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

 

[JimEverett]

So, this is where I think there is a legitimate complaint (with the leaks), and where the focus should be, IMO.

Could you refresh my memory about what came out prior to the election?

At a minimum, I think there was more, it was revealed that there was the previous investigation of Carter PAge, this is what precipitated the Trump campaign saying he was not part of the campaign team.
There were also reports that the FBI had PAge on their radar at the present time.
I am watching the Tennessee game or else I would provide sources.
[EDIT] Here is the first thing I found: https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-inte...ween-trump-adviser-and-kremlin-175046002.html

But even if there were no leaks during the election, it still provided a benefit to the Democrats.

Even so, I don;t think that is really the main point.
The argument seems to be that the Obama Administration;s investigation of people close to the Trump campaign was a legitimate exercise of power for a variety of reasons: national security, integrity of elections, etc. The Trump Administration asking for an investigation into Burisma lacks legitimacy because the Administration had never expressed concern before about corruption.

But there are problems with that in my mind:
1. Is a simple one, and maybe the weakest: Trump is engaging in foreign policy where the Executive has almost plenary power as opposed to an Adinistration using the powers of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence services domestically;

2. The problem that it appears the prosecution in the impeachment case is okay with the investigation into Ukraine's potential meddling in the 2016 election. That investigation (Ukraine 2016) is an Executive action and falls under the general idea of "corruption," thereby negating the argument that the Administration had shown no concern with corruption in Ukraine.

3. The 2016 investigations brought a certain political benefit to the party in power and perhaps even to the Adinistration itself. A Ukrainian investigation into Burisma and/or an announcement of such investigation would likewise provide some benefit to Trump and/or Republicans. If you are going to distinguish between one and the other in terms of corrupt intent or something along those lines then you have to have some sort of bright-line rule that offers clarity as to when Executive action that carries political benefits becomes corrupt. I haven't seen anything like such a line being drawn.

 

[Zardnok]

It didn’t take long for you to show your true colors. Shameful

Are you taking after the Trump playbook here? Accusing me of doing something you yourself is doing? What are these true colors I showed?? You are the one excited and cheering for Trump as he tears the country apart from within. Having someone tear the country apart for their own political gain is disgusting to me, yet it is the primary reason you seem to like Trump. Shameful indeed.

Please show me where the majority of America supports impeachment. Be careful, because I will comb through the link. The reason I say this is I don’t want you to fall for a headline.

Do Americans Support Impeaching Trump?

FiveThirtyEight is tracking polls that ask whether respondents support impeaching President Trump.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

Be careful, majority is your word, not mine. I said "more of the Country favors impeaching Trump than not ".

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

At a minimum, I think there was more, it was revealed that there was the previous investigation of Carter PAge, this is what precipitated the Trump campaign saying he was not part of the campaign team.
There were also reports that the FBI had PAge on their radar at the present time.
I am watching the Tennessee game or else I would provide sources.
[EDIT] Here is the first thing I found: https://www.yahoo.com/news/u-s-inte...ween-trump-adviser-and-kremlin-175046002.html

But even if there were no leaks during the election, it still provided a benefit to the Democrats.

If there were no leaks, how did it provide a benefit to the Democrats?

Even so, I don;t think that is really the main point.
The argument seems to be that the Obama Administration;s investigation of people close to the Trump campaign was a legitimate exercise of power for a variety of reasons: national security, integrity of elections, etc. The Trump Administration asking for an investigation into Burisma lacks legitimacy because the Administration had never expressed concern before about corruption.

I think you're not exactly presenting the argument correctly. The reason people believe an investigation into Burisma lacks legitimacy is because he asked a foreign government to make a public announcement of an investigation and to go through his personal lawyer. If there was a concern for Biden's corruption, the proper course of action would be to ask the Ukrainians to cooperate with the Justice department in an already opened investigation. That was not what happened.

ut there are problems with that in my mind:
1. Is a simple one, and maybe the weakest: Trump is engaging in foreign policy where the Executive has almost plenary power as opposed to an Adinistration using the powers of U.S. law enforcement and intelligence services domestically;

So don't you think that means it's easier for a President to abuse that power since there are fewer checks on it? Isn't that an argument against the point you are making?

2. The problem that it appears the prosecution in the impeachment case is okay with the investigation into Ukraine's potential meddling in the 2016 election. That investigation (Ukraine 2016) is an Executive action and falls under the general idea of "corruption," thereby negating the argument that the Administration had shown no concern with corruption in Ukraine.

Again, I think you're misstating your opposition's argument.

3. The 2016 investigations brought a certain political benefit to the party in power and perhaps even to the Adinistration itself. A Ukrainian investigation into Burisma and/or an announcement of such investigation would likewise provide some benefit to Trump and/or Republicans. If you are going to distinguish between one and the other in terms of corrupt intent or something along those lines then you have to have some sort of bright-line rule that offers clarity as to when Executive action that carries political benefits becomes corrupt. I haven't seen anything like such a line being drawn.

I think we have made a pretty clear line - if the executive action was purely for the Executive's benefit, then it's wrong. And, yes, the burden of proof is on those making the claim that it was purely for the Executive's benefit, which is why we're having hearings, right?

 

[Lazybones]

I genuinely did not see the second sentence when I responded. I apologize.

Do you think there is any legitimate reason for POTUS to withhold congressionally approved aid money until the president of the country set to receive the aid money makes a public declaration that damages a political rival?

Asked and answered counselor.

 

[Lazybones]

There is more evidence of Trump misusing his office than there is of Biden, right? We have people in the Trump administration saying that Trump was inappropriately using his office to damage a political opponent. Is there similar evidence against Biden?



Why do you believe the Ukrainians do?

Why would the Ukrainians have evidence of Biden shaping US policy? Were Ukrainians inside the Oval office? Why wouldn't Trump actually order a US based investigation if Biden broke US law?



Perhaps you could illustrate what you mean by Hunter's connections to Ukraine. Are you talking about anything more than being on a board of directors of a company based in the Ukraine? He's no longer on that board of directors correct?

Also, I'm not aware of any election tampering on the part of Ukraine. I know they told a DNC consultant that Manafort had a close association with the corrupt oligarch that was overthrown in the Ukraine. That is not election tampering. That was trying to influence the election... is that what you're talking about?

If so, then yes, I'm fine with that. Hunter no longer has any business dealings with a country that made a disclosure to a DNC consultant. I'd be curious to see if that disclosure runs afoul of campaign finance laws, but someone with more knowledge than me would have to weigh in on that.



That's still using taxpayer money for his own political purpose to damage a political opponent.



The DNC used their own money, not taxpayer money.

One is legal and one is not.

I’m going to nbr these for my own ease.

1. the first has been answered 1000 times now and not the narrative I was pushing.
2. Am I wrong about the Ukraine partaking in election medaling? I will do a quick search but I don’t think I’m wrong.
3. Bidens connection. Yes he is no longer employed. Is that good enough for you if Biden gets the nomination? Would there be no concern on how the connections that got him that job would try to leverage Biden?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I’m going to nbr these for my own ease.

1. the first has been answered 1000 times now and not the narrative I was pushing.
2. Am I wrong about the Ukraine partaking in election medaling? I will do a quick search but I don’t think I’m wrong.

An official in the Ukraine embassy shared information about Manafort's connection to Poroschenko with a consultant to the DNC. That's the extent of their election influence that I'm aware of.

3. Bidens connection. Yes he is no longer employed. Is that good enough for you if Biden gets the nomination? Would there be no concern on how the connections that got him that job would try to leverage Biden?

What leverage does Ukraine have over Biden? I'm generally concerned with conflicts of interests where an elected official could have a hard time differentiating what's in their interest vs what is in the country's best interest. I'm not aware of any with Ukraine and Biden now, is there one?

 

[Lazybones]

An official in the Ukraine embassy shared information about Manafort's connection to Poroschenko with a consultant to the DNC. That's the extent of their election influence that I'm aware of.



What leverage does Ukraine have over Biden? I'm generally concerned with conflicts of interests where an elected official could have a hard time differentiating what's in their interest vs what is in the country's best interest. I'm not aware of any with Ukraine and Biden now, is there one?

we don’t know. But we do know that Hunter got a job because of his potential influence in the US government. Am I wrong about that? Is there another reason that he was employed?

 

[Beach Friends]

This thread is about impeachment.

The people who oppose impeachment can’t give honest answers to the questions I asked.

They deflect to the deep state or Hillary’s email server.

The people who support Trump are either ignorant (or in denial) to the facts, or have sunk to a level of amorality that allows them to think it’s ok.

Or we just really don't like what the Democratic party is "offering."

 

[JimEverett]

If there were no leaks, how did it provide a benefit to the Democrats?

What I wrote wasn;t very clear. I meant that while there were leaks before the election it still would have been benefit if there had been no leaks before the election but leaks after the election.

I think you're not exactly presenting the argument correctly. The reason people believe an investigation into Burisma lacks legitimacy is because he asked a foreign government to make a public announcement of an investigation and to go through his personal lawyer. If there was a concern for Biden's corruption, the proper course of action would be to ask the Ukrainians to cooperate with the Justice department in an already opened investigation. That was not what happened.

Under what source of propriety? Again, this is foreign affairs where the power of the President is close to plenary.

Having said that I do think I have been very consistent in saying Giuliani's role seems extraordinarily problematic. I just have not heard something that is very specific as to his use being illegal.

So don't you think that means it's easier for a President to abuse that power since there are fewer checks on it? Isn't that an argument against the point you are making?

No. Exercising a constitutional power is not an abuse of that power.

Again, I think you're misstating your opposition's argument.

Perhaps, but then why so much focus on whether Trump and/or his Administration had ever expressed concern for Ukrainian corruption?

I think we have made a pretty clear line - if the executive action was purely for the Executive's benefit, then it's wrong. And, yes, the burden of proof is on those making the claim that it was purely for the Executive's benefit, which is why we're having hearings, right?

I am not trying to be flippant here , but if an Executive makes a demand that a foreign leader pony up $1m - with $999,999 going to the Executive and $1 going to the Red Cross has he not expressed corrupt intent because $1 was not for his benefit?

 

[Lazybones]

Or we just really don't like what the Democratic party is "offering."

not only what they are offering, but what they stand for. I will never support people who think I’m a racist, bigot, homophobe who hates brown children, just because I’m a white Christian male. Though some of them are white males as well......ok, let me rephrase. some of them were born as males.

 

[bdb13]

Or we just really don't like what the Democratic party is "offering."

I would just counter with 'screw the Democrats." You don't have to like or vote for them in order to acknowledge the problems with Trump.

 

[Zardnok]

not only what they are offering, but what they stand for. I will never support people who think I’m a racist, bigot, homophobe who hates brown children, just because I’m a white Christian male. Though some of them are white males as well......ok, let me rephrase. some of them were born as males.

What if Trump thinks you are a racist, bigot, homophobe like some of his other supporters seem to be?

 

[Lazybones]

I would just counter with 'screw the Democrats." You don't have to like or vote for them in order to acknowledge the problems with Trump.

every politician in history has/had problems. Hillary(insert whatever politician that you want) had problems, but you supported her.

What’s your point?

 

[Lazybones]

What if Trump thinks you are a racist, bigot, homophobe like some of his other supporters seem to be?

what does this have to do with the price of tea in China. I was looking forward to engaging you. I must have missed something somewhere in my assessment.

 

[bdb13]

every politician in history has/had problems. Hillary(insert whatever politician that you want) had problems, but you supported her.

What’s your point?

There was no larger point.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

we don’t know. But we do know that Hunter got a job because of his potential influence in the US government. Am I wrong about that? Is there another reason that he was employed?

I don’t know, are you saying that having a family member if business dealings should always open up a public investigation outside of normal judicial channels?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Or we just really don't like what the Democratic party is "offering."

I don’t think that’s it because there are lots of other Republicans to choose from and there is no pressure from Trump’s base to adhere to normal standards of ethics.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Asked and answered counselor.

Clearly I am not seeing things today. Can you please link me to the post?