When did the impeach Trump process begin?

[dan_bgblue]

Here is one time line to consider

Additional info here

[CitizenBBN]

The night Hillary conceded.

[Doc]

The night Hillary conceded.

She has not conceded yet

[CitizenBBN]

She has not conceded yet

Good point. Despite her fears that Trump woulnd't concede and would "undermine democracy", she's done everything possible to cast doubt on our election system.

Leftists are great at accusing people of the very thing they are doing. it's trump who is threatening democracy, not Leftists who are proposing bans on guns, speech and assembly.

[dan_bgblue]

The impeachment cabal in the house is doing nothing in the open. Everything is being done behind closed doors to any republican that might want to sit in and listen to the testimony from subpoenaed witnesses. I think I read that this is how the Salem witch trials were held.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...-ukraine-obama

[CitizenBBN]

The impeachment cabal in the house is doing nothing in the open. Everything is being done behind closed doors to any republican that might want to sit in and listen to the testimony from subpoenaed witnesses. I think I read that this is how the Salem witch trials were held.

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/tru...-ukraine-obama

The People's House is having secret meetings without even bipartisan membership in some cases, and they call that "impeachment" and claim Trump is threatening the Constitution to not do everything they want him to do.

Uh huh.

[UKHistory]

It needs to be open and transparent. The whistleblower safety is important but all members of the Intel committee should have access to all the documents and witnesses regardless of party.

[CitizenBBN]

It needs to be open and transparent. The whistleblower safety is important but all members of the Intel committee should have access to all the documents and witnesses regardless of party.

It needs to be open, and even the whistleblower testimony should be 100% public.

First, he's not a "whistleblower". his information is 2nd hand hearsay, he was coordinating with Schiff's office, and he apparently may have ties to Biden's camp. he's an operative who was used to bring this forward.

Second, since it's hearsay and we have the ability to have first hand accounts and documents, it's not clear to me why he's making any statement to anyone on either side. His information is useless and easily replaced with better and more reliable evidence.

But this whole process is nothing but a true political witch hunt at this point. No formal vote means it was NOT consented by the House, any more than the Speaker can somehow declare war without a vote.

It isn't being handled by a special committee but is bundled up in Intelligence where they can try to justify selectively withholding information.

It isn't bipartisan as the minority can't issue subpoenas or call witnesses, and in some cases can't even sit in on testimony as Pelosi and Schiff are engineering it so committee staff do certain things in order to exclude GOP members.

If you want to see a true sham being made of the Constitution stop looking at Trump and look at the Democrats in the House.

There isn't a single democratic thing being done at this point in a process that inherently is aimed at overturning a democratic election. That should have everyone up in arms, but hate for Trump seems to justify the use of any means, no matter how destructive.

[Doc]

It needs to be open and transparent. The whistleblower safety is important but all members of the Intel committee should have access to all the documents and witnesses regardless of party.

Whistleblower's safety...come on. Like this member of the federal intelligence agency is going to get stoned by riotous Trump supporters... because that is what the Radical Right does, unlike the Radical Left



wish the government was as worried about the safety of Trump supporters as they were some anonymous "whistle blower"

[dan_bgblue]

There have already been 3 votes on to impeach or not to impeach

https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/pelo...jason-chaffetz

[Catonahottinroof]

Gregg Jarrett of Fox News has said the impeachment of Trump was in the Washington Post on the day of his inauguration.
That comment is at the 8:54 mark of this interview:
https://youtu.be/xvnthLoJNt4

[ukpumacat]

Whistleblower's safety...come on. Like this member of the federal intelligence agency is going to get stoned by riotous Trump supporters... because that is what the Radical Right does, unlike the Radical Left



wish the government was as worried about the safety of Trump supporters as they were some anonymous "whistle blower"

Both are wrong. Pointing at one doesn't justify the other.

[Doc]

The People's House is having secret meetings without even bipartisan membership in some cases, and they call that "impeachment" and claim Trump is threatening the Constitution to not do everything they want him to do.

Uh huh.

The hypocrisy is strong in this one

[Doc]

Both are wrong. Pointing at one doesn't justify the other.

The point, which you either missed or elected to ignore, is that the is no threat of harm, or concerns about the whistleblowers safety. It is a bogus claim to keep the identity secret and thus hide possible motives. Such tactics are bush league and encourages false claims because it eliminates the ability to face your accuser, impeach their claims and offer counter evidence.

I have not seen a single threat to this whistleblower. None, zip, nada.

So no, it is not wrong. The only wrong thing is anonymous accusations. As somebody who has been the victum of an accusation by some unknown accuser (I had an accusation made against my license years ago) where I had to defend myself without knowing who made the claim....its total bullshit. If your moral compass is so offended by the actions at least have the courage to not hide behind a curtain. Doing so is chicken####

[dan_bgblue]