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]

Yo, Maloney going full on Jim Jordan here on Sondland...

 

[Saintamaniac]

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).

It would match the weirdness of the Republicans given their previous strict support of the constitution and rule of law, n'est pas?

 

[GrandAdmiral]

Finally...

Free to post.

 

[LA - L.A.]

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?

Also, even in a court of law, the accused does not have a right to face an informant unless that informant is called as a witness during the trial.

Where have I made that argument?

Here:

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.

 

[BobE]

Finally...

Free to post.

well there goes the message board

 

[superchuck500]

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"?

McDonnell doesn't analyze "thing of value" (note that the statute that would apply to the Zelenksy matter. In Menendez, the district court refused to dismiss 201(b) charges that involved donations to a SuperPAC and donations to a legal defense fund because they were valuable to Menendez even though he wasn't the recipient. What's important about that is that while the exchange was for donations, the district court explained that the value to Menendez was that the SuperPAC's function was to try to get Menendez re-elected. That's not the same as purely financial value (as in, line the pockets).

The other charges against Menendez that were dismissed were on the "official act" prong - as the exchange related to Mendendez's possible future advocacy for the donor, should the opportunity arise.


I think you're right, at least for making the analogy to the federal criminal statute, that "anything of value" requires further analysis. It's not dispositive for impeachment purposes, but if 201(b) is going to be a guidepost, it's relevant. I'll have to spend some more time researching that point - and "thing of value" is used in other statutory schemes that could shed light on it.

But given the context and Trump's interest, I think we can all agree that it was obviously seen as valuable.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

well there goes the message board

So much I wanted to say during the hearing, but @st dude was slacking on the job. Lol

 

[LA - L.A.]

...as long as both sides are protecting influential people in this (and they are)

What are you basing the belief that both sides are protecting influential people and who do you think is being protected?

 

[Beach Friends]

 

[Infoman]

What are you basing the belief that both sides are protecting influential people and who do you think is being protected?

Look, I know you probably want to argue about this, and point fingers, and name names (even though we know all the names) I'm going to digress on this... you and I are probably going to agree on some things from a policy standpoint, and disagree on others...

Let's just say, if you are in the camp that doesn't believe that high level officials in both parties are hiding facts, running cover, silencing, and lying blatantly and publicly to protect influential people they deem necessary to gain / retain power... then we don't have anything to talk about, and we need not converse.

 

[Optimus Prime]

I don’t how you listen to this testimony and come away less convinced that something shady was going on

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I like to read as opposed to looking at pictures, and yes, support by Independents has dropped by 10%. Here's the caveat:

Poll: Support for impeachment inquiry ticks down

But slim pluralities support removing the president from office.

www.politico.com

Respondents who said they're following media coverage of the investigation, 57 percent, and those who said they've watched the public hearings thus far, 55 percent, were considerably more likely to support impeachment in the House. That could account for some of the uptick in opposition by independents — just over half said they aren't following media coverage of the inquiry, with 43 percent copping to not watching the public hearings at all.

It appears that their opinions on the matter is being shaped by their choice of media sources or just plain apathy.

 

[wardorican]

I like to read as opposed to looking at pictures, and yes, support by Independents has dropped by 10%. Here's the caveat:

Poll: Support for impeachment inquiry ticks down

But slim pluralities support removing the president from office.

www.politico.com

It appears that their opinions on the matter is being shaped by their choice of media sources or just plain apathy.

Polling was from the 15th until 17th. So, it doesn't include the last 3 days.

 

[Beach Friends]

I don’t how you listen to this testimony and come away less convinced that something shady was going on

IMO, the Democrats did what the Democrats often do - they overplayed their hand.

Schiff opening with his "parody" take on the transcript was a mistake. And then leading off with "heard it from a friend" witnesses contributed to fuel an impression that there is not much too this other than career diplomats getting their feelings hurt.

The fellows down at the VFW were digusted by Vindman. Whatever he may be, he's not a "soldier's soldier." His insistence that a civilian refer to him by his rank was a misstep. It probably would have been different if he was a Sergeant Major, but your rank and file guys don't have a lot of sympathy for officers demanding courtesy, especially when that officer is a career staff officer. The fact that he looks like he has pencil whipped every PT test for the last few years hurts. Vets also don't care for the fact he broke the chain of command. His excuse for not reporting to his boss fell flat.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Polling was from the 15th until 17th. So, it doesn't include the last 3 days.

Correct.

I first saw that image on another college sports forum and I followed their link to Daily Mail's website. The Daily Mail cherry picked Politico's numbers and created that chart. The Politico/Morning Consultant Poll didn't have any charts, the had a detailed poll regarding a wide variety of issues.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Look, I know you probably want to argue about this, and point fingers, and name names (even though we know all the names)...

I honestly don't know the names you are referring to when you say people are being protected.

You might be referring to Biden, but I can't imagine why you wouldn't just say that and I don't see how he's being protected by the House hearings. So, it seems to me that you are referring to other people.

I was just asking you for clarification of something you said.

 

[The moose]

Hey why don't we post the link from the article that graph came from.

That might be helpful

 

[SaintForLife]

McDonnell doesn't analyze "thing of value" (note that the statute that would apply to the Zelenksy matter. In Menendez, the district court refused to dismiss 201(b) charges that involved donations to a SuperPAC and donations to a legal defense fund because they were valuable to Menendez even though he wasn't the recipient. What's important about that is that while the exchange was for donations, the district court explained that the value to Menendez was that the SuperPAC's function was to try to get Menendez re-elected. That's not the same as purely financial value (as in, line the pockets).

The other charges against Menendez that were dismissed were on the "official act" prong - as the exchange related to Mendendez's possible future advocacy for the donor, should the opportunity arise.


I think you're right, at least for making the analogy to the federal criminal statute, that "anything of value" requires further analysis. It's not dispositive for impeachment purposes, but if 201(b) is going to be a guidepost, it's relevant. I'll have to spend some more time researching that point - and "thing of value" is used in other statutory schemes that could shed light on it.

But given the context and Trump's interest, I think we can all agree that it was obviously seen as valuable.

I won't claim to know much about those cases and how it applies to the bribery statute, but I think both you and Jim made some good points.

What did you think about Turely saying the Democrats prior claims about obstruction with the Russia investigation being debunked entirely because they didn't include it in the current impeachment?