The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (4 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

 

[crosswatt]

Can anyone explain to me how in the world Devin Nunes climbed any higher than vice chairman of some homeowner's association somewhere in Idaho?

 

[wardorican]

Yes Nunes, it would be easier if we knew exactly why the aid was withheld.

 

[crosswatt]

I have a suspicion that there is some talking behind the scenes between republican senators about building a coalition to stand up against Trump's actions. I don't think any one senator will be willing to come out publicly and say that Trump needs to be removed, but if they can assemble a group, that may change.

There is a way to make the senate vote a secret ballot one, and I have a hunch that it would demonstrably change the outcome if this does end up going to trial...

There’s a Surprisingly Plausible Path to Removing Trump From Office

It would take just three Republican senators to turn the impeachment vote into a secret ballot. It’s not hard to imagine what would happen then.

www.politico.com

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

The first time I saw this, I didn't think it was real.

(The second tweet, not the first)

That photo has good meme potential.

 

[SaintForLife]

Alright I've scrolled back through a few pages and I seem to be missing the reasoning why this guy's YouTube like page is important. Would someone mind filling me in please?

I would say it's about as relevant as Kavanaugh's yearbook was for his confirmation.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

The huge difference is that "something we want in return" is something that benefits the country. Not Trumps re-election campaign. Good luck with that spin GOP.

How does the country not benefit from exonerating Putin and proving that Crooked Hillary did the Real Collusion?

 

[SaintForLife]

Again... If the Senate does not vote him out of office... What has he been held accountable for?

I want to know the point of all this... realistically.... I have no idea what this is all for.

I don't see the Senate voting to remove him, and I don't see any of this moving his base further to the left.

It's all about damaging Trump as much as possible for the election just like it was with Benghazi and Hillary.

 

[CoolBrees]

Even in the court of law, the goal isn’t absolute truth. “Beyond a reasonable doubt” is the stipulation I believe.

I mentioned like a month ago that the aftermath of the Nixon Hearings was a complete washout for the R’s the next election. They were found guilty, in the court of public opinion, that they dragged their feet on Nixon and only would removed him after the tapes were ordered released. Once everyone heard the tapes and knew they were full of shirt they took in on the chin in the next few election cycles.

Now with the testimony on record showobvious malfeasance, and the Dems in the Senate prosecute this case the House has laid out and they STILL do not convict? I can see history repeating itself and there being a backlash.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

According to Nunes, the aid was being held up because they needed verification that Ukraine has taken the necessary steps to curb corruption. In fact, he implied that it would be unlawful for them to do so.

Weird.

Earlier this week, President Trump cited concerns about corruption as his rationale for blocking security assistance to Ukraine. But in a letter sent to four congressional committees in May of this year and obtained by NPR, Undersecretary of Defense for Policy John Rood informed lawmakers that he "certified that the Government of Ukraine has taken substantial actions to make defense institutional reforms for the purposes of decreasing corruption [and] increasing accountability."

The certification was required by law for the release of $250 million in security assistance for Ukraine. That aid was blocked by the White House until Sept. 11 and has since been released. It must be spent before Sept. 30, the end of the fiscal year.

 

[SaintForLife]

First, I think future witnesses and the trial (assuming there is one) itself can add clarity and perhaps change interpretations of "facts"

One aspect that I think we will hear a lot about in the future is the extent similar types of "bribery" work in the political world. This is going down the road DadsDream is talking about. And I don;t think that is useful in the sense of "hey, they did it, so why can't we" but rather as an exercise in being very clear about what is impeachable.

As far as facts - one thing I would want to know is when did Ukranian officials know about the scheme and how was it relayed to them.

Speaking of bribery...


I found this part of the aricle interesting in relation to obstruction:

Finally, Democrats have alluded to "obstruction," based on the White House withholding documents and discouraging witnesses from testifying. Some of us have pointed out that prior claims of obstruction in the Russia investigation were fundamentally flawed, and are now debunked entirely, by the failure to include them in the current impeachment. The obstruction theory today is even weaker.

 

[The moose]

The first time I saw this, I didn't think it was real.

(The second tweet, not the first)

Whe know he loves sharpies!

 

[CoolBrees]

Opinion articles from the Hill aren’t evidence of anything.

 

[wardorican]

Republican counsel is struggling.

He's gotten a few doubts in there, but on others, not so much.

 

[wardorican]

Lunch break.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I got a funny feeling that Sondland's flight back to Brussels may not be needed. His service to the President is not exactly pleasurable.

 

[B4YOU]

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.

You are viewing decisions based on the ends justifying the means, the same as Trump, and assuming the ends.

The purpose: Democracy and our republic requires good men and women to speak out when it is threatened.

 

[Saintamaniac]

That thought has occurred to me too. I dont have much faith any of them will do the right thing. If it did happen, thats how it would happen, a coalition.

You never know, maybe someone has a conscience and says enough is enough. I am so disappointed they stood idly by while Jordan and Nunes attacked good people. Shame on all of them.

I asked this question before but don't remember it being answered so I'm going to ask again. People are saying that 20 republicans would need to vote for removal. Could 20 senators just vote "Present" instead or just fail to show up to vote thereby reducing the number of senators required to reach 2/3 to 53?

 

[JRad]

I asked this question before but don't remember it being answered so I'm going to ask again. People are saying that 20 republicans would need to vote for removal. Could 20 senators just vote "Present" instead or just fail to show up to vote thereby reducing the number of senators required to reach 2/3 to 53?

One of our friendly neighborhood lawyers may have better information, but the only real roadblock I can think of would be if a quorum were required.

Article of impeachment - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

(If not all Senators were present, a quorum would be needed for a vote. In the U.S. Senate a quorum is half plus one, or 51 out of 100. If only the minimum for a quorum were present, two thirds would mean 34 voting in favor of impeachment.)

Which doesn't look like much.