The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (22 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

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

If there was, I'm just curious where the goal post would be moved next.

“How did you not hear the sarcasm font in his voice?”

 

[brandon]

Further, why is the asking for the investigation into the issue of Ukraine's involvement in the 2016 election not at issue?

Because asking the Ukrainian government to investigate Ukrainian activities is a reasonable request. American law enforcement investigates American crimes, and the Ukrainian government investigates Ukrainian crimes.

Asking the Ukrainian government to investigate an American political opponent for personal gain is not a reasonable request.

 

[JimEverett]

Because asking the Ukrainian government to investigate Ukrainian activities is a reasonable request.

Asking the Ukrainian government to investigate an American political opponent for personal gain is not.

1. The investigation was to be of a Ukranian comapany;

2. The point is why is there no fuss about the investigation of potential corruption in the manner of the 2016 election? And even more to the point - is the asking of such an investigation a proper exercise of Executive power?

 

[JimEverett]

Joe the people that Trump directly communicated with about this scheme are largely being prevented from testifying by Trump. Trump is also refusing to release any of the requested documents.

If Pompeo, Mulvaney, Pence, etc, could exonerate the President, you can bet he would have them down there testifying in a flat minute. Same with the documents. If they exonerated the President they would be released.

Even still, we have testimony about how, when Sondland called Trump, the first question out of his mouth was “Is he going to announce the investigation?” And Sondland’s remark right after the call that Trump doesn’t care about Ukraine, only getting dirt on Biden.

We also know that Joe Biden didn’t do anything illegal or even unethical in Ukraine. He carried out official US policy that was in the interest of our national security. Not for his or his son’s personal gain.

Why do you think these career government servants, several of whom have loyally served this country under more than one Republican President, came forward now, and defied a State Department request that they defy lawful subpoenas? They risked their careers, in their own words, because they have a duty to tell the truth.

That seems to me to be a very very weak argument. It is like "Why don't you talk to the police if you are innocent?"

Do you think Obama fighting Congressional subpoenas in the Fast and Furious gun case showed evidence of his guilt in the matter?

 

[brandon]

1. The investigation was to be of a Ukranian comapany;

2. The point is that why is there no fuss about the investigation of potential corruption in the manner of the 2016 election? And even more to the point - is the asking of such an investigation a proper exercise of Executive power?

Sure. I’d say if Trump really thinks the Ukrainians meddled in our 2016 election, it’s his duty to ask them to investigate. It’s in the interests of American national security.

Asking them to investigate his political rivals for personal gain is not in the interests of anyone but himself.

 

[JimEverett]

Sure. I’d say if Trump really thinks the Ukrainians meddled in our 2016 election, it’s his duty to ask them to investigate. It’s in the interests of American national security.

Asking them to investigate his political rivals for personal gain is not in the interests of anyone but himself.

Pelosi's position is that the investigation into the Ukraine's role is a sham investigation. But, presumably, not illegal. What is the difference? Certainly such investigation can be seen a politically beneficial to Trump, right?

And are all investigations that touch upon political rivals illegal and thus worthy of removal from office? What about the Obama Administration's investigation of the Trump campaign activities?

But more to the point - it becomes important to talk about "why didn't Trump show interest in Ukranian corruption before . . . " precisely because it is and always had been assumed that such a concern is within the proper discretion of an Executive. It seems to still be given that there re no calls to impeach based on the demand for an investigation into Ukranian activities in the 2016 election.

 

[Dragon]

Pelosi's position is that the investigation into the Ukraine's role is a sham investigation. But, presumably, not illegal. What is the difference? Certainly such investigation can be seen a politically beneficial to Trump, right?

And are all investigations that touch upon political rivals illegal and thus worthy of removal from office? What about the Obama Administration's investigation of the Trump campaign activities?

But more to the point - it becomes important to talk about "why didn't Trump show interest in Ukranian corruption before . . . " precisely because it is and always had been assumed that such a concern is within the proper discretion of an Executive. It seems to still be given that there re no calls to impeach based on the demand for an investigation into Ukranian activities in the 2016 election.

There are lots of evidence of russian interaction with the Trump campaign. Meetings in New york - Trumps own words asking Russia to "find those emails"

There is also lots of evidence of Trump pushing for the announcement of the investigation in Ukraine. Again - including his own words

There is absolutely NO evidence showing that Ukraine had anything to do with the 2016 election interference, but lots and lots of evidence for Russia being the culprit.

There is also NO evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens

 

[JimEverett]

There are lots of evidence of russian interaction with the Trump campaign. Meetings in New york - Trumps own words asking Russia to "find those emails"

There is also lots of evidence of Trump pushing for the announcement of the investigation in Ukraine. Again - including his own words

There is absolutely NO evidence showing that Ukraine had anything to do with the 2016 election interference, but lots and lots of evidence for Russia being the culprit.

There is also NO evidence of any wrongdoing by the Bidens

Fine, so you agree with Pelosi that such an investigation is a "sham"

So why not impeach Trump over it?

 

[JimEverett]

Maybe this will make part of my point clearer:

A. Investigate Burisma and Hunter Biden's role;

B. Investigate Ukrainian activities in the 2016 election;

C. Investigate Trump campaign in 2016

Why is A improper use of Executive power and, presumably, illegal; while B is just a sham investigation, but presumably not illegal (or at least not impeachable); while C is both legal and proper?

I understand I am ignoring the other major aspect - the withholding of aid, but I am trying to stick to just this one topic now.

 

[Dragon]

Maybe this will make part of my point clearer:

A. Investigate Burisma and Hunter Biden's role;

B. Investigate Ukrainian activities in the 2016 election;

C. Investigate Trump campaign in 2016

Why is A improper use of Executive power and, presumably, illegal; while B is just a sham investigation, but presumably not illegal (or at least not impeachable); while C is both legal and proper?

I understand I am ignoring the other major aspect - the withholding of aid, but I am trying to stick to just this one topic now.

Why should A and B be investigated? Based on what ? What would you tell a judge if you should ask for a warrant? You can't just say.. Oh I think someone may have done something without adding supporting evidence as well

C. Based on Trumps own words, reports from multiple western intelligense services as well as a certain meeting in Trump tower

 

[JimEverett]

Why should A and B be investigated? Based on what ? What would you tell a judge if you should ask for a warrant? You can't just say.. Oh I think someone may have done something without adding supporting evidence as well

C. Based on Trumps own words, reports from multiple western intelligense services as well as a certain meeting in Trump tower

The idea that proper use of executive power in conducting foreign affairs depends in any way on warrants and judges is really foreign to the idea of that power in the U.S.

 

[FullMonte]

Maybe this will make part of my point clearer:

A. Investigate Burisma and Hunter Biden's role;

B. Investigate Ukrainian activities in the 2016 election;

C. Investigate Trump campaign in 2016

Why is A improper use of Executive power and, presumably, illegal; while B is just a sham investigation, but presumably not illegal (or at least not impeachable); while C is both legal and proper?

I understand I am ignoring the other major aspect - the withholding of aid, but I am trying to stick to just this one topic now.

I think this brings up the big problem with this whole thing.

No one is saying that Burisma and Hunter Biden should not be investigated if there is a legitimate concern for that, and no one is saying that Trump wanting Hunter Biden to be investigated for wrongdoing would be wrong if it was based on a legitimate concern that he did something illegal.

What people are saying is that there appears to be no legitimate concern that Hunter Biden had anything to do with any activities involving Burisma, based on:
--Trump's apparent desire for Zelensky to make a public announcement
--The lack of a DOJ investigation into Hunter Biden
--The fact that the activities Burisma was being investigated for occurred before Hunter Biden was added to the board

If anyone in this administration were able to articulate the credible allegations of what it is that Hunter Biden did wrong, things might be different.

As far as the differences between your three scenarios, let me make an analogy:

New Orleans has a new mayor, and that mayor is nearing the end of his first term. He's got about a year to go, and NOPD gets a new Sheriff. The mayor speaks with the new sheriff and says, "Welcome aboard, I'm sure you are aware that your department has a history of corruption. I trust that you will take corruption seriously, and make sure that everything is on the up and up." I doubt anyone would have a problem with that. Now, imagine instead, that the mayor says, "Look, I'm sure you are aware that your department has a history of corruption. I'd like you to look into Detective John Smith, who is about to run against me, and while you are looking into him, I will be meeting with the city council to work on your department's new budget. Contact my personal attorney when you find something." I'm sure you can see how that doesn't have a good look.

 

[JimEverett]

I think this brings up the big problem with this whole thing.

No one is saying that Burisma and Hunter Biden should not be investigated if there is a legitimate concern for that, and no one is saying that Trump wanting Hunter Biden to be investigated for wrongdoing would be wrong if it was based on a legitimate concern that he did something illegal.

What people are saying is that there appears to be no legitimate concern that Hunter Biden had anything to do with any activities involving Burisma, based on:
--Trump's apparent desire for Zelensky to make a public announcement
--The lack of a DOJ investigation into Hunter Biden
--The fact that the activities Burisma was being investigated for occurred before Hunter Biden was added to the board

If anyone in this administration were able to articulate the credible allegations of what it is that Hunter Biden did wrong, things might be different.

As far as the differences between your three scenarios, let me make an analogy:

New Orleans has a new mayor, and that mayor is nearing the end of his first term. He's got about a year to go, and NOPD gets a new Sheriff. The mayor speaks with the new sheriff and says, "Welcome aboard, I'm sure you are aware that your department has a history of corruption. I trust that you will take corruption seriously, and make sure that everything is on the up and up." I doubt anyone would have a problem with that. Now, imagine instead, that the mayor says, "Look, I'm sure you are aware that your department has a history of corruption. I'd like you to look into Detective John Smith, who is about to run against me, and while you are looking into him, I will be meeting with the city council to work on your department's new budget. Contact my personal attorney when you find something." I'm sure you can see how that doesn't have a good look.

The problem I have with what you are saying is the "legitimate concern." Who is the arbiter of "legitimacy"?

Further, Most Democrats are calling the investigation into Ukranian influence of the 2016 election "illegitimate" or something along those lines. Yet, I don't think there is a demand for legal action over it. There certainly isn't a call to impeach over it.

Why not? I think it is because there is a recognition that the demand or request for such an investigation is a proper exercise of Executive power - right? How else could it not be?


Now, does adding the element of investigating a company with ties to the Bidens change the lawfulness, or the propriety of the use of power? If yes, how so?

I understand your analogy, and agree that it looks bad on its face. At the same time, there are often local and state laws that specifically address such actions. There is nothing in the Constitution that so limits Executive action in conducting foreign policy.

 

[FullMonte]

The problem I have with what you are saying is the "legitimate concern." Who is the arbiter of "legitimacy"?

Well...I'm sure there are layers of grey when it comes to determining what is legitimate. But, so far, the allegations by Trump's most ardent supporters is that Hunter Biden was corrupt and his father refused to give aid to Ukraine until the fired the prosecutor who was looking into it. That's it. Hunter Biden was corrupt. We'd be much more on the road to determining legitimacy if there was some actual evidence of any wrongdoing by Hunter Biden being put out there.

Further, Most Democrats are calling the investigation into Ukranian influence of the 2016 election "illegitimate" or something along those lines. Yet, I don't think there is a demand for legal action over it. There certainly isn't a call to impeach over it.

Why not? I think it is because there is a recognition that the demand or request for such an investigation is a proper exercise of Executive power - right? How else could it not be?

I understand that. But, it appears that our intelligence agencies have all determined that it was Russia that interfered in our 2016 election, and there has been nothing out there to show an actual coordinated attempt by the Ukranian government to aid Hillary Clinton. There appears to be some allegations that some Ukranian individuals may have favored Hillary and took some actions to help her, and if there is credible evidence against those individuals, then someone should investigate them. But, to this point, have we seen any evidence that the Ukranian government itself was behind those actions?

Now, does adding the element of investigating a company with ties to the Bidens change the lawfulness, or the propriety of the use of power? If yes, how so?

Well, for starters, if someone were asking for an investigation into Burisma for something, and they just happened to be tied to the Bidens, that would be one thing. But, it appears on the surface to be an attempt to look into the Bidens, and they found a company that they were tied to. To look at it differently, what is it that Burisma (as a company) is suspected of doing that the US has a vested interest in uncovering, but that the US isn't going to actively aid with investigating?

I understand your analogy, and agree that it looks bad on its face. At the same time, there are often local and state laws that specifically address such actions. There is nothing in the Constitution that so limits Executive action in conducting foreign policy.

Doesn't the Constitution provide for the House to investigate and impeach the president if he abuses his position?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Maybe this will make part of my point clearer:

A. Investigate Burisma and Hunter Biden's role;

B. Investigate Ukrainian activities in the 2016 election;

C. Investigate Trump campaign in 2016

Why is A improper use of Executive power and, presumably, illegal; while B is just a sham investigation, but presumably not illegal (or at least not impeachable); while C is both legal and proper?

I understand I am ignoring the other major aspect - the withholding of aid, but I am trying to stick to just this one topic now.

Probable Cause???

(A) Where is the PC in investigating the Bidens re Burisima? VP Bidens role in getting Shokin fired was exercised well within established US national interest. It was also the opinion of other western nations.

(B) Go for it. I'm not sure what the allegations against the Ukrainian government are, but have fun.
Keywords: Ukrainian Government

Not some DNC operative (American, btw) seeking opo research, what are the allegations against the Ukrainian government?

(C) The PC with the Trump campaign has been well documented, whether you believe the sources or not, there was plenty of Probable Cause for an investigation.

 

[st dude]

I am a generally positive thinking person. My kids have been pretty freaked out by Trump and how divided the country is. I have to remind them, and remind myself, our country has been through many rough and divisive times during my lifetime, including race riots and Vietnam war protests and riots. We recovered from that and will recover from this.

But I do feel beat down this time, maybe it’s just my age. I was raised in a family where civility was taught and was important. It’s not so much Trump insulting and belittling people with his crudeness and spiteful nature that is wearing me out. It’s how so many people, including friends of mine, who are okay with it that worries and confounds me.

I have mixed feelings on impeachment, mostly I would have preferred to vote Trump out. During the hearings impeachment seemed the right way to go with a number of witnesses coming forward, at great risk, to do the right thing.

Alas, (I never say alas but it seems the right word here), it will be to no avail. Trump was right. He could murder someone on 5th Avenue and his supporters would stay with him.

Bolton can come forward and testify Trump ordered aid withheld for political reasons and it won’t move the needle at all. His supporters don’t care what he did.

I am just beat down and discouraged. I do still think he loses the election, but I am not so sure now. Whatever will be will be. I will survive it as will my kids. But I have lost a bit of faith in humanity I don’t know I’ll ever recover. Watching good people applaud the most rude, uncivil and selfish president we have ever had is the hardest part for me.

 

[Dragon]

The idea that proper use of executive power in conducting foreign affairs depends in any way on warrants and judges is really foreign to the idea of that power in the U.S.

I asked what evidence would justify such an investigation? If there is none, then Pelosi is right and this is just a sham and a way to further Trumps personal agenda.

 

[JimEverett]

Well...I'm sure there are layers of grey when it comes to determining what is legitimate. But, so far, the allegations by Trump's most ardent supporters is that Hunter Biden was corrupt and his father refused to give aid to Ukraine until the fired the prosecutor who was looking into it. That's it. Hunter Biden was corrupt. We'd be much more on the road to determining legitimacy if there was some actual evidence of any wrongdoing by Hunter Biden being put out there.

That strikes me as making the Congressional oversight role one that is overly political. What Republicans might see as evidence of corruption, Democrats may see nothing. But even beyond that, why should a demand on a foreign power require any sort of evidence as a matter of determining lawfulness under the Constitution?

I understand that. But, it appears that our intelligence agencies have all determined that it was Russia that interfered in our 2016 election, and there has been nothing out there to show an actual coordinated attempt by the Ukranian government to aid Hillary Clinton. There appears to be some allegations that some Ukranian individuals may have favored Hillary and took some actions to help her, and if there is credible evidence against those individuals, then someone should investigate them. But, to this point, have we seen any evidence that the Ukranian government itself was behind those actions?

So, why not impeach on that demand? I think the answer is obvious - the demand is a lawful exercise of Executive power. Which brings back the question - what differentiates that demand from the one on Burisma?

Well, for starters, if someone were asking for an investigation into Burisma for something, and they just happened to be tied to the Bidens, that would be one thing. But, it appears on the surface to be an attempt to look into the Bidens, and they found a company that they were tied to. To look at it differently, what is it that Burisma (as a company) is suspected of doing that the US has a vested interest in uncovering, but that the US isn't going to actively aid with investigating?

You seem to be sort of getting at what I am bothered by (buy maybe not - I am not trying to put words in your mouth), although clearly leaning to the other side than I am: its a move that on its face is a proper exercise of Executive power but the motivations for it seem personal. That is what seems weak about claiming that the demand itself lacks propriety or perhaps is even illegal in some sense.



Doesn't the Constitution provide for the House to investigate and impeach the president if he abuses his position?
[/QUOTE]