63 thoughts on “WHY THE HOUSE DEMOCRATIC CAUCUS WAS ABLE TO MOVE SO RAPIDLY TOWARD IMPEACHMENT”

  1. Pretty good summation. Those who still believe in the rule of law and our system of checks and balances should be praising House Democrats for their decision to defend the integrity of our Government.

    While I’m fearful that ignorance and partisan hatred my thwart their efforts I’m hopeful that enough true patriots prevail in their efforts to cleanse the cancer that inhibits this White House.

    Liked by 3 people

    Reply

    1. I doubt he’s going anywhere. Best case is all the cards get laid on the table and it encourages a large turnout of Dem. voters.

      Dems need a TON of voters to overcome gerrymandering and the electoral college.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    1. Yes “weird”, particularly since he has already stated the fact that he solicited a foreign power (again) to interfere in our election process for his benefit.

      Further damning information is simply icing on the cake.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

  5. OK, I’ve read the transcript.

    Joe Biden is not above the law.

    In the course of the conversation, when speaking about the prosecutor who was removed, possibly at the request of Joe Biden, President Trump asked Zelenskyy to cooperate with US Law enforcement in investigating that possible crime. As the Chief US Law Enforcement Officer, that is entirely appropriate.

    The fact that Biden is also a political opponent does not change that duty. If it were, I could declare my candidacy for President and then go out and hold up a Post Office with impunity.

    But by all means, go for it. I want to see the Democratic Party entirely wiped out in 2020.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. The prosecutor was removed at the request of numerous countries and Biden was the requester from the U.S. at the direction of the President.

      He was removed BECAUSE he was NOT investigating not because he was. It had nothing to do with Biden or his son.

      Try doing the same amount of research into this issue as you do on climate change denial so you don’t embarrass yourself so blatantly.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    2. “President Trump asked Zelenskyy to cooperate with US Law enforcement in investigating that possible crime. As the Chief US Law Enforcement Officer, that is entirely appropriate.”

      In your haste to exonerate Mr. Trump, you miss completely the illegality of asking a foreign leader to investigate a political rival. Your love for the Constitutional requirement of checks and balances is missing from your comment. Amazing how that happens when you disagree with what is legal and illegal.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

        2. RE: “Please let us know how this confuses you…”

          It doesn’t confuse me at all. It is not possible that our justice department and Ukraine’s can’t collaborate on an investigation because our president is running for re-election.

          Like

          Reply

          1. “It doesn’t confuse me at all”

            Your comment would indicate otherwise since it is absurd.

            You might try changing the channel to get some factual insight.

            Liked by 2 people

          2. RE: “Your comment would indicate otherwise since it is absurd.”

            Care to elaborate? Is it really your contention that DOj investigations must stop when the president runs for re-election, because they might implicate a rival? It might have been nice if the FBI followed that rule in 2016.

            Liked by 1 person

          3. Distract and deflect is a full-time job…

            BTW; there is no DOJ investigation, and bringing up the possibly is the distract and deflect part (in case that’s not clear).

            Liked by 2 people

          4. RE: “BTW; there is no DOJ investigation”

            Actually, there are two:

            • IG Michael Horowitz’s investigation into FISA abuse, for which the final report is due at any time now.

            • U.S. Attorney John Durham’s investigation into the origin of the FBI’s investigation of Russian collusion.

            Either could implicate Ukraine and Obama administration officials in any number of ways. In fact, the current impeachment frenzy may be an effort to deflect attention to them, since indictments are expected by some observers.

            Liked by 1 person

          5. “Either could implicate Ukraine and Obama administration officials in any number of ways‘

            Lol, like I said, “a full-time job” deflect away….

            Liked by 2 people

        4. RE: “Lol, like I said, ‘a full-time job’ deflect away….”

          I can keep correcting your false statements as long as you keep making them, if you like.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

      2. “I would like you to do us a favor”

        My grasp of the english language is fairly robust and this question asked of a foreign power doesn’t require much intellectual examination.

        The trump/GOP clown show continues.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

      1. Biden’s son was given a job with a Ukrainian energy company, Bursima Holdings, at $50K per month in a field in which he had absolutely no knowledge.

        Does Biden have to receive a check with “bribe” in the memo field?

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        1. Apparently you don’t know much about business.

          Corporate Board Members in Fortune 500 Companies (often with few qualifications) receive hundreds of thousands of dollars routinely.

          Sometimes they’re paid solely for their name recognition.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. Especially if the name is that of a potential President.

            So, you’re OK with that.

            Just look at the boards of numerous VA banks and insurance companies and you will find spouses and children of GA Assembly members. That’s OK too?

            That’s why I keep saying the only way to stop people from buying the government is for it to have nothing to sell. There is always a way to reward a complaint politician.

            Liked by 1 person

        2. Fortunately, the “conflicts of interest” laws do not extend to family members or Biden’s kid would have to share a cell with Ivanka, DJ, and Jared… all of whom stink worse than Hunter’s corpse.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

      2. RE: “There is no evidence of wrongdoing by Joe Biden or his son, Hunter.”

        No, there isn’t. All we have is a clear violation of conflict of interest rules.

        On the other hand, DOJ has at least two active investigations at present into the origins of the Russia collusion allegations against President Trump. Ukraine is key a player in that saga. Because evidence relating to Biden and his son may be forthcoming, we can’t say there’s no there there at this time.

        Like

        Reply

        2. “Because evidence relating to Biden and his son may be forthcoming, we can’t say there’s no there there at this time.”

          Buzzzz! Wrong. It has been reported time and time again that there is no evidence related to Joe or Hunter. The prosecutor in question ended his investigation BEFORE he was fired. He was actually part of the corruption in the Ukraine PRIOR to the election of the current president.

          And the deflection from the fact that a sitting president attempted to coerce a leader of a foreign nation to investigate a political rival still holds no water for you? Blind loyalty to a criminal president is not very American.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

          1. RE: “It has been reported time and time again that there is no evidence related to Joe or Hunter.”

            That’s what I said. Then I added that new information may be forthcoming, since we have yet to receive the results of at least two current investigations.

            Like

    4. RE: “I want to see the Democratic Party entirely wiped out in 2020.”

      I feel the same way. In my lifetime the Democratic Party has done nothing but grow more and more corrupt. This impeachment move illustrates the trend perfectly, inasmuch as Nancy Pelosi and other leaders are lying straight up to their own base.

      There is no impeachment going on, only the illusion of it. I’d say we’re due for a fundamental re-alignment of political forces in the country, which the collapse of the Democratic Party will facilitate.

      Liked by 1 person

      Reply

      3. RE: “Facts matter”

        Yes they do. In the current matter the only facts at hand are:

        • The president committed no impeachable act.

        • Ukraine’s meddling in our 2016 election is under investigation.

        There’s no gaslight here.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

      1. No, it is not a ‘White House’ summary. The law does not allow recording the President’s phone calls with foreign leaders, but it is as close to a transcript as you can get.

        4 experts independently listen to the call, in front of computers scrolling the conversation as transcribed by state-of-the-art voice recognition software. If they see any discrepancies, they make corrections in real time.After the conversation, they compare their separate copies and resolve any differences.

        It is as accurate as is humanly possible.

        I know you are desperate to find more since this has turned out to be a bigger disappointment than Mueller, but that’s all there is and it is another nothingburger.

        https://ktla.com/2019/09/25/why-transcript-of-trumps-ukraine-call-is-not-word-for-word/

        Like

        Reply

        2. CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place. A number of factors can affect the accuracy of the record, including (BUT NOT LIMITED TO –NN) poor telecommunications connections and variations in accent and/or interpretation, The word “inaudible” is used to indicate portions of a conversation that the notetaker was unable to hear.

          Plus, you have guarantee that these are the COMPLETE set of notes from that conversation until such time as sworn testimony states that.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Your desperation is palpable.

            Did you see the word ‘inaudible’ in the text? If not, then there was nothing they could not understand as they do not leave blanks where something was said. .

            You have no evidence that it is not complete, and it is your burden to prove there is something missing from an official document. Note that at the time the transcript(and that IS what it is) was prepared, the experts had no reason to believe it would become controversial and thus no reason to edit anything out.

            What has happened is that the Democrats rushed to judgment and as people see what was actually there, as opposed to what Pelosi fantasized would be there, the Democrats credibility going into the election will be lower than Trump’s, and that is an accomplishment.

            Liked by 1 person

        3. I will have evidence that it is complete when the person or persons who compiled it testify to its completeness. Until then, you are right, I have no more evidence that it is NOT complete than you do that it is.

          Until such testimony is given, I shall adopt the position of a wise and learned man, i.e., “I’m going to wait until we know what was actually said before stating a position. Weird, huh?”

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

          1. Again, you have the burden of proof backwards. The transcript is the official record until proven otherwise.

            You have no evidence at all to challenge it. The so-called whistleblower did not hear the conversation himself, and had not seen the transcript, he acted on what some other unnamed person said was in it so it is two layers of hearsay.

            If it is not accurate, nothing prevents those who created the document from saying so.

            Like

  6. I’m not sure I would have thought of him as all that “potential” at the time. Keep in mind HRC was the leading candidate.

    Regardless, private enterprise (Libertarian) can employ any private citizen they wish.

    Liked by 1 person

    Reply

    1. You do understand the difference between urging a foreign country to cooperate with a current DoJ investigation (Mueller’s) and urging a foreign government to open an investigation into a private US citizen, don’t you?
      Oh no, clearly you don’t.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

    2. @Tabor

      The difference between the Senators’ urging the Ukraine to cease stonewalling an important and ongoing DOJ investigation and Trump asking them to re-open a closed investigation into a political opponent (that found no wrong doing) while ILLEGALLY sitting on the Congressionally approved military assistance could not be more stark.

      More very lame whataboutism from someone who is eager to swallow all the gas lighting the lying liars of the Republican Party can dream up.

      Liked by 3 people

      Reply

      1. The Ukrainian investigation into Bursima Holdings ended because Biden successfully go the prosecutor removed.

        And it has been Trump State Dept policy to place temporary holds on foreign aid when there are questions of corruption in the recipient country. That hold had been released prior to Trump’s conversation.

        But keep trying to make something of the nothing the voters will see this is, The more Democrats lose their seats in 2020 the better.

        Liked by 1 person

        Reply

        2. “That hold had been released prior to Trump’s conversation.” Check your facts. The hold was placed approximately 4 days BEFORE the conversation in question.

          I need you to do me a favor though…..Open a new investigation into my political rival and THEN I will release the aid.

          Of course, no Trump enabler or supporter will see it the same way as common sense dictates. Common sense died in those who blindly enable and support Trump on 11/8/16….

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

    4. The words, on which Doc, Jack Davis, and Marc Thiessen don’t QUITE have a grasp, are “Due Process”.

      When an investigation of a US citizen is opened by the DoJ, he is guaranteed to receive “Due Process”, whether or not that investigation comes at the urging of the White House, Congress, or his next door neighbor.

      When the President urges, under color of office, a foreign government (as opposed to our DoJ) to open an investigation into a US citizen, he deprives that individual of due process and abuses his power of office.

      It is that simple.

      Liked by 2 people

      Reply

      1. SO, your position is that if a President has reason to believe a US citizen has violated the laws of Elbonia, it is a crime for him to make the Elbonians aware of his suspicions?

        Like

        Reply

        1. No, my position is that if the President has a belief that a US citizen violated US laws (even in conjunction with violations of Elonian laws) such should be referenced to the DoJ (Trump’s accusations involve US laws). When it comes to “corruption”, e.g., bribery, influence peddling, etc., of foreign officials by a US citizen, even while in those countries, is still a violation of US law.

          If the (supposedly independent AG) does not open a criminal investigation then attempting to pressure the EBI (Elbonian Bureau of Investigation) to open an investigation is a violation of the right of due process and an abuse of power.

          The president’s position that Elbonian corruption MUST be rooted out as a condition of aid is VALID. He could have even suggested deeper investigation of the Elbonian oil company, which might have led to the investigation of the US citizen, but when he named the US citizen, he then unduly influenced any Elbonian investigation and violated said US citizen’s rights.

          Further, suggesting that the EBI cooperate with an EXISTING DoJ investigation is also within his purview, but calling upon the EBI to investigate a US citizen without an existing DoJ investigation is a violation of the US citizen’s right to due process.

          It’s nuanced, but then the law is.

          Liked by 2 people

          Reply

        2. Damned comment didn’t post again…

          No, my position is that if the President has a belief that a US citizen violated US laws (even in conjunction with violations of Elonian laws) such should be referenced to the DoJ (Trump’s accusations involve US laws). When it comes to “corruption”, e.g., bribery, influence peddling, etc., of foreign officials by a US citizen, even while in those countries, is still a violation of US law.

          If the (supposedly independent AG) does not open a criminal investigation then attempting to pressure the EBI (Elbonian Bureau of Investigation) to open an investigation is a violation of the right of due process and an abuse of power.

          The president’s position that Elbonian corruption MUST be rooted out as a condition of aid is VALID. He could have even suggested deeper investigation of the Elbonian oil company, which might have led to the investigation of the US citizen, but when he named the US citizen, he then unduly influenced any Elbonian investigation and violated said US citizen’s rights.

          Further, suggesting that the EBI cooperate with an EXISTING DoJ investigation is also within his purview, but calling upon the EBI to investigate a US citizen without an existing DoJ investigation is a violation of the US citizen’s right to due process.

          It’s nuanced, but then the law is.

          Liked by 1 person

          Reply

Leave a reply to Don Tabor Cancel reply