquiry today. History will judge them. Mueller proved obstruction, and Trump has actually said he wants to read the Ukraine conversation as "a fireside chat." He's so unintelligent, he doesn't realize that he is basically impeaching himself. It's against the law to ask a foreign power to interfere in our elections. He denied them arms that Congress had already approved. And Barr was chosen because he showed himself to be a Trump toadie before he got the AG job. His interpretation of the Mueller report was false. But I guess people don't read? There have been many shows that explained it, but not on Fox News. Mueller felt it was wrong to indict a sitting POTUS, and should have recused himself. But he DID find evidence of crimes. When career diplomats are putting their jobs on the line to testify against Trump, you know he's toast. There was clear evidence of a quid pro quo. And he keeps repeating the damning statement, and tweeting about it. I wonder what these R's will do when it's proven The Emperor Has No Clothes?

          2. promisem profile image97
            promisemposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

            Actually, it's more proof they want Trump gone. They are all talk and no action.

            They could do so much more to defend Trump but aren't.

    4. abwilliams profile image37
      abwilliamsposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      “A level of respectability”, “strict adherence to the Constitution”, no, if they ever had an ounce of any of that in them, it quickly evaporated with the entrance of Donald Trump.
      I would describe Pelosi, Schiff and Company as whimsically and destructively flying by the seat of their pants.
      They’ve lost all credibility and will probably crash, but how much harm are they doing in the process?

      1. The Minstrel profile image80
        The Minstrelposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yes, I totally agree.

      2. Sharlee01 profile image86
        Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        So well said...

    5. Don W profile image83
      Don Wposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      "Why are the Democrats hiding the whistleblowers?"

      Whistleblowers are protected by law. The House is complying with the law. It is right to protect whistleblowers (people who do their duty) from those who would do them harm.

      1. promisem profile image97
        promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Trump and his supporters don't give a hoot about the law. They have proven it over and over again.

    6. Sharlee01 profile image86
      Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      This impeachment inquiry should be as previous impeachments were handled. The Republican should be able to question anyone that is questioned, and they should be able to request witnesses or use subpoena power if needed. The only way the Republicans can participate is after a vote to impeach is taken. So, in my opinion, this is nothing but a form of a kangaroo court. A cheap political stunt to keep up the Dem's media-bashing spree.

      The Dem's can't vote because at that point Trump will be able to defend himself, with access to each and everyone this bunch questioned, plus call his own witnesses not to mention Cheif Justice Roberts will run the circus. I think we can feel assured Robert's will be able to protect Trump's constitutional rights.  The Senate will not vote Trump out.

      As always the Dem's will look like fools, but their very accustom to looking foolish. I mean did you catch the debate last night?

      Yes, it's a sham, a cheap ploy, a grift.  Hopefully in Trump's next four he can turn the congress back to the Republican majority.

  2. Randy Godwin profile image91
    Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks ago

    You guys do realize Trump will get a trial, don't you? If he's innocent of the very obvious--as well  as some being admitted to--crimes while in office, he'll get a chance to sit before the world and vindicate himself. You guys don't believe he would lie do you?

  3. Live to Learn profile image80
    Live to Learnposted 7 weeks ago

    I say let them keep it up. They are showing themselves for the partisan people they are, willing to trash the constitution all the while to see if idiots will swallow their contorted reasoning and be their foot soldiers in claiming ignoring the constitution is somehow protecting it.

    1. Readmikenow profile image96
      Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      I'm sure we can agree by the responses from people on the left that they are NOT legal scholars. It appears most don't even have a basic understanding of impeachment.  It is humorous but at the same time very sad.

      1. The Minstrel profile image80
        The Minstrelposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yup. Sad.

      2. Sharlee01 profile image86
        Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Mike, In this case, one does not need a bit of legal knowledge, just a normal sense of smell.

    2. MizBejabbers profile image88
      MizBejabbersposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

      Both sides are guilty of partisanship, but it is the Dems who are following the Constitution by protecting the whistleblowers rights. If you threw every whistleblower to the dogs every time they howled, there would be no rights under our Constitution...and nobody to report violations no matter how egregious.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image91
        Randy Godwinposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

        The Right has run out of excuses for the cretin, Miz. They cannot disprove the facts and are stuck with nothing but, buts....

  4. PrettyPanther profile image84
    PrettyPantherposted 7 weeks ago

    Just wondering, with the Democrats conducting the impeachment proceedings in violation of the constitution, has the administration gone to the courts to remedy this blatant misconduct?

    1. promisem profile image97
      promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

      Excellent point. Yes, Trump should take them to court.

      Trump also said Pelosi and Schiff are traitors and acting illegally, so he should use the DOJ to throw them in jail.

      I wonder why he hasn't done any of that yet.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image91
        Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        I'm sure one of the legal scholars from the Right--perhaps Mike--will chime in and set it straight, Scott. Wait for it.....

      2. PrettyPanther profile image84
        PrettyPantherposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        I had to ask, given the amount of certainty displayed here that the Democrats are violating the constitution.

        1. Live to Learn profile image80
          Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          Right now the democrats are just
          posturing and playing to the cameras. If they attempt to move forward with their bullying and exclusionary tactics, I'm sure you will see a court challenge.

    2. The Minstrel profile image80
      The Minstrelposted 7 weeks ago

      It's interesting that people who are against Trump on this forum thread never answered my question: shouldn't an impeachment of a president be open and transparent? This shows me that they know this whole impeachment inquiry is a sham. The ends do not justify the means.  I totally respect that people do not like Trump, even abhor him. However, get him out of office in a legal and upright manner. Maybe winning on election day would be a good start. Also, Hillary needs to stop whining. She got her butt kicked by someone she should have beaten. This shows me and others that she was a terrible candidate from the start. Her inability to lose graciously speaks volumes about her character. I thank God she is not sitting in the White House.

      1. Readmikenow profile image96
        Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Amen.

      2. promisem profile image97
        promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        You got your answer from Panther with a related answer from me. I guess you are ignoring us.

        Again, if it's not open and transparent, why aren't Trump and the Repubs in court?

        Because the Dems are following the law, not Trump's hissy fits.

        1. Randy Godwin profile image91
          Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          You didn't really expect them to respond to the questions, did you Scott? You're fortunate to get a "bless your heart" response.  lol

          1. promisem profile image97
            promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            LOL. I usually get no answer, a juvenile personal attack or an answer that mangles human logic.

        2. Readmikenow profile image96
          Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          I hate to be the one to tell you this, but I don't think the people on the left on these threads have even a basic knowledge or understanding of court procedures and federal statutes to understand what is happening. I can't take the time to explain everything at a level people on the left can comprehend. It may be a bit too complicated for them and that is as honest as I can be.  The left doesn't understand  much, and I don't think there is anything that can change that situation.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image91
            Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            BWAHAHAHA! Cop out, Mike. Please educate we dumb asses on the left with your words of wisdom, O legal scholar. Make it simple enough for a Republican to understand and we'll surely get it.   tongue

          2. promisem profile image97
            promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            OK, legal expert, tell us why Trump hasn't filed anything in court against Pelosi or why the DOJ hasn't brought charges.

            While we're at it, what is your legal experience?

      3. Sharlee01 profile image86
        Sharlee01posted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Yes, it should be open and transparent, which precedent dictates. At this point, the Dem's do not have to be transparent due to this sham inquiry title they have placed on the proceeding.  Once that vote is taken it will be transparent, and much open to the public viewing.

        The Dem's can't afford that. Why? Because Trump has not done anything to deserve impeachment. This is just another cheap Dem political ploy. The difference we are paying for this one. Hillary and the DNC paid for the last one...

      4. Valeant profile image96
        Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

        When conducting the investigation into a person believed to have committed a crime, do detectives include the defense attorneys?  No.  Once all the evidence is collected and they are charged, then it is shared.  Not sure why you think it should be any different in this case.

        As for your second claim, you want the election to determine things.  But the reasons for the impeachment are that Trump broke the law in regards to the upcoming election.  Trump broke laws during the 2016 election.  Free and fair elections apparently is not something the current GOP and especially Trump supporters believe in.

    3. The Minstrel profile image80
      The Minstrelposted 7 weeks ago

      Yes, this will sadly have to go to the Supreme Court and the Democrat inspired coup will be shot down. However, before that happens why not be transparent and bring some respectability to this very serious step by the House? If Trump is impeachable why do it this way? Why the secrecy? Why are you supporting this? Why would you follow people who do not care about laws or even the Constitution? The Democrats are doing irreparable damage to our country and laws by running rough shod over this very serious initiative called impeachment. I am not saying you need to like or support Donald Trump, but whether you are Democrat or Republican, the actions by the house leaders of the Democrat Party are beyond reprehensible and should cause you some concern.

      1. Randy Godwin profile image91
        Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        As several have wondered, do you not understand the Whistleblower Act? A simply yes or no will suffice. Come on......you can do this!

        1. Live to Learn profile image80
          Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          Have you not been paying attention as more facts have come out?

          A simple yes or no. I'm pretty sure you can do that.

      2. promisem profile image97
        promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        I see you are promoting violence again with inflammatory rhetoric about a coup.

        You're also ignoring the fact that Trump aides and Republican leaders are supporting the impeachment process.

    4. Live to Learn profile image80
      Live to Learnposted 7 weeks ago

      What I find sad are those who have no problem with the lack of transparency would be screaming bloody murder if the parties were reversed. I'd be screaming with them. Because what is happening is wrong.

      1. promisem profile image97
        promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        Meanwhile, Trump aides and Republican leaders are helping the impeachment process along.

        Are they all wrong too?

        1. Live to Learn profile image80
          Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          It is wrong to bypass tradition in the impeachment process. It is wrong to railroad the process, refuse to allow participation by other representatives, to selectively release unclassified information for the most partisan effect.

          I can't believe some can't understand how bad the optics are. If he is so guilty, why avoid openness, fairness and transparency?

          1. promisem profile image97
            promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Republicans are on all three investigating committees. They can question anyone who comes before the committees. They can release information all day long.

            Republicans on those committees also can file court challenges, but they have not.

            1. Live to Learn profile image80
              Live to Learnposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              You obviously haven't been following the news.

              1. promisem profile image97
                promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                Another sweeping generalization without facts.

                Prove that I'm wrong.

          2. Randy Godwin profile image91
            Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Are you really so ignorant you didn't know the Republicans changed the rules whereby there has to be no vote for impeachment before the inquires begin? I can't believe how the rules are so simple but some cannot understand them. Trump supporters...try explaining their thought processes if you dare! lol

            1. Readmikenow profile image96
              Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

              I would like you to provide proof of such a statement.  It hasn't happened since the Democrat took the majority in the mid-term elections.  The Republicans aren't the majority party. So, when did this alleged rule change occur? I just want to see your proof.

              1. promisem profile image97
                promisemposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

                I think Randy and I still want to hear all about your legal expertise to back up your statement about the legal ignorance of "the left".

          3. Valeant profile image96
            Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Wait, it is wrong to bypass tradition in government processes?  Tell that to Merrick Garland.  And if we're referring specifically to impeachment, there was a full five months between the impeachment inquiry being opened and an actual vote on anything in the Nixon case.  Selective outrage again.

    5. PrettyPanther profile image84
      PrettyPantherposted 7 weeks ago

      I see no one has explained how the Democrats are violating the  constitution or breaking "the rules." Lol, you all sounded so certain.

      I'm sure Trump and his crack legal team are on it.  big_smile

      1. Randy Godwin profile image91
        Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

        I figured Mike would wade in on this one, especially as he so often claims the left isn't as schooled in the law as he apparently thinks he is. NAH!  tongue

        1. Readmikenow profile image96
          Readmikenowposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

          Still, no proof of your statement?

          "the Republicans changed the rules whereby there has to be no vote for impeachment before the inquires begin"

          Only imagination. You need to stop making up these imaginary Republican votes. It's easy check.  I applaud your effort.

          1. Randy Godwin profile image91
            Randy Godwinposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Still waiting for you to answer Sandy's above query of your claim Schiff and other's have violated the Constitution, Mike.  tongue

          2. crankalicious profile image91
            crankaliciousposted 7 weeks agoin reply to this

            Don't know about Republicans changing the rules, but here's a law blog on the inquiry being perfectly legal and constitutional:

            https://www.lawfareblog.com/must-house- … nt-inquiry

            Another link:

            https://www.npr.org/2019/10/09/76854089 … mpeachment

            And finally:

            https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/12/us/p … hment.html

            Maybe Breitfart has something on it? Don't know.

          3. Valeant profile image96
            Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            Just another example of the GOP changing the norms of government, and now complaining when the Democrats use those new changes.  Poor little snowflakes.  Really surprised such a brilliant legal mind that Mike claims to have didn't know about this change to the subpoena rules.

            https://www.politico.com/story/2015/02/ … les-115068

            1. Randy Godwin profile image91
              Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              Sure, the Right doesn't like it when their own rules changes comes back and bites 'em on the butt. yikes

              1. The Minstrel profile image80
                The Minstrelposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                What rule change in regards to  impeaching a president?

            2. Readmikenow profile image96
              Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              Ah, that article is from 2015.  At that time the Republicans were in the majority in Congress because they could change the rules.  Guess what?  The Democrats are the majority party right now.  Guess what?  THEY can change the rules.  So, since you don't seem very aware of how this happens here is the procedures to change the rules.

              https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/RL/RL30945

              Any other type of enlightenment I can provide you today?

              1. Valeant profile image96
                Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                Yeah, you can enlighten me on why the Democrats shouldn't use the rules created by the GOP that gives the majority party all the subpoena power instead of making a joke of yourself in making the assumption that everyone but yourself doesn't understand how rules are changed.

                1. Readmikenow profile image96
                  Readmikenowposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  "making the assumption that everyone but yourself doesn't understand how rules are changed."

                  Based on the comments on this thread it is painfully obvious I am right.

                  All the left can do is make snarky comments, call names and complain.  I may some day see someone from the left post something of substance, I know I haven't seen it on this thread.  It's no longer funny to me.  It's just plain sad.

                  1. Valeant profile image96
                    Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    I did enjoy your self delusional rant that you think you're smart because you can deflect away from the question we asked.  Why shouldn't the Democrats use the rules created by the GOP that allows the majority party subpoena power when they are conducting inquiries (such as was done when they ran an inquiry into Benghazi)?

                    1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                      Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                      Avoiding answering pertinent questions makes you look brilliant, Mike.  How do you come up with such clever moves? roll

                2. Randy Godwin profile image91
                  Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  What a joke! lol Now you want the left to give up the advantage the right wanted to begin with? lol lol

                  Anything to benefit Trump, eh Mike?

                  1. promisem profile image97
                    promisemposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Welcome to fascism.

                    Why do we need more than one political party?  wink

                    1. Castlepaloma profile image75
                      Castlepalomaposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                      They are both on the same pro wrestling tag team for magolomanics.

                      When will the public ever learn they are the boss and pay the bills.

        2. Sharlee01 profile image86
          Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

          It appears that it is not illegal in regards to holding n impeachment inquiry without a vote. I don't think Pelosi would hold the hearings without being sure she was breaking no laws. 

          However, It appears the Republicans are referring to the inquiry procedures illegal, due to the Dem's not following the legal precedent that they claim was set with the previous two presidential impeachments. In common law legal systems, a precedent or authority is a legal case that establishes a principle or rule.

          Precedent in the other cases of impeachments was voted on by the House Of Representatives. It also appears some in Congress are stating they are not having the opportunity to do their job, by not having the right to sit in on the hearings and or have transcripts from the hearings.  There very well might be Congressional law being broken due to denying Congressmen and women the privilege to do their job and be involved in the inquiry. 

          It will be interesting to see if any Congressmen or Congresswomen file any lawsuits.




          .

          1. PrettyPanther profile image84
            PrettyPantherposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

            "It will be interesting to see if any Congressmen or Congresswomen file any lawsuits."

            Do you think maybe the reason they haven't is because there is no basis?

            1. Sharlee01 profile image86
              Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              I do agree most likely some of them would have filed by now or will in the next few days if they really felt they had a leg to stand on.

            2. Valeant profile image96
              Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              In both of those impeachments, there was a special counsel who had done the inquiry phase.  As there is no special counsel for this potential violation of the law, you should not use the term precedent as they are clearly different in that aspect and, therefore, should not necessarily need to follow all the exact steps of the previous two impeachments.

              1. Sharlee01 profile image86
                Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                Please note word "appears" in my statement. I was giving an opinion.  My opinion in no respect insulted or giving weight to the Republican's complaint that the Congress is not using precedent in regards to voting on impeachment.

                My statement ---" However, It appears the Republicans are referring to the inquiry procedures illegal, due to the Dem's not following the legal precedent that they claim was set with the previous two presidential impeachments".

                "It appears that it is not illegal in regards to holding n impeachment inquiry without a vote. I don't think Pelosi would hold the hearings without being sure she was breaking no laws. " PURE OPINION

                Context is important, please read my comment again, and I think you will find I was giving an opinion.

                Please keep in mind I was responding to a comment that was rightly questioning the legalitis of the inquiry.  I commented with the information I obtained and observed from articles and a bit of media reports. An opinion.

                1. Valeant profile image96
                  Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  I'm fine with you having an opinion.  What I'm aiming to do with this, is to help you understand that this impeachment is drastically different from the previous two due to the lack of the presence of a special counsel. 

                  Therefore, the precedent of previous actions taken in those two impeachments should not apply due to that major difference in who is conducting the inquiry phase that will need to be taken.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image86
                    Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    "I'm fine with you having an opinion.  What I'm aiming to do with this, is to help you understand that this impeachment is drastically different from the previous two due to the lack of the presence of a special counsel. "

                    I had I have also heard several Republicans that are opposed to the way the inquiry is being handled that suggested special councile be appointed as in the other two impeachments were privileged to have had.  It would be fair if all the allegations that are being talked about being investigated. This would certainly be fairer than how it is being handled at this point. Yes, it would be once again a time-consuming investigation. But in the end, we will have clarity. 

                    Yes, Trump's impeachment is not anything like the previous two. As you pointed out both of the other two were treated differently by having a special council that should be nonbias do an investigation.

                    Only the blind could not see the injustice of having Adam Schiff presiding over this proceedings. He has been clearly biased in regard to everything Trump. He has been a regular on talk TV making nothing but derogatory statements in regards to the Trump presidency. Not sure how anyone could except his outcome of this injury. Yes, we need a special counsel.

                    1. Valeant profile image96
                      Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                      Now that you've agreed that the precedents of the first two are not similar to this one, let's proceed to the second question which goes to your other point about fairness.

                      I asked this to Savvy in another thread.  When someone is thought to have committed a crime, detectives investigate.  Are the defense lawyers included in the investigations?  Or is it only after the investigation is done, and charges filed (articles of impeachment voted upon), that the evidence gathered is given to the defense (discovery)?

                      Why is it that you are willing to accept a totally new standard for how crimes are handled?  Because Trump and the GOP want you to so they can create confusion is that reason.  You claim precedent, well, how about we try and understand what precedent is and then apply it equally across the board.

                    2. profile image0
                      Bruce Utterposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                      Deleted

                      1. MizBejabbers profile image88
                        MizBejabbersposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                        I believe you are both confused. This investigation is the next step above the special counsel hearings. That has already happened, and Mueller was the special counsel of which you speak. Rep. Adam Schiff is the Ranking Member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence therefore he has the right to preside along with Speaker Pelosi.  House hearings are the first step to impeachment conducted by the Speaker of the House. The House of Representatives must pass "articles of impeachment" by a simple majority. Do you see why a "special counsel" is not involved? If the House votes to impeach, the next step is the that the Senate will vote on whether to remove the president from office. That is the actual trial phase and will be led by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, and again, no special counsel. In both cases, house and senate rules are followed, and in neither case is a special counsel involved. The special counsel has already made his investigation prior to the separate House and Senate hearings. I hope I've made this simple enough for you to understand.

          2. The Minstrel profile image80
            The Minstrelposted 6 weeks ago

            The statue of lady justice is blind folded in order to emphasize rulings should not be affected by personal bias. Having Adam Schiff, a clearly compromised, biased individual, run the Stalinist, closed door, impeachment hearings is almost laughable. Is he pursuing justice? Well, let me think. I wonder. Maybe his past statements that he had clear evidence that Donald Trump colluded with the Russians should not come into play even though he lied through his fangs. Maybe he had a momentary lapse of good judgment. Well, after deliberating for two seconds, I believe without a shadow of a doubt that Adam Schiff never had blindfolds period, blatantly lies, and is clearly not seeking any form of justice. Therefore, the whole impeachment hearing is a complete farce, sham, and political theatre. Sad.

            1. Valeant profile image96
              Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

              So Manafort giving internal polling data to the Kremlin wasn't colluding?
              So Jr., Manafort, and Kushner meeting with Russians and then lying about having the meeting and what the meeting was about wasn't colluding?
              Trump intermediaries (Stone) being in contact with Russian puppet Assange about the timing and contents of the hacked e-mail releases isn't colluding?
              Asking the Russian government to go after your political opponent publicly and then getting that assistance isn't colluding?
              The continued business dealings of a Trump Tower deal and Russia well into the campaign and Trump lying about those, not collusion?
              The over 200 contacts between the Trump campaign and Russia?

              There was no conspiracy proven, but there's mountains of evidence on collusion that is beyond proven.  Not that we expect you to ever accept these facts that were proven.

              1. DoubleScorpion profile image78
                DoubleScorpionposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                The Mueller report said No Collusion...? So, unless Mueller was wrong...where is the evidence of collusion...

                And he didn't even bother with Obstruction...

                1. Valeant profile image96
                  Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Parroting Trump's false claim won't make it true:

                  The fact that Mueller’s report finding of ample evidence of collaboration, albeit insufficient to prove a criminal conspiracy with Russia, has been clouded by the repeated false assertion by President Trump and Attorney-General Barr of “no collusion.” The term, “collusion” is not a legal term and the report made no finding on that issue, one way or the other. Enabling Mueller to state on national television that the report did not find that there was “no collusion” helps confirm that the many statements by the president and the attorney general on this issue are false.

                  Mueller’s report made no finding on the crime of obstruction of justice despite evidence of multiple attempts at obstruction, apparently because of the Department of Justice ruling that a sitting president cannot be indicted for any crime. The simple one-word confirmation by Mueller that the report made no finding on the crime of obstruction of justice helps confirm that the president’s and attorney general's repeated claims of “no obstruction” are also false.

                  1. Sharlee01 profile image86
                    Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Have I missed something? Have any crimes been set forth from the Mueller report that will be used in the impeachment?  Simple yes or no will do me... Need not go into your lengthy book on the subject.

                    1. Valeant profile image96
                      Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                      Yes, the Democrats are fighting in the courts to get the release of the grand jury documents pertaining to the obstruction of justice files from Mueller.

                      1. Sharlee01 profile image86
                        Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                        Yes, that is true. Would you surmise one would have to inspect what is in those documents before coming to a conclusion if there are nay provable crimes that were committed?  I have put my finger on why we have a problem with what constitutes a crime or wrongdoing. You seem to jump ahead of yourself, make assumptions due to smoke. I like fire, pure fire. Because smoke although it can turn into fire, more often just smolders and dies out.

                        1. Valeant profile image96
                          Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                          I consider the 10 instances of obstruction of justice Mueller listed in his report as fire already.  The grand jury might be like the Taylor testimony yesterday, the gasoline on that criminal fire.

                          1. Sharlee01 profile image86
                            Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                            I found the list Mueller gave for obstruction unproven, and the fact he listed he offered no real evidence to corroborate the list of what may have been considered obstruction crimes.  Plus Barr did not find any of them indictable crimes. I am very sure you do not respect Barr, but he is the AG, and he had the last word on the subject.

                    2. Randy Godwin profile image91
                      Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                      Yes, you missed the part about Jr. and others not being forthcoming to Mueller and that goes for any documents he asked for as well. And then you have Honest Don refusing to answer any questions about collusion from Mueller. Add it up people...

                      This won't happen again with the Impeachment inquiry in full swing. EP doesn't have the same power in this case.

                      1. Sharlee01 profile image86
                        Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                        If our government as proof that Jr committed a crime by conspiring with Russians he can immediately be arrested.  Mueller did not indite him or recommend he be indicted. Mueller would have loved to trap JR... I absolutely love to have him arrested for anything. Time to stop insinuating the Trump children committed crimes. Otherwise, you are insinuating our Government is not doing their job.

                        Where the hell has common sense gone?

                        1. Valeant profile image96
                          Valeantposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                          I have to admit, I was surprised Mueller didn't charge Trump staffers in the meeting because the theme about adoptions was a clear instance that the Russians were referring to the Magnitsky Act in discussions with the Trump members in that meeting.  Russia had put restrictions on Americans being able to adopt from Russia in retaliation to the Magnitsky Act that was passed. 

                          If I was in Congress, I would want to see interviews with all three, under oath, about that meeting.  Mueller did not get Jr. under oath, this according to the DOJ.  So because Mueller did not have enough information about the substance of that meeting, I doubt he could get to the conspiracy charge.  While clearly willing to listen and accept dirt from a foreign government, there was no proof they actually did, or that they made a quid pro quo at this meeting.

                          This is an example where I think Mueller failed in his investigation.  Not subpoenaing and getting testimony from Jr., especially about the Trump Tower meeting was one example.

                          1. Sharlee01 profile image86
                            Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                            I understand you feel Meuller failed in his investigation, and I will not argue that opinion. I have lots of questions myself about how he conducted the investigation.

                        2. Randy Godwin profile image91
                          Randy Godwinposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                          Mueller didn't subpoena Trump to be interviewed, but he should have made Trump take the 5th or answer questions. We all know Trump would have lied to Mueller. When Barr became AG, Mueller knew Barr would not serve a subpoena on Trump and the investigation was basically over.

                          Common sense has evaded the Right for the last 3 years now, and I don't see it returning any time soon.

                          1. Sharlee01 profile image86
                            Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                            I am very aware Meuller did not question JR. I meant to point out Mueller would have loved to have anything on JR. Mueller apparently did not have enough to even have him subpoenaed for questioning? 

                            I have no idea who would have lied ...

                  2. DoubleScorpion profile image78
                    DoubleScorpionposted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Well... considering I watched his testimony live....and he said the same thing...no collusion...

                2. Sharlee01 profile image86
                  Sharlee01posted 6 weeks agoin reply to this

                  Yes, seems as if there will be none of these crimes that many accuse Trump of are being used for reasons of impeachment. One would think if any of these supposed crimes were true, they should be very easy to prove> Mueller did a lengthy very torow investigation.

                  You may not have got the memo? They have moved on to Ukraine - Ukraine - Ukraine! 

                  Not sure what the Dem's will use when Trump wins in 2020. However, they never disappoint.

              2. The Minstrel profile image80
                The Minstrelposted 3 weeks agoin reply to this

                Mueller Report proved no collusion and no obstruction. 22 months, 19 lawyers, 40 FBI, 2800 subpoenas, 500 witnesses, and 30 million taxpayer dollars. What a waste! This impeachment sham is another complete waste! Again, this impeachment inquiry is complete bullshit!

          3. The Minstrel profile image80
            The Minstrelposted 5 weeks ago

            Look, if this whole thing gets transferred to the Senate (It will never happen. The House can control the narrative if they keep it in the House), then it will be shut down immediately. The whole impeachment proceedings are a sham, a pile of bull shit, and instigated for purely politial reasons. Schiff's lame statement that he wished he did not have to go down this road was complete crap! He could care less. They, the Democrats, are trying to run the clock as long as possible to damage the presidents credibility before the elections, but this will backfire! Yes, they are playing the clock to keep this in the new's cycle as long as possible.The Russian collusion lie was completely torpedoed! Nadler did such a terrible job with open hearings that they resorted to this closed door, Stalinistic questioning of witnesses. They leak only damaging information about Trump. Schiff was tapped for this corrupt task. For anyone at this point to support what the Democrats or demon rats are doing is actually a part of the destruction that is happening to our Republic. It's true.  In the end, Pelosi and crew will fail. Trump will be reelected. The road, they, the Democrats, have gone down will take them off a cliff! They will lose the house and lose it for a long time!

            1. Jean Bakula profile image94
              Jean Bakulaposted 5 weeks agoin reply to this

              This is how an impeachment inquiry begins. There will be open hearings next. It was established long ago that collusion isn't a crime. But obstruction is, and Trump commits it each time he bullies someone into not testifying. The Senate R majority will never remove Trump from office. But he isn't sane and should be removed. He has broken laws and made money off the Presidency long enough. He has cost us our allies, consorted with dictators, and shows no signs of wanting to have a free press, now giving press releases himself. He knows it's over. He won't submit to questioning, like Clinton, and certainly won't just quit, like Nixon. He'll go down in flames. He's already displaced 180,000 Kurds with his idiotic move to take the few troops away that we had in Syria. He did exactly what Putin wanted. That's why the Russians wanted Trump to be POTUS.

              1. DoubleScorpion profile image78
                DoubleScorpionposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                At most....we moved 50 soldiers from Syria....how did that manage to displace 180,000 people....Are you saying our forces are so tough and feared...that 50 people prevented Turkey from invading that area?

                1. promisem profile image97
                  promisemposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                  No, the threat of reprisals by the U.S. government stopped Turkey from invading. It invaded because Trump gave it permission to invade.

                  Otherwise, it would have done so decades ago.

                  1. DoubleScorpion profile image78
                    DoubleScorpionposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                    Ok...I don't understand this line of thought?

                    We give other countries permission to invade?

                    Or are you saying that Trump pretty said that he wasn't going to do anything?

                    How long have we been in Syria?

                    What prevented invasion prior to the US being involved?

                    Are we to be the police force for everyone? Or do we leave once our mission is completed?

                    After 22 years in the military...I can say...that area of the world has been in conflict forever and 3 days...and it will probably be a long time before that ever changes on a more permanent level...
                    We complain for involving ourselves into other countries business and we complain when we leave them to their own devices...
                    Some folks will never be happy...no matter what happens...

                    This is one time I do actually agree with Trump...except we should have pulled our people out as soon as the mission was completed and stabilized...

                    1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                      Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                      So you're in favor of giving Putin free reign over our allies?

                      1. DoubleScorpion profile image78
                        DoubleScorpionposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                        Putin is the President of Turkey?

                        And no I am not in favor of anyone having reign over anyone else...including the US...

                        I wasn't aware that Syria was an Ally...Although, Turkey is part of the UN...

                        1. Randy Godwin profile image91
                          Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                          They are both considered allies if you consider the Kurds fought alongside the US against ISIS. Trump screwed up badly by allowing Turkey to invade Syria. Apparently he didn't like the Kurds, but did love the oilfields he sent extra troops in to protect.

                          You really don't watch any news do you. I thought you were kidding...

                          1. DoubleScorpion profile image78
                            DoubleScorpionposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

                            No...I don't watch the news...wasn't kidding..

            2. Randy Godwin profile image91
              Randy Godwinposted 4 weeks agoin reply to this

              How do you know who's doing the leaking? Just because the news isn't good for Trump doesn't mean it's coming from the left. I believe even worse actions on Trump's behalf is yet to come.

           
          working

          This website uses cookies

          As a user in the EEA, your approval is needed on a few things. To provide a better website experience, hubpages.com uses cookies (and other similar technologies) and may collect, process, and share personal data. Please choose which areas of our service you consent to our doing so.

          For more information on managing or withdrawing consents and how we handle data, visit our Privacy Policy at: https://hubpages.com/privacy-policy#gdpr

          Show Details
          Necessary
          HubPages Device IDThis is used to identify particular browsers or devices when the access the service, and is used for security reasons.
          LoginThis is necessary to sign in to the HubPages Service.
          Google RecaptchaThis is used to prevent bots and spam. (Privacy Policy)
          AkismetThis is used to detect comment spam. (Privacy Policy)
          HubPages Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide data on traffic to our website, all personally identifyable data is anonymized. (Privacy Policy)
          HubPages Traffic PixelThis is used to collect data on traffic to articles and other pages on our site. Unless you are signed in to a HubPages account, all personally identifiable information is anonymized.
          Amazon Web ServicesThis is a cloud services platform that we used to host our service. (Privacy Policy)
          CloudflareThis is a cloud CDN service that we use to efficiently deliver files required for our service to operate such as javascript, cascading style sheets, images, and videos. (Privacy Policy)
          Google Hosted LibrariesJavascript software libraries such as jQuery are loaded at endpoints on the googleapis.com or gstatic.com domains, for performance and efficiency reasons. (Privacy Policy)
          Features
          Google Custom SearchThis is feature allows you to search the site. (Privacy Policy)
          Google MapsSome articles have Google Maps embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
          Google ChartsThis is used to display charts and graphs on articles and the author center. (Privacy Policy)
          Google AdSense Host APIThis service allows you to sign up for or associate a Google AdSense account with HubPages, so that you can earn money from ads on your articles. No data is shared unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
          Google YouTubeSome articles have YouTube videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
          VimeoSome articles have Vimeo videos embedded in them. (Privacy Policy)
          PaypalThis is used for a registered author who enrolls in the HubPages Earnings program and requests to be paid via PayPal. No data is shared with Paypal unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
          Facebook LoginYou can use this to streamline signing up for, or signing in to your Hubpages account. No data is shared with Facebook unless you engage with this feature. (Privacy Policy)
          MavenThis supports the Maven widget and search functionality. (Privacy Policy)
          Marketing
          Google AdSenseThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
          Google DoubleClickGoogle provides ad serving technology and runs an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
          Index ExchangeThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
          SovrnThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
          Facebook AdsThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
          Amazon Unified Ad MarketplaceThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
          AppNexusThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
          OpenxThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
          Rubicon ProjectThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
          TripleLiftThis is an ad network. (Privacy Policy)
          Say MediaWe partner with Say Media to deliver ad campaigns on our sites. (Privacy Policy)
          Remarketing PixelsWe may use remarketing pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to advertise the HubPages Service to people that have visited our sites.
          Conversion Tracking PixelsWe may use conversion tracking pixels from advertising networks such as Google AdWords, Bing Ads, and Facebook in order to identify when an advertisement has successfully resulted in the desired action, such as signing up for the HubPages Service or publishing an article on the HubPages Service.
          Statistics
          Author Google AnalyticsThis is used to provide traffic data and reports to the authors of articles on the HubPages Service. (Privacy Policy)
          ComscoreComScore is a media measurement and analytics company providing marketing data and analytics to enterprises, media and advertising agencies, and publishers. Non-consent will result in ComScore only processing obfuscated personal data. (Privacy Policy)
          Amazon Tracking PixelSome articles display amazon products as part of the Amazon Affiliate program, this pixel provides traffic statistics for those products (Privacy Policy)
          ClickscoThis is a data management platform studying reader behavior (Privacy Policy)