How will this differ from the naddling schifshow that's been in re-runs for the past many months?

I don't know, but i feel confident there is. Congressional committee subpoena?

I think it is that the majority of the House is behind the inquiry.

Interesting historical stroll through above document.....

Can you name the speaker of these quotes?

"Mr. Speaker, the

precedents show and the Nation’s leading scholars and historians overwhelm-

ingly agree that impeachment is reserved under the Constitution only for

abuses of presidential power that undermine the structure of functioning of

government or of constitutional liberty. It is not intended as a punish-

ment for crimes but as a protection against the President who would abuse

his powers to make himself a tyrant. That is why Benjamin Franklin called

impeachment a substitute for assassination.............

The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. We

must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to

defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a

dire threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of

the American people. There must never be a narrowly

voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political

parties and opposed by another. Such an impeachment will produce divisive-

ness and bitterness in our politics for years to come, and will call into ques-

tion the very legitimacy of our political institutions.

The American people have heard the allegations against the President, and

they overwhelmingly oppose impeaching him. They elected (the) President, they still support him. We have no

right to overturn the considered judgment of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, this is clearly a partisan railroad job....

The American people are watching, and they will not forget. You may have

the votes, you may have the muscle, but you do not have the legitimacy of

a national consensus or of a constitutional imperative. This partisan coup

d’etat will go down in infamy in the history of this Nation."

Whether or not it is necessary, it has not been clear whether a resolution to formally start an impeachment inquiry would pass a House vote, although the number of Democrats who support one has recently been surging. As of late Tuesday, The New York Times counted 203 members who said they favored impeachment proceedings, 88 who said they opposed them or were undecided, and 144 who had not responded to the question.

:-k

Axl wrote that man.... 😟

excellent!

I mean, even the tea party eventually gave up after the birth thingy.

The liberals have stamina, I'll give you that.

Looney as moon bats.

But tenacious as an MF'er that's for sure.

Transcripts of Trump's calls don't have much value, given Trump's propensity to sharpie stuff up...nothing the WH releases should be considered trustworthy, due to the POTUS's history of dishonesty...

there may be multiple calls and other behavior that led to the whistleblower complaint, so we should start by examining the complaint...if there aren't recordings, then all witnesses should be required to testify, rather than relying on WH transcripts...

So.....The report from the person who said he heard someone say something should be released. No sense in making judgements based on what was actually said or done. In fact, maybe the guy who said he might have heard something...maybe he also thinks he heard more stuff.... Trump sucks....

I don't know what the complaint says and the notion that the whistleblower didn't witness any of the calls or behavior is also speculation...transcripts of calls, without back-up recordings, can be inaccurate...let's see the complaint...

Trump admitted he asked Ukraine to investigate a political opponent before the next election, while at the same time withholding military aid to the Ukraine...is this acceptable use of presidential power?