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

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

“The only legitimate claims are those that can be supported with proof which shows the claim to be true.”

This doesn’t appear to be the standard the Democrats are operating under.

1. Mueller
2. Kavanaugh
3. Steele dossier
4. And now this

I always find it fascinating when people claim the Mueller report exonerated the President or showed there was nothing there. It point blank said that the Trump campaig was receptive to Russian help and then Trump directed his people to lie to investigators about it.

 

[yuyi64]

It's pretty obvious that neither side of this debate is going to convince the other one on whether a crime was committed or not and on the validity of the Schiff investigation. The supposed "victim" of the extortion, the President of Ukraine, has already stated publicly and unequivocally several times that no extortion took place and he never felt pressured by Trump or anyone within the administration to dig up dirt on the Bidens. Therefore based on that declaration, the call transcript, and the Volker texts I feel comfortable in believing that no crime occurred. Those that see a crime behind every tweet, call, or text will continue to say that a crime was committed and nothing will change that. All I can say is please continue encouraging this crazy behavior from your Representatives because it's the surest way for the Democrats to lose the House in 2020, not to mention any realistic chance of retaking the White House.

 

[Lazybones]

Actually it does look like it's the standard being used:

1. Mueller - proved obstruction of justice
2. Kavanaugh - White House obstructed FBI vetting investigation
3. Steele dossier - many things from it have been proven true
4. And now this - ongoing investigation and Trump himself openly admitted and provided proof that he asked foreign government for campaign assistance

1. Mueller cited obstruction. So nothing he was investigating produced anything, he just got stonewalled and wasn’t able to roll over Trump

2. The kavanaugh was absolutely shameful. I hope people who participated in these shameless attacks have nightmares.

3. The Steele dossier. Propaganda paid for by one party for lies about an opposing candidate. (This was acceptable though, just because). And you say that some of it was true and most of it was made up lies which led to a bogus investigation.

4. We should just call this part 2 of a 6 part mini series.

 

[JimEverett]

It's pretty obvious that neither side of this debate is going to convince the other one on whether a crime was committed or not and on the validity of the Schiff investigation. The supposed "victim" of the extortion, the President of Ukraine, has already stated publicly and unequivocally several times that no extortion took place and he never felt pressured by Trump or anyone within the administration to dig up dirt on the Bidens. Therefore based on that declaration, the call transcript, and the Volker texts I feel comfortable in believing that no crime occurred. Those that see a crime behind every tweet, call, or text will continue to say that a crime was committed and nothing will change that. All I can say is please continue encouraging this crazy behavior from your Representatives because it's the surest way for the Democrats to lose the House in 2020, not to mention any realistic chance of retaking the White House.

Interesting - just looked up the Ukranian President's remarks.
If there is no quid pro quo here then what would be the illegal act? An election law violation? Or is there something more?
From what I have seen so far there doesn't seem to be enough to say the request was related to the election. For one thing, Biden is not even Trump's opponent.

Still, I want to know Trump's/the White House's reason for having Giuliani so involved.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

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?

Remind me what the popular vote split was again?

You can say he won, you can't say the people chose him.


Are you ever going to answer my actual challenge though?

You have spent a lot of time avoiding it, continuing to assert proving a crime is a requirement for impeachment(which he has already committed mind you), yet that premise has been challenged, I think it's time you quit evading and answer the challenge or admit this has nothing to do with criminality otherwise you would have abandoned Trump when he was named an unindicted co-conspirator in felony campaign finance violations.

 

[Beach Friends]

You can say he won, you can't say the people chose him.

Of course he can say Trump won, can you?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Of course he can say Trump won, can you?

You literally quoted the part where I said it slick..

"You can say he won" (implying that is true) "you can't say the people chose him" (also true).

Any other gems on offer that attempt to subvert a conversation into one step removed personal attacks? Something I thought this board was attempting to avoid?

 

[Beach Friends]

You literally quoted the part where I said it slick..

"You can say he won" (implying that is true) "you can't say the people chose him" (also true).

Any other gems on offer that attempt to subvert a conversation into one step removed personal attacks? Something I thought this board was attempting to avoid?

I didn't mean it as an attack. When someone says, "you can say...." it's sometimes the rough equivalent of "you can make the argument."

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I didn't mean it as an attack. When someone says, "you can say...." it's sometimes the rough equivalent of "you can make the argument."

I hear you, but I'm pretty blunt, and I think most know that. You can make that argument, and it would be correct. He won. Based on rules that don't defer to the popular vote.

And because of that, you can't say with any truth that the people chose him. As they objectively didn't. Neither directly in 2016, or when he made it a referendum on himself in 2018.

He won, he might again, but it will also likely be without the support of the majority of voting Americans. As at no point in his administration have a majority of people been behind him.

And in a larger context, it is an indictment on the failings in American democracy that so much of our governance can be determined outside of the will of the people.

 

[Beach Friends]

On the other hand, candidates for POTUS understand how the elections are decided and they campaign accordingly.

I am sure everyone is familiar with the football analogy of yards vs. points.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

On the other hand, candidates for POTUS understand how the elections are decided and they campaign accordingly.

I am sure everyone is familiar with the football analogy of yards vs. points.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with my contention.

Your friend wanted to assert that the people chose Trump, they did not. They have never. He won, but that is because we have a system that does not care what the will of the people choose. It cares about how a technocratic system designed specifically to overrule the will of the people decides. A technocratic system that on its own premises never really functioned as intended. And had it did, probably wouldn't have elected Trump either.

 

[wardorican]

It sounds like you would like to see more of a bipartisan approach to this matter. At the very least, you seem to be interested in reflection on how our biases shape our views on this matter - presumably so that we can overcome those biases.

IMO, a good first step toward those goals would be take steps toward reassuring Trump supporters that the process will be fair and consistent with precedents that have been set in the past.

Does that seem reasonable?

Well, if that is the case, then instead of having committees investigate into the situation, they should hire an Independent Counsel to levy recommendations of Impeachment, then start the Congressional Process in the House. Since, unlike with Clinton, I doubt the US Attorney General is going to start it.

Let's keep in mind, precedent was Bill Clinton's pre-presidential financial dealings with Whitewater being investigated by an independent counsel for 3-4 years, into multiple subjects. It lead to the sexual harassment lawsuit of Paula Jones, which lead to Linda Tripp calling Starr letting him know about a secret affair regarding Monica Lewinsky.. while in sworn deposition, about Paula Jones.. Starr "gets him" by stating he had no sexual relations "with that woman".

Report to Congress, Congress releases to the public, Starr when out of his way to make it more scandalous and racy.

Then start the House proceedings...yadda, yadda, yadda.

I mean, I think what the house is doing is much quieter, and the allegation is already out in the public and confirmed by the White House. At most, we have an argument about intent, but it's legally / ethically questionable. I'm sure many lawyers cringed when they heard it.

The Republicans aren't mutes. They can at least participate. And I'm sure, minus the bluster for the TV, I'm sure some are taking a serious look. There's no need to play defense yet. it's just collect whatever verifiable information you can. Then, there will be more discussions and some level of "defense", but not really until it goes to the Senate.

The "financial" irregularities of White Water seem to pale to one of the various initial allegations against Trump (that was true), that he paid off a porn star to keep quiet about having sex (a campaign violation), and Lord knows how many financial transgressions..Even if you want to say they're equal, Clinton sure got rail roaded. You wonder why the WH lawyers won't dare to let him speak "under oath". yikes.

 

[Beach Friends]

Well, if that is the case, then instead of having committees investigate into the situation, they should hire an Independent Counsel to levy recommendations of Impeachment, then start the Congressional Process in the House. Since, unlike with Clinton, I doubt the US Attorney General is going to start it.

Let's keep in mind, precedent was Bill Clinton's pre-presidential financial dealings with Whitewater being investigated by an independent counsel for 3-4 years, into multiple subjects. It lead to the sexual harassment lawsuit of Paula Jones, which lead to Linda Tripp calling Starr letting him know about a secret affair regarding Monica Lewinsky.. while in sworn deposition, about Paula Jones.. Starr "gets him" by stating he had no sexual relations "with that woman".

Report to Congress, Congress releases to the public, Starr when out of his way to make it more scandalous and racy.

Then start the House proceedings...yadda, yadda, yadda.

I mean, I think what the house is doing is much quieter, and the allegation is already out in the public and confirmed by the White House. At most, we have an argument about intent, but it's legally / ethically questionable. I'm sure many lawyers cringed when they heard it.

The Republicans aren't mutes. They can at least participate. And I'm sure, minus the bluster for the TV, I'm sure some are taking a serious look. There's no need to play defense yet. it's just collect whatever verifiable information you can. Then, there will be more discussions and some level of "defense", but not really until it goes to the Senate.

The "financial" irregularities of White Water seem to pale to one of the various initial allegations against Trump (that was true), that he paid off a porn star to keep quiet about having sex (a campaign violation), and Lord knows how many financial transgressions..Even if you want to say they're equal, Clinton sure got rail roaded. You wonder why the WH lawyers won't dare to let him speak "under oath". yikes.

I don't know for certain, but I don't think that the Democrats have indicated any desire for an independent counsel.

You say that the Republicans are not mute, but my impression is that, at least initially, Schiff did not want the Republicans to ask any questions of the witness the other day. It wasn't obvious to me that they ever did - but I could have missed something.

It was also my impression that Schiff and company released some of the evidence, but refused to release evidence that the GOP wanted released. If I am correct, it is grossly unfair.

IMO, we can be fairly certain there are going to be leaks - Congress always leaks.

Currently, this is a battle to sway public opinion. If standard operating procedure is going to be to rush to the press at the close of business each day, and I think we all know that is the case, then fairness dictates that the GOP is allowed to challenge the evidence, and that includes having the power to issue subpoenas and call witnesses to for rebuttal and to challenge the credibility of witnesses.

If the Democrats can conduct an informal inquiry with rules slanted in their favor, why would be in any hurry to depart from that sweet deal and call a vote on a formal inquiry that would make the playing field more level?

 

[LA - L.A.]

I know for certain Trump and House Republicans haven't indicated any desire for an independent counsel. If they were truly concerned about a fair investigation, I would think they would be pushing for an independent counsel. Every indication is that Trump and the Republicans don't want any investigation at all. That's problematic when there is so much evidence of possible abuse of power and violations of laws.

Republicans will get equal time if the process moves from an impeachment investigation into an actual impeachment. At that point, the Republicans will be able to challenge testimony and evidence and present their own witnesses and evidence. The Republicans will get fair and equal time if it goes to an actual impeachment.

If it never gets that far, it doesn't really matter if they didn't get a chance to present or challenge evidence in the investigative stage? I don't think anyone's ever been upset that they didn't get a chance to defend themselves, because they were only investigated but never actually indicted and put on trial.

 

[Lazybones]

I know for certain Trump and House Republicans haven't indicated any desire for an independent counsel. If they were truly concerned about a fair investigation, I would think they would be pushing for an independent counsel. Every indication is that Trump and the Republicans don't want any investigation at all. That's problematic when there is so much evidence of possible abuse of power and violations of laws.

Republicans will get equal time if the process moves from an impeachment investigation into an actual impeachment. At that point, the Republicans will be able to challenge testimony and evidence and present their own witnesses and evidence. The Republicans will get fair and equal time if it goes to an actual impeachment.

If it never gets that far, it doesn't really matter if they didn't get a chance to present or challenge evidence in the investigative stage? I don't think anyone's ever been upset that they didn't get a chance to defend themselves, because they were only investigated but never actually indicted and put on trial.

It’s a problem when there is SO MUCH evidence of a POSSIBLE abuse of power.

I love that the left is all in on a POSSIBLE crime. Everyone is all lathered up for Pelosi to deliver squadoosh.

 

[LA - L.A.]

It’s a problem when there is SO MUCH evidence of a POSSIBLE abuse of power.

This statement seems to imply that it's abnormal and irrational to investigate someone when there is evidence that indicates the possibility of wrong doing. It's actually the normal and rational response. It's how the legal system works. It's how the government works. It's even how parents work. At every level of our society, when we see metaphorical smoke, we check to see if there is a fire. We don't turn our heads away and ignore it.

There is enough smoke billowing from the Trump adminstration regarding the Ukraine to warrant and necessitate an investigation.

If Trump is innocent of doing anything wrong in regards to Ukraine, then a thorough investigation will reveal that there's no fire.

I would think that anyone who believes Trump is innocent would actually welcome, if not demand, an investigation to prove there is no fire. If they don't trust the Democrats in the house to be fair, then they should demand an independent counsel. I'd think anyone that loathes Democrats would be happy to see them come up empty handed after an investigation.

I'm not hearing, "let the Democrats investigate Trump and make fools of themselves again when they come up empty handed." What I'm hearing is "it's unfair and it's wrong that the Democrats are investigating Trump and they need to be stopped." One of those statements comes from a place of true confidence, the other does not.

 

[yuyi64]

That's problematic when there is so much evidence of possible abuse of power and violations of laws.

No there isn't; that's purely a self-serving subjective opinion on your part that aligns with your side's political objectives.

 

[yuyi64]

I would think that anyone who believes Trump is innocent would actually welcome, if not demand, an investigation to prove there is no fire. If they don't trust the Democrats in the house to be fair, then they should demand an independent counsel. I'd think anyone that loathes Democrats would be happy to see them come up empty handed after an investigation.

Absolutely not; it's not one's responsibility to call for an investigation to prove one's self innocent. There is no need to call for an investigation or special counsel every time a political enemy makes an accusation of wrongdoing. If we get into a tit for tat pattern of demanding investigations every time a political opponent does something we don't agree with, we will be mired in endless politically-driven investigations indefinitely and controlled by whatever party controls the investigative process. That is a clear recipe for legislative stagnation (as is happening right now) and subverting the electoral process.