WWTBAM Bored

The whole day gone and no one has mentioned Speaker Pelosi's announcement that the House will begin a formal impeachment inquiry.

earendel wrote:The whole day gone and no one has mentioned Speaker Pelosi's announcement that the House will begin a formal impeachment inquiry.

So, what else is new?

Um, been going on for awhile. No articles, etc

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

earendel wrote:The whole day gone and no one has mentioned Speaker Pelosi's announcement that the House will begin a formal impeachment inquiry.

So, what else is new?

Two things. First, it's new that Speaker Pelosi has decided to do this. She's been resisting calls from other Democrats to begin impeachment proceedings. Second, it's now a "formal" inquiry, meaning that it will lead to articles of impeachment. Heretofore there have been investigations, but now those investigations will result in official charges.

earendel wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote:

earendel wrote:The whole day gone and no one has mentioned Speaker Pelosi's announcement that the House will begin a formal impeachment inquiry.

So, what else is new?

Two things. First, it's new that Speaker Pelosi has decided to do this. She's been resisting calls from other Democrats to begin impeachment proceedings. Second, it's now a "formal" inquiry, meaning that it will lead to articles of impeachment. Heretofore there have been investigations, but now those investigations will result in official charges.

How do you know it will result in formal charges?

Beebs52 wrote:

earendel wrote:

flockofseagulls104 wrote: So, what else is new?

Two things. First, it's new that Speaker Pelosi has decided to do this. She's been resisting calls from other Democrats to begin impeachment proceedings. Second, it's now a "formal" inquiry, meaning that it will lead to articles of impeachment. Heretofore there have been investigations, but now those investigations will result in official charges.

How do you know it will result in formal charges?

I don't, really, but it hardly seems that she would have gone out on a limb and made this a "formal impeachment inquiry" otherwise. After all, the committees investigating the White House have been doing this all along. Now they will be under "that umbrella of impeachment inquiry" (her words). I can't imagine that there won't be charges.

Not that that will change anything in particular - no matter what the House does, the Senate isn't going to convict the president. It's political theater - both sides get what they want. The Democrats appease the left wing of the party, the Republicans can run their Congressional races claiming to "protect" the president, and the president himself gets to picture himself as a martyr, energizing his base even more than they already are.

earendel wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

earendel wrote: Two things. First, it's new that Speaker Pelosi has decided to do this. She's been resisting calls from other Democrats to begin impeachment proceedings. Second, it's now a "formal" inquiry, meaning that it will lead to articles of impeachment. Heretofore there have been investigations, but now those investigations will result in official charges.

How do you know it will result in formal charges?

I don't, really, but it hardly seems that she would have gone out on a limb and made this a "formal impeachment inquiry" otherwise. After all, the committees investigating the White House have been doing this all along. Now they will be under "that umbrella of impeachment inquiry" (her words). I can't imagine that there won't be charges.

Not that that will change anything in particular - no matter what the House does, the Senate isn't going to convict the president. It's political theater - both sides get what they want. The Democrats appease the left wing of the party, the Republicans can run their Congressional races claiming to "protect" the president, and the president himself gets to picture himself as a martyr, energizing his base even more than they already are.

She did it to appease aoc et al

Beebs52 wrote:

earendel wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
How do you know it will result in formal charges?

I don't, really, but it hardly seems that she would have gone out on a limb and made this a "formal impeachment inquiry" otherwise. After all, the committees investigating the White House have been doing this all along. Now they will be under "that umbrella of impeachment inquiry" (her words). I can't imagine that there won't be charges.

Not that that will change anything in particular - no matter what the House does, the Senate isn't going to convict the president. It's political theater - both sides get what they want. The Democrats appease the left wing of the party, the Republicans can run their Congressional races claiming to "protect" the president, and the president himself gets to picture himself as a martyr, energizing his base even more than they already are.

She did it to appease aoc et al

How about, she did it because what Donny is doing can't be allowed to stand.

But if you're sufficiently okay with how Donny is governing to oppose his impeachment, remember that at some point in the future, there will be a Democrat in the White House. If you're okay with Donny's conduct now, then you don't get to complain about comparable conduct by a Democrat (should that ever happen). --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

earendel wrote: I don't, really, but it hardly seems that she would have gone out on a limb and made this a "formal impeachment inquiry" otherwise. After all, the committees investigating the White House have been doing this all along. Now they will be under "that umbrella of impeachment inquiry" (her words). I can't imagine that there won't be charges.

Not that that will change anything in particular - no matter what the House does, the Senate isn't going to convict the president. It's political theater - both sides get what they want. The Democrats appease the left wing of the party, the Republicans can run their Congressional races claiming to "protect" the president, and the president himself gets to picture himself as a martyr, energizing his base even more than they already are.

She did it to appease aoc et al

How about, she did it because what Donny is doing can't be allowed to stand.

But if you're sufficiently okay with how Donny is governing to oppose his impeachment, remember that at some point in the future, there will be a Democrat in the White House. If you're okay with Donny's conduct now, then you don't get to complain about comparable conduct by a Democrat (should that ever happen). --Bob

Snicker snort. Oh wait. There has been or will be conduct that hasn't yet been proven yet but that you think will for a dem?

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
She did it to appease aoc et al

How about, she did it because what Donny is doing can't be allowed to stand.

But if you're sufficiently okay with how Donny is governing to oppose his impeachment, remember that at some point in the future, there will be a Democrat in the White House. If you're okay with Donny's conduct now, then you don't get to complain about comparable conduct by a Democrat (should that ever happen). --Bob

Snicker snort. Oh wait. There has been or will be conduct that hasn't yet been proven yet but that you think will for a dem?

Was Joe Biden in office when he pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor to protect his son? I’m unclear on the timeline.

BackInTex wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:How about, she did it because what Donny is doing can't be allowed to stand.

But if you're sufficiently okay with how Donny is governing to oppose his impeachment, remember that at some point in the future, there will be a Democrat in the White House. If you're okay with Donny's conduct now, then you don't get to complain about comparable conduct by a Democrat (should that ever happen). --Bob

Snicker snort. Oh wait. There has been or will be conduct that hasn't yet been proven yet but that you think will for a dem?

Was Joe Biden in office when he pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor to protect his son? I’m unclear on the timeline.

Obviously. The investigation had long since concluded before President Obama instructed Vice President Biden to ask for the corrupt prosecutor to be fired. And President Obama was joined by the rest of the West in wanting the guy gone.

This has been looked at repeatedly. There is no "there" there. It's a smear. Completely false. And the message is getting out loud and clear. --Bob

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:

Beebs52 wrote:
Snicker snort. Oh wait. There has been or will be conduct that hasn't yet been proven yet but that you think will for a dem?

Was Joe Biden in office when he pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor to protect his son? I’m unclear on the timeline.

Obviously. The investigation had long since concluded before President Obama instructed Vice President Biden to ask for the corrupt prosecutor to be fired. And President Obama was joined by the rest of the West in wanting the guy gone.

This has been looked at repeatedly. There is no "there" there. It's a smear. Completely false. And the message is getting out loud and clear. --Bob

Of course.

Beebs52 wrote:

Bob78164 wrote:

BackInTex wrote:
Was Joe Biden in office when he pressured Ukraine to fire the prosecutor to protect his son? I’m unclear on the timeline.

Obviously. The investigation had long since concluded before President Obama instructed Vice President Biden to ask for the corrupt prosecutor to be fired. And President Obama was joined by the rest of the West in wanting the guy gone.

This has been looked at repeatedly. There is no "there" there. It's a smear. Completely false. And the message is getting out loud and clear. --Bob

Of course.

Lol! Tres amusant.