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

 

[MT15]

It doesn't matter what Trump thinks or whether he cooperates or not. A full House vote would legitimize the process because the way it's being conducted right now seems arbitrary and partisan, as well as a poorly-disguised attempt at not making House members put their vote on record for beginning an impeachment inquiry. The optics on this are horrible and if Pelosi and Schiff continue down this path of unilateralism and secrecy the voters will not forget in 2020.

What has been done secretly?

I will admit this is a political calculation from democratic leadership because they know they are not required to have a vote to open the inquiry. It’s no different than what the republicans would do in the same position, and then it would be the democrats posturing about the lack of vote. Shoot, the Senate has been avoiding having all sorts of votes for years now for political reasons.

The lack of vote doesn’t invalidate the inquiry nor does it give the President legal cover to obstruct the inquiry. This is what I mean by “ignore the noise and pay attention to the signal”. We have some pretty serious and credible allegations of wrongdoing. Let’s get to the bottom of it and ignore the political posturing from both sides.

 

[Beach Friends]

I don’t follow. I’m critical of him ignoring subpoenas from the House and blocking the testimony of witnesses.

I will say that I heard a lawyer on TV say that when you are defending a client and the facts aren’t in your favor, you tend to dwell on procedural complaints. I don’t know if that’s right or not, maybe one of our counselors will weigh in.

What I was saying is that you were critical of him saying that he would cooperate only if the process is fair.

And then you said that he doesn't get to judge the process in advance.

Isn't asking him to agree to cooperate before he sees the process asking him to judge the process in advance?

I really am glad he is taking that position, and I hope he continues to insist on a fair process.

We are on for a bumpy ride. It is only going to make things worse if the proceedings offend our traditional notions of fair play and due process.

 

[MT15]

No, expecting him to cooperate before seeing the process, whatever that means, is expecting him to not judge the process. The process is impeachment, and it’s basically laid out in the Constitution.

It’s his constitutional duty to cooperate. The Executive is subject to oversight from the House. It’s not up to him to judge whether it’s fair or not.

No administration ever thinks that oversight is fair and they have often had to be dragged into cooperating. But at least, until now, they knew that cooperation was eventually going to happen because of the constitution.

 

[Beach Friends]

No, expecting him to cooperate before seeing the process, whatever that means, is expecting him to not judge the process. The process is impeachment, and it’s basically laid out in the Constitution.

It’s his constitutional duty to cooperate. The Executive is subject to oversight from the House. It’s not up to him to judge whether it’s fair or not.

No administration ever thinks that oversight is fair and they have often had to be dragged into cooperating. But at least, until now, they knew that cooperation was eventually going to happen because of the constitution.

I don't think the POTUS has a constitutional duty to get railroaded by the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee. I don't blame him in the least for not agreeing to write a blank check agreeing to whatever and whenever. He has seen what Schiff and company are capable of trying to pull.

 

[Lazybones]

What has been done secretly?

I will admit this is a political calculation from democratic leadership because they know they are not required to have a vote to open the inquiry. It’s no different than what the republicans would do in the same position, and then it would be the democrats posturing about the lack of vote. Shoot, the Senate has been avoiding having all sorts of votes for years now for political reasons.

The lack of vote doesn’t invalidate the inquiry nor does it give the President legal cover to obstruct the inquiry. This is what I mean by “ignore the noise and pay attention to the signal”. We have some pretty serious and credible allegations of wrongdoing. Let’s get to the bottom of it and ignore the political posturing from both sides.

It’s hard to ignore the posturing, as it is all posturing.

 

[yuyi64]

We have some pretty serious and credible allegations of wrongdoing. Let’s get to the bottom of it and ignore the political posturing from both sides.

It's not difficult to make serious and credible allegations against anyone (especially a politician), yet that doesn't mean we should investigate every allegation or that the allegations are true. The so-called whistleblower doesn't even fit the generally-accepted definition of a whistle blower since he/she has no first-hand knowledge that a crime was committed. The hearsay nature of the complaint is laughable and would be thrown out of any court in a matter of seconds. The transcript of the Ukraine call that was the subject of the complaint is now public and so are the Volker texts, and neither show a crime was committed. Now you can get all partisan and say that in your view they show a crime, but no court would ever convict someone of a crime on such flimsy "evidence" and such a politically-convenient interpretation of that evidence. I know impeachment is not the same as a legal trial in a court of law, but if the courts would not convict someone of a crime based on such flimsy and subjective evidence than neither should we try to remove an elected official based on that same evidence.

 

[MT15]

It's not difficult to make serious and credible allegations against anyone (especially a politician), yet that doesn't mean we should investigate every allegation or that the allegations are true. The so-called whistleblower doesn't even fit the generally-accepted definition of a whistle blower since he/she has no first-hand knowledge that a crime was committed. The hearsay nature of the complaint is laughable and would be thrown out of any court in a matter of seconds. The transcript of the Ukraine call that was the subject of the complaint is now public and so are the Volker texts, and neither show a crime was committed. Now you can get all partisan and say that in your view they show a crime, but no court would ever convict someone of a crime on such flimsy "evidence" and such a politically-convenient interpretation of that evidence. I know impeachment is not the same as a legal trial in a court of law, but if the courts would not convict someone of a crime based on such flimsy and subjective evidence than neither should we try to remove an elected official based on that same evidence.

The IG and the Director both feel that the allegations are credible. There was already a “check” done and the complaint was judged credible.

And we’re not to the trial phase yet, we have a dim picture of what might have happened. Let’s find out what really happened.

And calling me partisan is great and all. The extent of my partisanship is a deep distrust of Trump. The man lies every time he opens his mouth. I recognize that I lost respect for him during the campaign and he has done nothing to earn it back. I see no redeeming traits to his character, but I’ve been making an honest effort to deal in facts in this case. I’m trying to avoid smearing the character of regular republicans and democrats alike, while recognizing this is a political process.

You should also reflect on your partisanship and how it might be coloring your own perceptions. There really isn’t anything laughable about the complaint. And I think you just said we shouldn’t investigate credible allegations.

 

[JRad]

He said he will cooperate “if he thinks the inquiry is fair”.

Tough, aggressive, alpha male Trump really likes to complain about how mean and unfair the weak snowflake libs are to him.

This is an investigation leading to a decision on an indictment, is it not? How “fair” is it to be indicted without an investigation? Because that’s what people seem to want to happen. I mean, If you’re innocent why are you hiding? I don’t care what farm animal is next to your name, the question still applies.

 

[yuyi64]

The IG and the Director both feel that the allegations are credible. There was already a “check” done and the complaint was judged credible.

And we’re not to the trial phase yet, we have a dim picture of what might have happened. Let’s find out what really happened.

And calling me partisan is great and all. The extent of my partisanship is a deep distrust of Trump. The man lies every time he opens his mouth. I recognize that I lost respect for him during the campaign and he has done nothing to earn it back. I see no redeeming traits to his character, but I’ve been making an honest effort to deal in facts in this case. I’m trying to avoid smearing the character of regular republicans and democrats alike, while recognizing this is a political process.

You should also reflect on your partisanship and how it might be coloring your own perceptions. There really isn’t anything laughable about the complaint. And I think you just said we shouldn’t investigate credible allegations.

Like I said in my earlier post, "credible" does not make it true or criminal and we can't keep chasing our tails investigating every "credible" allegation made by those that have no direct evidence that a crime was committed. Your zeal for continuing this Schiff Sham shows you're guilty of the same emotional response that you accuse Beach Friends of. You have yet to show where a crime was committed but you want the Schiff Sham to continue because of your "deep distrust" of Trump. That's not a valid reason for continuing the charade and disingenuously trying to overturn an election. Good luck convincing anyone other than your fellow Democratic partisans that you're "making an honest effort to deal in facts" while you continue to parrot Democratic talking points in every post.

 

[JRad]

trying to overturn an election

This is literally not a thing, and really needs to stop being parroted.

Can the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Be Annulled or 'Done Over'?

Some question the legitimacy of Trump's presidency, but the constitutional options for challenging the results of the 2016 election are few and complicated.

www.snopes.com

Can a U.S. election be overturned for foreign interference?

Can a U.S. election be overturned due to foreign interference? In the last U.S. election, people were concerned that Russia played a significant role in getting Donald Trump elected, so I was wonde...

law.stackexchange.com

Could we reverse a hacked presidential election?

The Constitution provides no clear answer — and we need a solution.

www.vox.com

Trump could present full evidence of rigging the election, sign a full confession, go to jail, and the election still would not be overturned. There is no such thing. So please just stop.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Wait, I thought we had agreed that it was important that these proceedings be carried out with fairness so as to mitigate their devisiveness?

Right, so what I was asking is what does that look like from a procedural standpoint? We can debate motives all day.... But we're not inside any of theses actors heads to know for sure. That's why we have rules and procedures. Does an investigation prior to indictment require a full house vote? Why?

And so on... I'm trying to find specifically what yuyi finds unfair about this investigation.

 

[LA - L.A.]

No, not following closely at all. The full House voted in 1998 on whether to open an impeachment inquiry or not; they did not start a pseudo impeachment inquiry by a single committee prior to that vote. Also, two specific charges (lying under oath and obstruction of justice) were presented to the House prior to the vote to commence impeachment hearings, not an open-ended accusation of possible wrongdoing.

Before voting on opening a inquiry against Clinton, Kenneth Star was appointed as a Independent Counsel to investigate Clinton. The impeachment inquiry vote came after Star handed in his report.

Would you like to see an Independent Counsel appointed to investigate this matter instead of the House committees conducting their own investigations?

Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The only difference between the current process and the Clinton's is who is conducting the initial investigations.

 

[RobF]

There isn’t anything unconstitutional or illegitimate about the requests for documents or the requests for testimony. If everything he did is “perfect” just release the information. Let everyone see the evidence.

Right. And fundamentally, you cannot allow the subject of oversight to decide whether they're going to be subject to it or not. If you do that, you don't have oversight.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Like I said in my earlier post, "credible" does not make it true or criminal and we can't keep chasing our tails investigating every "credible" allegation made by those that have no direct evidence that a crime was committed. Your zeal for continuing this Schiff Sham shows you're guilty of the same emotional response that you accuse Beach Friends of. You have yet to show where a crime was committed but you want the Schiff Sham to continue because of your "deep distrust" of Trump. That's not a valid reason for continuing the charade and disingenuously trying to overturn an election. Good luck convincing anyone other than your fellow Democratic partisans that you're "making an honest effort to deal in facts" while you continue to parrot Democratic talking points in every post.

So this circles right back to this post you refused to give me an answer on yuyi.

I’ll just refresh your memory:


The constitution specifically lists bribery as an impeachable offense. However, no federal statute existed at the time to tie criminality to bribery, which on the one hand further dispels the notion that impeachment need be tied to criminal statute, but furthermore, the lack of a statute defaults the definition of bribery to that of English law, and English law at the time pretty clearly articulates bribery to be an officeholder’s abuse of the power of an office to obtain a private benefit rather than for the public interest.

And it's pretty hard to argue that an administration that saw a call with no obvious national security implications as necessitating a code level classification that wasn't even used on post 9-11 discussions or the overwhelming majority of foreign state presidential calls as anything but an implicit acknowledgment that what transpired was not in service of official US business or the public interest.

So, you have an administration that clearly understood the president's behavior was not in accord with official duty, a constitution that spells out bribery in the context of an abuse of power outside of the pursuit of the public interest...then you have you all claiming thats not an impeachable offense. It's not adding up?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

This is literally not a thing, and really needs to stop being parroted.

Can the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Be Annulled or 'Done Over'?

Some question the legitimacy of Trump's presidency, but the constitutional options for challenging the results of the 2016 election are few and complicated.

www.snopes.com

Can a U.S. election be overturned for foreign interference?

Can a U.S. election be overturned due to foreign interference? In the last U.S. election, people were concerned that Russia played a significant role in getting Donald Trump elected, so I was wonde...

law.stackexchange.com

Could we reverse a hacked presidential election?

The Constitution provides no clear answer — and we need a solution.

www.vox.com

Trump could present full evidence of rigging the election, sign a full confession, go to jail, and the election still would not be overturned. There is no such thing. So please just stop.

It’s also just true that the “people” didn’t vote for Trump, and when Trump made the mid-terms about him, they voted in Democrats to hold a check on Trump.

Also, that pesky constitution and being a co-equal branch of government and all that. With these powers explicitly granted to congress and the House.

 

[yuyi64]

Can the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Be Annulled or 'Done Over'?

Some question the legitimacy of Trump's presidency, but the constitutional options for challenging the results of the 2016 election are few and complicated.

www.snopes.com

Can a U.S. election be overturned for foreign interference?

Can a U.S. election be overturned due to foreign interference? In the last U.S. election, people were concerned that Russia played a significant role in getting Donald Trump elected, so I was wonde...

law.stackexchange.com

Could we reverse a hacked presidential election?

The Constitution provides no clear answer — and we need a solution.

www.vox.com

All true, yet the Democrats keep trying repeatedly. After this latest Schiff Sham fizzles out, what will they try next?

 

[Lazybones]

This is literally not a thing, and really needs to stop being parroted.

Can the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election Be Annulled or 'Done Over'?

Some question the legitimacy of Trump's presidency, but the constitutional options for challenging the results of the 2016 election are few and complicated.

www.snopes.com

Can a U.S. election be overturned for foreign interference?

Can a U.S. election be overturned due to foreign interference? In the last U.S. election, people were concerned that Russia played a significant role in getting Donald Trump elected, so I was wonde...

law.stackexchange.com

Could we reverse a hacked presidential election?

The Constitution provides no clear answer — and we need a solution.

www.vox.com

Trump could present full evidence of rigging the election, sign a full confession, go to jail, and the election still would not be overturned. There is no such thing. So please just stop.

I don’t think overturn is being used that way. Basically since the dems did not approve of who and how he was elected, they have worked for three years to try and get him out of office or as being said, overturn the election.

 

[yuyi64]

It’s also just true that the “people” didn’t vote for Trump, and when Trump made the mid-terms about him, they voted in Democrats to hold a check on Trump.

Also, that pesky constitution and being a co-equal branch of government and all that. With these powers explicitly granted to congress and the House.

Not only did the people vote for him, they elected him President the way the Constitution requires. You many not like the Electoral College process but it's the way we elect our President. Who's flaunting the Constitution now, or are you just engaging in your usual demagoguery?