Why not a formal impeachment of all the charges?

We already had investigations by Nadler, and other committees, underway, is this just merely Nancy getting on board with them, from her speaker ship position?

I just don't understand why we don't go forward and let the facts speak for themselves.....we have been told they have grounds, etc, then lets DO IT......!!

If this is just another ploy, a waste of time, with no formal charges brought, but a well, he was a jerk, and we had to look and see.....and he coulda meant, or.....

Then I hope 2020 voters will take it out on those who deserve it.....

We have real everyday issues that need attention, which, again, if there is proof, not mere interpretations, but of Trump saying something like..."Hey dude, help me win my reelection by giving me the goods on Biden, or I will withhold whatever......" then I say, YES that is very important, and if you have that proof, unequivocally, then we need no investigation, but a formal charge of impeachment against him....PERIOD!

Well you sure are painting with a different brush  

I just can't find a reason to needing another inquire, of what we supposedly know, of what Trump did....

I saw (today) were even Bernie said what Trump did was a impeachable thing, and when he was asked further if he is on board with moving forward, he replied, "Not yet, he still needs to see more fact/evidence." HUH?  

That just doesn't make sense to me?

If they are posturing, why, for their so called base?

Shouldn't they have that pretty solidly locked up, why chance losing the swing voters, who almost overwhelmingly are against impeachment....

Why would they risk that?

I just don't get this at all......

The Mueller investigation had a net lost, for the democrats, or they going down this road again?

Web...you out there?

What is your take?

Here in my limited, but pretty liberal island ( rich folk, artist, and outdoors folk....and then grunts like me ) it presently doesn't appear to be the big deal some are making of it.....yet?

I guess the transcript will shed some of the mystery of it, but too, the new Ukraine leader, he is saying he wasn't pressured, etc, and isn't it true Trump had already requested funding to be held up prior to this meeting, so why didn't this guy turn it back on Trump saying yes, he felt pressured, etc....????  

One last thing, why now, this news is a few months old already, if it was that grave why wait......it should have been made immediately, with the fervor pitch it is now getting,?????

Its almost like a twofer, waiting to get Trump, and Biden, now that he seems vulnerable...????    

Brit is pretty smart, been in the biz for a long time.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's announcement of a formal impeachment inquiry into President Trump hasn't changed much on paper but may go a long way to assuage her party, according to Brit Hume.

Pelosi did not announce a formal impeachment vote on the House floor but simply said she will be looking into the president's actions, Hume said Tuesday on "Tucker Carlson Tonight."

"It strikes me that the Speaker and the other leaders are under pressure from the left wing of the party and the leftists in their caucus -- who are numerous -- to move ahead here," he said.

"The loathing of Donald Trump and the desire to get him out of office is very intense. They've got constituents back home that want to see action taken against Trump in a serious way so it comes down to this."

How could the impeachment inquiry into Trump play out in 2020?Video
He called Pelosi's move a "clever" motion that protected the several dozen moderate members of her caucus in swing districts -- including those where Trump won in 2016.

"I think she thinking that she needs to be responsive to the needs of her caucus -- look at what she did today, it was really quite clever if you think about it," he said.

"Did she have a vote in the House to conduct an impeachment inquiry? No, she simply announced one. How is that substantively different from what her Judiciary chairman Jerrold Nadler did just a week or ten days ago?"

The Fox News political analyst considered whether Pelosi was skillfully trying to quell fears among her more liberal members that impeachment is being taken seriously, while balancing the needs of her moderate members whose constituents may not be as fired up about the prospect.

"So as a matter of law and constitutional activity the question tonight is has anything really changed? Is this really an action or is this merely a gesture?" he asked.

"My sense about it is that it is merely a gesture as she continues to protect vulnerable members of her caucus from having to vote to go forward on impeachment."

What I find telling, if this is true, is that they need to protect party members in certain districts, from having to do the right thing.... of impeaching this president, that who has caused grave damage to our nation, which means that the party is more important, than the welfare of our nation.....SMH, wow, just wow.....

Old n slo, you might just be the wisest on this board!  

Yeah thanks...here is a good read on the nature of the process.

https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.html

So in effect, reality, people like Maxine Waters, has no idea what she is saying BECAUSE we have NOT seen the evidence.....

Is that right?

Ya know, we keep hearing its NOT political, but duty, etc....

Then someone needs to tell these folks they do a great disservice by espousing stuff that is not true, at the moment, or at all....either way.

Why can't that be considered obstruction of justice?

Web....the republicans impeached over not fessing up to a blow job....

C'mon, this insanity has two dance partners......  

WebsterMark wrote on 09/28/19 at 09:44:47:


Then not exactly false, either?  

Web, honestly, lying over a sexual piccadilly, or is that a pickled dilly  

Rise to a high crime?

Bills' impeachment: lying under oath and obstruction of justice