The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (2 Viewers)

[Andrus]

By Laura Bassett

After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

“Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

Read the Full Story - InStyle

 

[Archies Ghost]

That sounds like something Joe Biden would say.

Especially since her name is Karlan.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Come on. I'm using the term for effect and you know it, but a dictatorship is a country ruled by an authority without bounds. Perhaps I should have used the term "like a dictatorship" to avoid the semantic argument, but my bad.

So, without arguing, tell us what we have when our executive comports himself in an illegal and immoral - even irrational manner and is unwilling to be held to account?

Is Democracy alive when the POTUS thumbs his nose at EVERY.SINGLE.REQUEST for oversight?

We aren't a democracy.

Our constitutional republic is designed to have friction between the branches in a never ending power struggle.

Each branch is designed to check the excesses of the others.

So what we are seeing when the President resists Congressional overreach is by design.

Now, if we had a Speaker of the House ordering articles of impeachment be drafted without a vote of the full House, that would be unconstitutional abuse of power and the action of a "dictator", one who dictates without the consent of those constitutionally mandated to approve impeachment.

 

[coldseat]

He's on the verge of being impeached - is that not oversight?

beyond that the idea that he has thumbed his nose at every request is factually wrong, consider the amount of information given to the Mueller investigation.
ignoring subpoenas and claiming privilege are a staple of American democracy - far from being even "like" a dictatorship.

Ignoring subpoenas is a staple of American democracy? I guess if I ever get a subpoena for something, I can just ignore it and claim I'm practicing my version of American democracy. That should take care of it, right?

The constitutions gives power to the House to bring articles of Impeachment and it grants the Senate the power to try Impeachment cases. Nowhere does it say that the Senate can deny to hold the trial. Given that the Senate Majority leader isn't even a position created by the original constitution, it seems dubious at best that one person would be able to unilaterally decide not to hold an Impeachment trial for a president. And given that it's never happened before, we have no legal precedent to stake that claim on, thus it seems ever more dubious.

I don't know how such a situation would ever be resolved, but I hope Republicans aren't stupid enough to make us have to find out. We would surely be in a constitutional crisis at that point.

He has thumbed his nose at ever congressional subpoena surrounding impeachment, both for documents and witness testimony. As for almost all other house oversight investigation. That's serious and something no other administration has done.

 

[coldseat]

Now, if we had a Speaker of the House ordering articles of impeachment be drafted without a vote of the full House, that would be unconstitutional abuse of power and the action of a "dictator", one who dictates without the consent of those constitutionally mandated to approve impeachment.

That's preposterous. They're going to vote on the articles of Impeachment. They have too by law and will.

There is no constitutional requirement to vote to draft the articles of impeachment.

 

[samiam5211]

We aren't a democracy.

Our constitutional republic is designed to have friction between the branches in a never ending power struggle.

Each branch is designed to check the excesses of the others.

So what we are seeing when the President resists Congressional overreach is by design.

Now, if we had a Speaker of the House ordering articles of impeachment be drafted without a vote of the full House, that would be unconstitutional abuse of power and the action of a "dictator", one who dictates without the consent of those constitutionally mandated to approve impeachment.

The “I know you are, but what am I?”, defense rears it’s ugly head again.

I can’t even tell the difference between people who are being intellectually dishonest and those who lack the self awareness to realize the people they support are doing the exact thing they’ve been duped into accusing the others of doing.

Maybe we’re in the upside down, and I am them.

Sometimes It feels like the United States is on a bad salvia trip.

 

[JimEverett]

He has thumbed his nose at ever congressional subpoena surrounding impeachment, both for documents and witness testimony. As for almost all other house oversight investigation. That's serious and something no other administration has done.

As has been pointed out - there are numerous, numerous, numerous occasions where Administrations have ignored subpoenas, had members of an Administration refuse to testify, claim privilege. It is routine.
Saying this is unprecedented is just flat out wrong, and easily shown to be so.

 

[Archies Ghost]

That's preposterous. They're going to vote on the articles of Impeachment. They have too by law and will.

There is no constitutional requirement to vote to draft the articles of impeachment.

So you agree a Speaker doing such a thing would be an abuse of power?

We are making progress here.

 

[coldseat]

As has been pointed out - there are numerous, numerous, numerous occasions where Administrations have ignored subpoenas, had members of an Administration refuse to testify, claim privilege. It is routine.
Saying this is unprecedented is just flat out wrong, and easily shown to be so.

Maybe I'm just ignorant form a historical perspective. So there are other presidents who have declared and followed through with a pledge to deny/ignore every congressional subpoena of their administration? Who was that, because that's the only equivalent here.

 

[coldseat]

So you agree a Speaker doing such a thing would be an abuse of power?

We are making progress here.

Maybe you've made progress. I don't know. I haven't even pondered the scenario because it would never happen.

 

[CoolBrees]

Maybe she should write a “Contract with America” like a good Speaker.

 

[samiam5211]

Maybe I'm just ignorant form a historical perspective. So there are other presidents for have declared and followed through with a pledge to deny/ignore every congressional subpoena of their administration? Who was that, because that's the only equivalent here.

They keep finding a president who did something Trump has done like it exonerates him, totally oblivious to the fact that if it takes 20 past presidents to equal the unethical crunch of one Trump presidency, then the world is in a terrible place.

 

[JimEverett]

Maybe I'm just ignorant form a historical perspective. So there are other presidents for have declared and followed through with a pledge to deny/ignore every congressional subpoena of their administration? Who was that, because that's the only equivalent here.

I am not sure what you mean. The Administration has turned over things to Congress, on big one being waiver of the privileges associated with communications with foreign leaders. Executive branch witnesses have testified - including members of White House staff.

 

[coldseat]

I am not sure what you mean. The Administration has turned over things to Congress, on big one being waiver of the privileges associated with communications with foreign leaders. Executive branch witnesses have testified - including members of White House staff.

You're misrepresenting again in order to ignorethe obvious hole in you're argument.

Trump released the summary of the phone call because he thought it would be advantageous for him politically, boy was he wrong. He didn't release that because of a congressional subpoena.

The witnesses that have testified have done so in defiance of an executive mandate not to participate. They have not been released to do so with ther consent of the executive.

So, no actual comparisons to this president and administration then?

 

[samiam5211]

You're misrepresenting again in order to ignorethe obvious hole in you're argument.

Trump released the summary of the phone call because he thought it would be advantageous for him politically, boy was he wrong. He didn't release that because of a congressional subpoena.

Which begs the question; how bad is the stuff he is so desperately hanging on to?

He gave up what amounts to a confession to anyone not playing the role of his defense attorney.

His gang is dumber than the bad guy on an episode of Scooby Doo. They left evidence everywhere because they thought they were invincible.

 

[JimEverett]

You're misrepresenting again in order to ignorethe obvious hole in you're argument.

Trump released the summary of the phone call because he thought it would be advantageous for him politically, boy was he wrong. He didn't release that because of a congressional subpoena.

The witnesses that have testified have done so in defiance of an executive mandate not to participate. They have not been released to do so with ther consent of the executive.

So, no actual comparisons to this president and administration then?

There is no hole.
He released evidence. Not sure how that is not seen as cooperating with an investigation - in fact, its the definition of it.
As far as testimony of Executive branch officials: did Trump stop the testimony by invoking privilege?
Taking anyone who heard the phone call, like Vindman - the White House had waived the foreign-leaders-conversation privilege


But even disregarding all that the point you are trying to make makes no sense to me. How does the invocation of privilege 3 times or 5 times rise to the level of obstruction whereas invoking it 1 time or twice does not?

 

[Beach Friends]

There is no hole.
He released evidence. Not sure how that is not seen as cooperating with an investigation - in fact, its the definition of it.
As far as testimony of Executive branch officials: did Trump stop the testimony by invoking privilege?
Taking anyone who heard the phone call, like Vindman - the White House waived the privilege.


But even disregarding all that the point you are trying to make makes no sense to me. How does the invocation of privilege 3 times or 5 times rise to the level of obstruction whereas invoking it 1 time or twice does not?

Imagine this - your attorney, spouse, priest or therapist is called to testify in a case where you are a defendant.

That person has some information that is potentially covered by the relevant privilege, and some that is not.

Here's the catch - you are not even allowed to have your attorney present to object to questions that seek privileged information.

I am certain that if I could say "no" to that person testifying at all that is exactly what I would do.

And the decision would be that much easier if there was not an impartial judge present to reign in that line of questioning.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

There is no hole.
He released evidence. Not sure how that is not seen as cooperating with an investigation - in fact, its the definition of it.
As far as testimony of Executive branch officials: did Trump stop the testimony by invoking privilege?
Taking anyone who heard the phone call, like Vindman - the White House had waived the foreign-leaders-conversation privilege


But even disregarding all that the point you are trying to make makes no sense to me. How does the invocation of privilege 3 times or 5 times rise to the level of obstruction whereas invoking it 1 time or twice does not?

So how would your posture change if a more clear case of obstruction was demonstrated here by the president?

Im just trying to figure out whether conversations like this are actually worth following or this is all stationary exercise on the part of people that don’t actually have any intention of altering their views, opinions, or conclusions based on the necessary threshold of evidence being demanded by others?

 

[coldseat]

There is no hole.
He released evidence. Not sure how that is not seen as cooperating with an investigation - in fact, its the definition of it.
As far as testimony of Executive branch officials: did Trump stop the testimony by invoking privilege?
Taking anyone who heard the phone call, like Vindman - the White House had waived the foreign-leaders-conversation privilege


But even disregarding all that the point you are trying to make makes no sense to me. How does the invocation of privilege 3 times or 5 times rise to the level of obstruction whereas invoking it 1 time or twice does not?

Obviously we're never going to agree. I would just appreciate if you would stop distorting what has occurred in order to fit your narrative.

To claim that Trump had done anything that could be considered as "the definition of cooperating with the congressional investigation is just laughable on its face. Trump boast daily about ignoring subpoenas.

He can't claim executive privilege when he released the summary of the call previously. Neither can he claim privilege over conversations between other people just because they where in his administration.

So no, none of that qualifies as cooperation. He's refused cooperation and ignored subpoenas much more than 3 or 5 times. It's been a total block on everything since April when he announced it. And many times before that.