The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (1 Viewer)

[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

 

[Nebaghead]

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.

In the Marine Corps, it’s disrespectful to address anyone without their rank. Officer or NCO.

 

[SaintForLife]

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.

Does that compare at all to how the DNC operative Chalupa got Ukraine to announce an investigation into Manafort before the election despite there being no investigation? Then as soon as the election was over they retracted the announcement. I understand that in one case its the DNC and the other case is the President, but otherwise do you see any similarities?

 

[The moose]

Does that compare at all to how the DNC operative Chalupa got Ukraine to announce an investigation into Manafort before the election despite there being no investigation? Then as soon as the election was over they retracted the announcement. I understand that in one case its the DNC and the other case is the President, but otherwise do you see any similarities?

Links brother!

Especially considering he is doing time for shady stuff in the Ukraine for gobs and gobs of Russian money.

 

[SaintForLife]

I didn't get the watch the hearing, but what was so damming about Sondland's testimony? Did he offer any evidence besides his "own presumption" that's referred to in this video?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

To preface pretty much every Republican defense so far has been ridiculous, but one of the more layered absurdist defenses today was the Republicans making a big deal out of Sondland not wanting to personally assert Trump was holding up military aid for political favors, just the official meetings.

I suppose there is some contorted logic at work there, Whom’s likely endgame involves claiming bribery is ok as long as the offer isn’t too grand, and I’m sure we will hear it through the Fox News proxies that will come out in the next few hours all over the web as the prime time gets into gear, but substantively that makes their other arguments far more problematic. As it actually implies Ukraine felt even more vulnerable and desperate that they were open to capitulating to something they had deep unease as Sondland and others testified, simply by withholding a White House visit to legitimize them amongst their people. Which undercuts the argument that Zelensky and the Ukrainians were giving an honest account in claiming they felt no pressure or their word in that regard can be taken at face value. When in fact they were so sensitive to pissing off America that even the withholding of a White House visit prompted them to offer up the deliverables. They felt completely at our mercy and Trump took advantage.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Does that compare at all to how the DNC operative Chalupa got Ukraine to announce an investigation into Manafort before the election despite there being no investigation? Then as soon as the election was over they retracted the announcement. I understand that in one case its the DNC and the other case is the President, but otherwise do you see any similarities?

For the sake of argument, let's say that you are 100% correct as to how that played out and that there is absolutely no difference. What does that mean for how we proceed with the impeachment hearing?

 

[SaintForLife]

Links brother!

Especially considering he is doing time for shady stuff in the Ukraine for gobs and gobs of Russian money.

Google is your friend brother!

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.

www.politico.com

 

[N.O.Bronco]

For the sake of argument, let's say that you are 100% correct as to how that played out and that there is absolutely no difference. What does that mean for how we proceed with the impeachment hearing?

I'll wait for the answer, but I suspect that like all past challenges to this logic, it basically involves ceding the rule of law or political accountability.

As it relies upon the notion that because person A that I don't like did B, Y that I do like should not be held accountable for Z, ad Infinitum. Therefore, the only logical endpoint involves no one being held to an account on anything unless it is punishing your political rival. Basically, it is an endorsement of the sort of illiberalism and deep corruption Republicans claim the president and themselves are concerned about in places like Ukraine but are instead conditioning their supporters to embrace at home.

 

[st dude]

As a former prosecutor most of my cases were a collection of witnesses and evidence to connect a criminal to a crime. I would have to explain to juries that I don’t have a video of the person smiling at the camera during the robbery. Such is the nature of bad deeds, the person committing the crime is doing everything he can not to get caught, conceal his acts and not leave a trail of evidence.

Trump knew what he was doing was wrong. He doesn’t use email. He has been obviously careful in a very transparent attempt to give him plausible deniability if he were to get caught.

The Republicans are insisting on an impossible burden of proof what amounts to a video of Trump admitting on camera holding up aid to Ukraine. That won’t happen.

There is more than enough evidence for an impartial jury to find Trump withheld aid for political pruooses. But we don’t have an impartial jury, we have a partisan jury. Sad as it sounds, I don’t think today changed a thing.

The house will impeach Trump. The Senate will acquit him. All we can really hope for is that the on the fence voters will intellectual integrity will see through the smoke screen and help vote Trump out.

Maybe the realistic goal all along for the democrats is not to have Trump impeached by the Senate with these proceedings, but rather to sway on the fence voters. I hope they are doing that and not swaying them the other way.

 

[SaintForLife]

It's my understanding that we are expected to link to our sources out of courtesy to one another.

So everything we reference in all of out posts requires a link now?

 

[samiam5211]

Google is your friend brother!

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.

www.politico.com

Yes, Trump was connected to the pro Russia forces of corruption in Ukraine even before he was elected. Manafort was Karl Rove to the Russian puppet that had been in charge of Ukraine.

It is only natural that Ukrainians who opposed Russian influence and corruption were sounding alarms that Trump was unfit for office.

Years after he was elected, they had almost given in to Trump’s corrupt practices, but the whistleblower prevented the president of Ukraine from selling out his principles for the security of his people.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

As a former prosecutor most of my cases were a collection of witnesses and evidence to connect a criminal to a crime. I would have to explain to juries that I don’t have a video of the person smiling at the camera during the robbery. Such is the nature of bad deeds, the person committing the crime is doing everything he can not to get caught, conceal his acts and not leave a trail of evidence.

Trump knew what he was doing was wrong. He doesn’t use email. He has been obviously careful in a very transparent attempt to give him plausible deniability if he were to get caught.

The Republicans are insisting on an impossible burden of proof what amounts to a video of Trump admitting on camera holding up aid to Ukraine. That won’t happen.

There is more than enough evidence for an impartial jury to find Trump withheld aid for political pruooses. But we don’t have an impartial jury, we have a partisan jury. Sad as it sounds, I don’t think today changed a thing.

The house will impeach Trump. The Senate will acquit him. All we can really hope for is that the on the fence voters will intellectual integrity will see through the smoke screen and help vote Trump out.

Maybe the realistic goal all along for the democrats is not to have Trump impeached by the Senate with these proceedings, but rather to sway on the fence voters. I hope they are doing that and not swaying them the other way.

There is a third angle, and some Democrats have expressed it well(particularly some purple state Dems), but it's message has not carried over to the zeitgeist writ large. But I think it is by far the most compelling on a core level.

Which is that this impeachment is really the only avenue to potentially check and dissuade the president of future abuses of power. While also re-assuring the career public servants that someone has their back and will not look the other way when their duty to the country becomes abridged by a corrupt office-holder. Thus signaling that future corruption should simply be tolerated because there is no one willing to check it.

As past evidence already shows, when the Mueller testimony was finished, and Trump received no real actions that would threaten his presidency, he almost immediately felt emboldened and now we have Ukraine.

And while a consuming public and stress-inducing impeachment process/trial that spotlights the dissatisfaction in his own ranks, but in the end will likely lead to exoneration, may not be enough of an additional pressure to compel Trump to think twice about abusing his office in the future, failing to do so - based on past evidence - will all but guarantee that outcome. While almost certainly demoralizing and perversely incentivizing the career public servants that are relied upon to uphold the norms and institutions this country relies upon.

 

[SaintForLife]

For the sake of argument, let's say that you are 100% correct as to how that played out and that there is absolutely no difference. What does that mean for how we proceed with the impeachment hearing?

Did I say it had anything to do with the impeachment hearings? Would you rather it not be mentioned at all? Do you see any similarities?

 

[superchuck500]

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?

I don’t see how it “debunks” anything - but I think there is a time element to it. Those activities were quite some time ago and it muddies the picture to try to rehash them now

The White House is now working this marketing pitch that the Democrats have been trying to impeach Trump his entire term - but that’s just spin. The Special Counsel investigation was a DOJ procedure. And it was launched when the GOP had the House and the Senate. The fact that the Democrats haven’t tried to bring that all in arguably shows they’re willing to let it go and focus on the more recent affairs.

 

[The moose]

Google is your friend brother!

Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire

Kiev officials are scrambling to make amends with the president-elect after quietly working to boost Clinton.

www.politico.com

Thanks just never read it or heard about it

Really we have had so many stories every day forever it is a full time job and I already have one of them.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Did I say it had anything to do with the impeachment hearings? Would you rather it not be mentioned at all? Do you see any similarities?

I assume it had some bearing on the impeachment, given the thread topic.

Do you believe that the impeachment proceedings are somehow invalidated because of the DNC's actions that you mentioned?

 

[superchuck500]

As a former prosecutor most of my cases were a collection of witnesses and evidence to connect a criminal to a crime. I would have to explain to juries that I don’t have a video of the person smiling at the camera during the robbery. Such is the nature of bad deeds, the person committing the crime is doing everything he can not to get caught, conceal his acts and not leave a trail of evidence.

Trump knew what he was doing was wrong. He doesn’t use email. He has been obviously careful in a very transparent attempt to give him plausible deniability if he were to get caught.

The Republicans are insisting on an impossible burden of proof what amounts to a video of Trump admitting on camera holding up aid to Ukraine. That won’t happen.

There is more than enough evidence for an impartial jury to find Trump withheld aid for political pruooses. But we don’t have an impartial jury, we have a partisan jury. Sad as it sounds, I don’t think today changed a thing.

The house will impeach Trump. The Senate will acquit him. All we can really hope for is that the on the fence voters will intellectual integrity will see through the smoke screen and help vote Trump out.

Maybe the realistic goal all along for the democrats is not to have Trump impeached by the Senate with these proceedings, but rather to sway on the fence voters. I hope they are doing that and not swaying them the other way.

And let’s be clear, Trump, Giuliani, Mulvaney, and Bolton all clearly have direct knowledge of these events - and are refusing to testify.

It bears mentioning that hearsay is admissible evidence when the declarant is refusing to testify and the content of the alleged statements are contrary to the declarant’s interest.

 

[st dude]

And let’s be clear, Trump, Giuliani, Mulvaney, and Bolton all clearly have direct knowledge of these events - and are refusing to testify.

It bears mentioning that hearsay is admissible evidence when the declarant is refusing to testify and the content of the alleged statements are contrary to the declarant’s interest.

I have gotten convictions using circumstantial evidence alone. There is a jury charge that says you can consider circumstantial evidence if it rises to the level of excluding reasonable doubt.

But I still do not think it makes a difference. If Trump admitted quid pro quo the republican Senate would not impeach him. They would either say everyone does it or that he shouldn’t have done it but it’s not impeachable.

I have zero faith that Republican congressmen will stand up to Trump, zero. It would be political suicide and they have shown time and time again they value their jobs over their integrity.

I try so hard to be balanced and fair and look at things through different lenses. I don’t necessarily think democrats have this great moral compass Republicans lack. But in the case of Donald Trump, I can’t help but think most republican congressmen know he is an awful person and awful president, but self preservation keeps them from saying so.

We know that to be true. We saw them go after Trump before he got elected. Graham and Cruz were his biggest detractors. I have zero respect for these guys.