The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (3 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

 

[Infoman]

I have no horse in this race (as most of you know I can't stand either side of this shirt show)... but realistic question...

What's the point of all this? I mean, it's a great day time TV drama, and I am sure it gives people with hard line bias a reason to pound their chests...

But I don't understand what the "end game" is here.... does anyone think there is a legitimate chance that the Senate will (majority) vote to remove the president? Because he sure as hell isn't going to resign.

Or is this just purely an attempt to sway public opinion on Trump from his base in 2020? And who thinks there is a legitimate chance of that? (his base isn't being swayed IMO no matter what)

Seriously... what's the real point here.

And don't say justice or truth (we're not getting that)... because that will immediately draw an ignore from me (LOL)... because both "sides" are up to their ears in dirt on this, otherwise we wouldn't be watching this.

 

[insidejob]

This dude realized how much trouble he'd really be in if he didn't come totally clean and is letting it all hang out. Good for him.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I have no horse in this race (as most of you know I can't stand either side of this shirt show)... but realistic question...

What's the point of all this? I mean, it's a great day time TV drama, and I am sure it gives people with hard line bias a reason to pound their chests...

But I don't understand what the "end game" is here.... does anyone think there a legitimate chance that the Senate will (majority) vote to remove the president? Because he sure as hell isn't going to resign.

Or is this just purely an attempt to sway public opinion on Trump from his base in 2020? And who thinks there is a legitimate chance of that (his base isn't being swayed IMO no matter what?

Seriously... what's the real point here.

And don't say justice or truth (we're not getting that)... because that will immediately draw an ignore from me (LOL)... because both "sides" are up to their ears in dirt on this, otherwise we wouldn't be watching this.

If getting to the truth about whether or not potus extorted another country so that they would interfere in our election does not matter to you, I’m not sure what any of us can say

 

[buzd]

And don't say justice or truth (we're not getting that)... because that will immediately draw an ignore from me (LOL)... because both "sides" are up to their ears in dirt on this, otherwise we wouldn't be watching this.

The whole point is that both sides are not equivalent here, and the president is both incompetent and a criminal (which is different from being an incompetent criminal, although he is that too).

 

[coldseat]

Sundland's testimony will end up being the equivalent to Dean in the Nixon impeachment. For the first time, I think the damn may actually break.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

This dude realized how much trouble he'd really be in if he didn't come totally clean and is letting it all hang out. Good for him.

So after this hearing it comes down to trump v Giulianni, no?

 

[Infoman]

If getting to the truth about whether or not potus extorted another country so that they would interfere in our election does not matter to you, I’m not sure what any of us can say

It does matter to me - I'd love truth and justice ... we are not getting that... to get the "real truth" in any of this... everyone has to burn.... that's not happening.

So what's the real end game here...? that's the question... because for any of this to mean anything... The Senate has to majority vote to remove him.

I am not debating... I am asking a question.

If the Senate does not vote to remove him... or if his voting base doesn't abandon him in 2020 because of this... then all of this was just a good made for TV drama.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

 

[Infoman]

The whole point is that both sides are not equivalent here, and the president is both incompetent and a criminal (which is different from being an incompetent criminal, although he is that too).

Yeah, I don't care... I'm not saying they are equivalent, or the that POTUS isn't incompetent... because who the hell really knows... I wasn't there... nor was anyone else here... this all comes down to who's story you want to believe... I say they are all lying in one way shape or form...

My question stands... what's the point... what's the end game?

 

[coldseat]

I have no horse in this race (as most of you know I can't stand either side of this shirt show)... but realistic question...

What's the point of all this? I mean, it's a great day time TV drama, and I am sure it gives people with hard line bias a reason to pound their chests...

But I don't understand what the "end game" is here.... does anyone think there is a legitimate chance that the Senate will (majority) vote to remove the president? Because he sure as hell isn't going to resign.

Or is this just purely an attempt to sway public opinion on Trump from his base in 2020? And who thinks there is a legitimate chance of that? (his base isn't being swayed IMO no matter what)

Seriously... what's the real point here.

And don't say justice or truth (we're not getting that)... because that will immediately draw an ignore from me (LOL)... because both "sides" are up to their ears in dirt on this, otherwise we wouldn't be watching this.

How can a situation where only one side did everything wrong, illegal and impeachable equate to "both sides are up to their ears in dirt on this"?

Statements like that, which are so opposed to the reality of the situation, make my head explode.

 

[JimEverett]

Then why keep making the argument that Trump deserves to face the whistleblower like the accused has the right to face their accuser in a court of law?

Where have I made that argument?

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

It does matter to me - I'd love truth and justice ... we are not getting that... to get real truth in any of this... everyone has to burn.... that's not happening.

So what's the real end game here... that's the question... because for any of this to mean anything... the Senate has to majority vote to remove him.

I am not debating... I am asking a question.

Who is “everyone “?

 

[superchuck500]

In a judicial sense the whistleblower, in this case, operates somewhat similarly to a CI in a criminal trial. And I find that allowing a I to remain anonymous is an injustice to defendants. It is an injustice even when a defendant cannot articulate a reason that the CI is material. The argument appears circular - I don't know if the CI is material because I don't know anything about him/her, etc.

But the bigger problem I have touches on your last paragraph - this is not a criminal case or a child welfare case. It is not even a true judicial case - its mostly a political case - which is exactly what impeachment was designed to be. And the idea that "the press" appears to be taking a side in this by not actively attempting to identify the person who started the process of impeachment strikes me as incredibly odd - almost as if they are taking a political side.

If the CI is part of the bill or indictment, then the Sixth Amendment applies. But also, I don't think there's an established public policy protecting CIs from retaliation like there is with whistleblowers.

And I think part of the problem here is that the subject of the whistleblower report (Trump) has a history of retaliatory action. He will absolutely trash the whistleblower in public - does anyone question that? He's also likely to encourage or allow retaliatory action of some kind in the whistleblower's employment - does anyone question that? Finally, the target of the report (Trump) even has a history of suggesting violence against his detractors and the media . . . and its entirely reasonable to assume that the whistleblower would face real personal risk. Context matters and Trump has personally created some of the context with patterns of behavior and rhetoric.

I think the media question is interesting - but one of the most consumed media sources in America is very pro-Trump, certainly we're not to the point of Fox being part of an anti-Trump media conspiracy, are we? I think the answer is that the legitimate media (including partisan media on both sides) are being cautious here for two reasons. One is ethical - if they run with a story unmasking the whistleblower and that person is subject to harm or such threat of harm that he no longer enjoys any quality of life, that's something that certainly raises ethical considerations in the editor's office. But perhaps more importantly, there's a legal consideration: does the media really know who it is? Sure, there's all sorts of quality speculation, but if media run with that story and get it wrong - and the incorrectly named person suffers harm, there's a legal problem there. (See, e.g. Richard Jewel, who reached libel settlements with NBC, CNN, and the Atlanta Journal Constitution).

It might simply be that those with first-hand knowledge of the report are all government officials who are following both the law and ethics associated with whistleblower protection and are refusing to give media the kind of reliable report that would justify taking the risk.

I agree with you that I don't see why the media would have any reason not to print a story about who the whistleblower is - it's the role of the media to provide that kind of information to the public. But where there are other considerations compelling caution, I can see why none has chosen to do it yet.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Yeah, I don't care... I'm not saying they are... because who the hell really knows... I wasn't there... nor was anyone else here... this all comes down to who's story you want to believe... I say they are all lying in one way shape or form...

My question stands... what's the point... what's the end game?

Sundland has ZERO reason to give Dems favorable testimony
But he certainly is
Is his testimony clearing up anything for you?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Seriously... what's the real point here.

And don't say justice or truth (we're not getting that)... because that will immediately draw an ignore from me (LOL)... because both "sides" are up to their ears in dirt on this, otherwise we wouldn't be watching this.

The real point is to root out corruption.

 

[superchuck500]

Twitter thread - summary of Sondland so far - admittedly Katyal is partisan but he's also former US Solicitor General (acting), so he keenly knows his way around legal proceedings and evidence.

 

[JimEverett]

if we aren't talking criminal illegality, then why is this relevant?:




Does illegal = impeachable? Does something have to be illegal to be impeachable?

It just feels like these things need to be defined if we're deciding what gets considered analogical and what's not.

I think it is interesting what exactly constitutes an "impeachable" offense. One aspect that is interesting is to hear constitutional scholars who scoff at jurists like Scalia and Thomas make "originalist" arguments as to "bribery" in the Constitution.

IMO, though, what is impeachable is whatever the House says is impeachable.

My analogy with CIs in criminal litigation was to address the argument that the whistleblower is not material.

 

[insidejob]

So after this hearing it comes down to trump v Giulianni, no?

Trump is going to (try to) throw Rudy under the bus just like he did Michael Cohen. I don't know if that is possible after all these witnesses confirming that he did, in fact, attempt to bribe the Ukranians.