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

 

[JimEverett]

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?

Not showing up would reduce the number needed to convict. Its 2/3 of the Senators voting as long as there is a quorum - which is 51 Senators - voting.

It you vote "present" that would essentially operate as a no vote on conviction. [Can you vote "present" in the Senate? I think you can - but not 100% sure].

 

[Saintamaniac]

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

Which doesn't look like much.

Hey, thanks for the information. I wasn't quite sure of this but I thought I had read it somewhere. Appreciate it.

So half of the republicans senators could decide to get stuck in an elevator and McConnell could proceed with quorum and let the democrats vote to remove trump and allow all of the republican senators present to vote against it. It would be a win for the country and a win for the republican senators that they didn't have to vote for removal.

 

[MT15]

Jim I think so too.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I honestly think Sondland is clearly still not being entirely forthright. And really it could a be a problem if any larger witnesses are forced to testify....John Bolton for instance.

As he is trying to play the recollection game but it really does stretch the imagination that Sondland would not realize Burisma meant the Biden’s and was unaware of Rudy’s public appearances mentioning Ukraine. On top of the memory issues around the Holmes call where Holmes and apparently others can testify and dispute his understanding.

That said, in any other era that doesn’t have talk radio and Fox News, this damning testimony, plus Trump’s meltdown, would be the nail in the coffin today and likely for people like Mulvaney and Pompeo. And would seriously put pressure on Pence.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Not showing up would reduce the number needed to convict. Its 2/3 of the Senators voting as long as there is a quorum - which is 51 Senators - voting.

It you vote "present" that would essentially operate as a no vote on conviction. [Can you vote "present" in the Senate? I think you can - but not 100% sure].

I think that would be a disaster for our country. If they are (R's) willing to do this, then they are convinced that trump is in fact guilty and deserving of being removed via impeachment. It would better serve us all that they would actually vote to do so, instead of taking the cowardly way out.

 

[crosswatt]

The GOP seriously need to consider locking Nunes in a storage room somewhere in the Smithsonian complex and putting Ratcliffe in his place. He's by far their most effective and plausible member on this committee.

 

[Complex Kid]

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

 

[insidejob]

Jim Jordan is always angry. Dude is attacking his own witness.

 

[crosswatt]

Jim Jordan is always angry. Dude is attacking his own witness.

I cede my personal opinion of Jordan to John Boehner, who would be in position to know...

“Jordan was a terrorist as a legislator going back to his days in the Ohio House and Senate,” Boehner told Politico.

John Boehner Unchained

The former House speaker feels liberated—but he’s also seething about what happened to his party.

www.politico.com

 

[superchuck500]

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.

From the op/ed:

The courts have narrowly construed these terms and reversed high profile cases based on the type of creative interpretations now put forward by Democrats. The Supreme Court rejected such claims in Robert McDonnell versus United States. In that case, the governor of Virginia actually received “things of value” but the court rejected the “boundless interpretation of the federal bribery statute.”

I really can't believe this Professor of Public Interest Law at GWU would actually cite the McDonell case as demonstrating that the Supreme Court has applied the federal bribery statute more narrowly than suggested by the House of Representatives. Did he not think anyone would actually read the case?

The author alleges that the McDonnell stands for the proposition that the Supreme Court rejected "boundless interpretation" of the federal bribery statute - but so what? That doesn't mean that the House is misapplying it - in fact, the context for the Court's conclusion was in how to define "official act" that the official is performing or offering/agreeing to perform for purposes of the quid pro quo. In McDonnell, the official acts were arranging meetings, hosting an event at the Governor's mansion, and contacting other government officials about a study. The Court rejected the prosecution's broad interpretation of "official acts" said those things didn't really quality as official acts for purposes of the bribery statute. But does any reasonable person question the idea that conditioning $400 million in aid and military arms is an official act? That aid and arms package was on its way, effectively, to Kiev until the president pulled it into the White House's direct control. There's no reason to think that the same justices sitting for McDonnell would have the same concerns about whether Trump's condition in the Zelensky matter represented an official act - it clearly did.

Similarly problematic in offering this case in defense of Trump is that the Court makes is abundantly clear that the quid pro quo doesn't have to actually happen, nor does the agreement have to be explicit about exactly what means must be used to accomplish the exchange. Rather, "it is enough that the official agree" to perform the official act that serves as the basis for the allegations. Where the official is directly making the offer or demand, the statute is satisfied.

It strikes me as delusional to think that anyone that knows what they're reading actually reads the McDonnell case would come away thinking that it somehow shows that the House is reaching here.

United States v. McDonnell, 136 S. Ct. 2355 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read United States v. McDonnell, 136 S. Ct. 2355, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

 

[bdb13]

The GOP seriously need to consider locking Nunes in a storage room somewhere in the Smithsonian complex and putting Ratcliffe in his place. He's by far their most effective and plausible member on this committee.

Ratcliffe is effective. Nunes and Jordan are just in over their heads with this and imo ineffective with their spin.

 

[superchuck500]

oh snap

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Finally a Republican that actually made some sense. That being said, for you to ignore Sondland's presumptions, you would also have to ignore the background actions of Giuliani where he is making the demand for investigations in order to receive the aid.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Internet message boards distilled in the testimony: person flings an inflammatory and superficially supportive document they think supports their side,

Someone actually reads the article and shows how misleading it is.

Troll interrupts abrasively and ignores the evidence provided and just regurgitates

 

[insidejob]

I cede my personal opinion of Jordan to John Boehner, who would be in position to know...

“Jordan was a terrorist as a legislator going back to his days in the Ohio House and Senate,” Boehner told Politico.

John Boehner Unchained

The former House speaker feels liberated—but he’s also seething about what happened to his party.

www.politico.com

Lordy, that's one hell of a long read. Good, but long.

 

[JimEverett]

From the op/ed:



I really can't believe this Professor of Public Interest Law at GWU would actually cite the McDonell case as demonstrating that the Supreme Court has applied the federal bribery statute more narrowly than suggested by the House of Representatives. Did he not think anyone would actually read the case?

The author alleges that the McDonnell stands for the proposition that the Supreme Court rejected "boundless interpretation" of the federal bribery statute - but so what? That doesn't mean that the House is misapplying it - in fact, the context for the Court's conclusion was in how to define "official act" that the official is performing or offering/agreeing to perform for purposes of the quid pro quo. In McDonnell, the official acts were arranging meetings, hosting an event at the Governor's mansion, and contacting other government officials about a study. The Court rejected the prosecution's broad interpretation of "official acts" said those things didn't really quality as official acts for purposes of the bribery statute. But does any reasonable person question the idea that conditioning $400 million in aid and military arms is an official act? That aid and arms package was on its way, effectively, to Kiev until the president pulled it into the White House's direct control. There's no reason to think that the same justices sitting for McDonnell would have the same concerns about whether Trump's condition in the Zelensky matter represented an official act - it clearly did.

Similarly problematic in offering this case in defense of Trump is that the Court makes is abundantly clear that the quid pro quo doesn't have to actually happen, nor does the agreement have to be explicit about exactly what means must be used to accomplish the exchange. Rather, "it is enough that the official agree" to perform the official act that serves as the basis for the allegations. Where the official is directly making the offer or demand, the statute is satisfied.

It strikes me as delusional to think that anyone that knows what they're reading actually reads the McDonnell case would come away thinking that it somehow shows that the House is reaching here.

United States v. McDonnell, 136 S. Ct. 2355 | Casetext Search + Citator

Read United States v. McDonnell, 136 S. Ct. 2355, see flags on bad law, and search Casetext’s comprehensive legal database

casetext.com

See, I read him as saying there are very real limitations on the bribery statute - apart from the idea of impeachment itself (the argument of politics is, in effect, political bribery).
Hence his point about there being a demand for an investigation, NOT a particular result. Is that a personal "thing of value"?

 

[MT15]

It wasn’t a demand for an investigation, really. It was a demand that Zelensky go on CNN and announce an investigation.

I don’t think it would be a hard sell that this announcement would be of value to the Trump campaign.

Just look at the damage Comey’s announcement did to Clinton.

 

[JimEverett]

It wasn’t a demand for an investigation, really. It was a demand that Zelensky go on CNN and announce an investigation.

I don’t think it would be a hard sell that this announcement would be of value to the Trump campaign.

Just look at the damage Comey’s announcement did to Clinton.

Its certainly a good argument. But I am not sure if it would apply to the statute. Which was the point Turley as making - although he seems rather clear that what was done was not bribery under the federal statute.

At least one problem with going that route (impeaching under the federal statute) is that I would imagine it is going to be pointed out over and over how deals are done that benefit Presidents politically. in exchange for something.

I think the Democrats won't go that route for that reason and perhaps others. Schiff seems to be moving towards the Constitutional "bribery" standard. Which I pointed out earlier seems a little weird given the hostility Democrats and liberals have towards originalists (I admit, sort of a cheap shot).