The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (3 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

 

[Intensesaint]

Irrelevant to whether or not Trump should be impeached.

Because there's around 30% of the electorate for whom there is absolutely nothing the president could do that would cause their support for him to waver.

I am trying to see if the Trump supporters we have on this forum are in that number. If so, I can safely put them on ignore knowing that there's no point in engaging with them.

But if there's a chance they are willing to entertain other opinions, I'll keep fighting the good fight.

The shirt you think is bad really isn't that bad. It does not rise to the level of impeachment you guys wish it did. Democrats can try to gaslight the American public all it wants, but they are not buying it.

Also, I would much rather have trump than the crop of candidates they have now. The only one I could personally stomach would be Mayor Pete.

 

[brandon]

The shirt you think is bad really isn't that bad. It does not rise to the level of impeachment you guys wish it did.

Except that he attempted a bribe, and bribery is explicitly defined in the constitution as an impeachable offense.

Try again.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

The shirt you think is bad really isn't that bad. It does not rise to the level of impeachment you guys wish it did. Democrats can try to gaslight the American public all it wants, but they are not buying it.

Also, I would much rather have trump than the crop of candidates they have now. The only one I could personally stomach would be Mayor Pete.

would you say the watergate break-in was worse than holding up an arms shipment until your 'ally' investigated a political opponent?

 

[Lapaz]

The shirt you think is bad really isn't that bad. It does not rise to the level of impeachment you guys wish it did. Democrats can try to gaslight the American public all it wants, but they are not buying it.

Also, I would much rather have trump than the crop of candidates they have now. The only one I could personally stomach would be Mayor Pete.

If you would rather have a man that commits crimes you don’t think are that bad over ANY of the democrats, what values do you think are important which Trump exemplifies?

 

[V Chip]

If you would rather have a man that commits crimes you don’t think are that bad over ANY of the democrats, what values do you think are important which Trump exemplifies?

That's obvious... He doesn't have a (D) after his name on the ballot.

 

[JimEverett]

Except that he attempted a bribe, and bribery is explicitly defined in the constitution as an impeachable offense.

Try again.

You can be as conclusory as you want - just like so many were with Russian "collusion"

But just saying it is bribery doesn't actually make it bribery.

Try again.

 

[J-DONK]

Trump Is in 'Deep Trouble,' Presidential Historian Predicts

"He's a base politician. He doesn't know how to turn this around," Douglas Brinkley assessed.

www.newsweek.com

You can be as conclusory as you want - just like so many were with Russian "collusion"

But just saying it is bribery doesn't actually make it bribery.

Try again.

You should read this:

The Bad Arguments That Trump Didn’t Commit Bribery

A response to the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board.

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[MT15]

The shirt you think is bad really isn't that bad. It does not rise to the level of impeachment you guys wish it did. Democrats can try to gaslight the American public all it wants, but they are not buying it.

Also, I would much rather have trump than the crop of candidates they have now. The only one I could personally stomach would be Mayor Pete.

So the man who was going to “drain the swamp” turns out to be demonstrably more corrupt than his predecessors, but your assessment is that his brand of corruption is “not that bad”. Hmmm.

Can you even acknowledge the paradox?

What makes what Trump has done “not that bad”? Honest question.

He has had to shut down his “charity” because he was found to be egregiously self dealing. Stealing money earmarked for veterans’ groups, for cripes sake. If he were not president he would already be under indictment for federal election finance fraud. He has quite probably committed bank fraud, insurance fraud and tax fraud. All three.

He‘s just flat out an unacceptable person to be President. You must realize this on at least some level. Yet, people still support him, after all the illegal, immoral, unethical stuff has come to light. It seems like an unreasonable response at some point.

I have zero problem with people supporting politicians I don’t like, as long as said politicians are sincere in their views and honorable, ethical people. But when people support Trump, who is known to be so corrupt, so dishonorable, it’s natural to question their motives in support of this level of corruption. It’s also very disconcerting to see Republican congressmen betraying their principles to support such corruption. They dishonor their oath of office, their commitment to their constituents. I cannot understand it.

 

[Hatakikomi]

I didn't realize that the Constitution explicitly bars Presidents from issuing pardons in cases of impeachment. Once Trump is impeached on charges - and there is a long list of candidates - irrespective of the outcome of the Senate trial, he can never be pardoned of them. And he can, of course, be prosecuted once he's out of office.

Assume that Trump is impeached on grounds that include a raft of federal crimes – bribery, treason, obstruction of justice, election fraud, money laundering, conspiracy to defraud the United States, making false statements to the federal government, serving as an agent of a foreign government without registering with the justice department, donating funds from foreign nationals, and so on.

Regardless of whether a sitting president can be indicted and convicted on such criminal charges, Trump will become liable to them at some point. But could he be pardoned, as Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon 45 years ago?

Article II, section 2 of the constitution gives a president the power to pardon anyone who has been convicted of offenses against the United States, with one exception: “in Cases of Impeachment.”

If Trump is impeached by the House, he can never be pardoned for these crimes. He cannot pardon himself (it’s dubious that a president has this self-pardoning power in any event), and he cannot be pardoned by a future president.

Even if a subsequent president wanted to pardon Trump in the interest of, say, domestic tranquility, she could not.

Trump won't lose his job – but the impeachment inquiry is still essential



Chapter and verse here:

The President shall be Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the Militia of the several States, when called into the actual Service of the United States; he may require the Opinion, in writing, of the principal Officer in each of the executive Departments, upon any Subject relating to the Duties of their respective Offices, and he shall have Power to grant Reprieves and Pardons for Offenses against the United States, except in Cases of Impeachment.

Nattional Constitution Center - Article II

 

[brandon]

You can be as conclusory as you want - just like so many were with Russian "collusion"

But just saying it is bribery doesn't actually make it bribery.

Try again.

And if I were just saying it, it would be one thing.

But there's just so much clear and irrefutable evidence that that's what he did. You're just ignoring it because it's not what you want to hear. Your irrational devotion to man over country is preventing you from seeing the truth.

 

[Nebaghead]

I didn't realize that the Constitution explicitly bars Presidents from issuing pardons in cases of impeachment. Once Trump is impeached on charges - and there is a long list of candidates - irrespective of the outcome of the Senate trial, he can never be pardoned of them. And he can, of course, be prosecuted once he's out of office.



Trump won't lose his job – but the impeachment inquiry is still essential



Chapter and verse here:



Nattional Constitution Center - Article II

My understanding is Impeachment results in the person being removed from office. I believe he can't pardon those results and keep them in office, for example a judge can be impeached. He can't override it with a pardon and keep the judge in office.

 

[B4YOU]

Asking a foreign country to investigate a company for the purpose of embarrassing Joe Biden and holding foreign aid until they did probably doesn't strike many as that big of news considering what they have heard for 3 years.

Asking a foreign government to harm the campaign of your political opponent by withholding US military aid doesn’t matter because of unproven conspiracy theories and “the media” that I am now going to use as justification. The next 5-10 pages will be posters discussing those things instead of Trump’s crimes.

Why is this not bribery?
Why is this not soliciting foreign aid in an election?

 

[coldseat]

He's being investigated.

The Democrats have been looking for a reason to impeach since before he took office. I take that into consideration, so it's going to take a lot to impress me. A Schiff ran investigation that uncovers presumotions, hearsay and feelings is not going to cut it.

Let's not pretend that we don't know what this is really about. The Democrats have no confidence they can beat Trump in 2020.

Knowing that this is all political, I look at the alternative and I see the super woke and very weak Democratic field.

No thanks.

Now you can argue against that all you want, but you asked me for my opinion. It's not going to change based on anything you have to say.

While this is the popular and common defense for Republicans, it completely ignores objective facts and truth to arrive at this point. The whistle blower compliant that started all of this came from an intelligence official. He/She was not a democratic plant, he/she did not do this to give democrats an edge in the 2020 election. If anything (as we keep hearing Republicans say) this isn't really helping democratic candidates for president.

Yet, that initial complaint was found credible by the ICIG and nothing we've learned so far has disputed or contradicted any of the allegations made in the initial complaint. The original complaint has been backed up and supported by witness testimony and records the House Intelligence committee was able to obtain. And all of it points to explicit and illegal actions by Trump and the upper echelons by this administration.

In order to believe this line or reasoning, you have to take Trump's word for what he says (which changes every day depending on what news comes out) or you have to believe a convoluted and easily disprovable narrative put out by right wing media and Trump minions.

The fact that so many are unable to remove themselves from this sphere of conditioning, brainwashing and manipulation of reality to consider the objective truth tells you how powerful and controlling it truly is.

It's one of the reasons I'm highly doubtful American democracy can truly survive this challenge of authoritarianism by Trump. Never have so many factors coalesced to challenge and manipulate so many of the basic principles that are the foundation of our democracy. Things like truth, media independence, limited power of the executive, co-equal branches of government, an informed public, minority rights, etc.

 

[JimEverett]

Trump Is in 'Deep Trouble,' Presidential Historian Predicts

"He's a base politician. He doesn't know how to turn this around," Douglas Brinkley assessed.

www.newsweek.com

You should read this:

The Bad Arguments That Trump Didn’t Commit Bribery

A response to the Wall Street Journal’s editorial board.

www.lawfareblog.com

I commented on that piece a while back in this thread.
Why do you think there has been this move towards constitutional bribery as opposed to statutory bribery? I think it is because the argument for statutory bribery is very weak, at least from the evidence I am aware. Therefore the need to go around it.

you have these Lawfare professors who otherwise think the Federalist Society is full of little devils now all of the sudden making "originialist" arguments because the politics suit them.
But I imagine you will see an article based on constitutional bribery.


Also - how much caselaw is there on constitutional bribery I doubt there is much if any, the Lawfare people do not cite a single one.. Which should also be concerning for those clamoring for removing a sitting President.

 

[samiam5211]

Also - how much caselaw is there on constitutional bribery I doubt there is much if any, the Lawfare people do not cite a single one.. Which should also be concerning for those clamoring for removing a sitting President.

Do you believe that Trump withheld aid and a white house visit because he wanted an announcement of an investigation for the purpose of hurting his political opponent?

Would you be ok with a president doing that?

Enough with this nonsense of saying "maybe he was really interested in rooting out corruption". This is not a courtroom. He does not get to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Form your opinion based on the facts available and back it up. Stop pretending technical arguments matter outside the courtroom.

Either you think the president withheld official acts for the purpose of benefiting his political campaign and you think it is ok, or you do not believe that he withheld aid for the purpose of benefitting his political campaign.

 

[Archies Ghost]

I commented on that piece a while back in this thread.
Why do you think there has been this move towards constitutional bribery as opposed to statutory bribery? I think it is because the argument for statutory bribery is very weak, at least from the evidence I am aware. Therefore the need to go around it.

you have these Lawfare professors who otherwise think the Federalist Society is full of little devils now all of the sudden making "originialist" arguments because the politics suit them.
But I imagine you will see an article based on constitutional bribery.


Also - how much caselaw is there on constitutional bribery I doubt there is much if any, the Lawfare people do not cite a single one.. Which should also be concerning for those clamoring for removing a sitting President.

The idea that the United States should apply the concept of bribery or extortion to any exchange between the United States and a foreign government is ridiculous on the face.

In general, the practice of foreign policy for any nation far exceeds what would be considered criminal in the US.

ALL foreign policy is the exertion of pressure through the threat of force (extortion) or avoidance of that pressure through offers of incentive (bribery).

Foreign policy is extortion and bribery on a daily basis.

Arguing anything else is stupid.

The only question here is if DJT did what he did SOLELY for his benefit. It certainly isn't clear that he did and there is a reasonable benefit to the US in his request.

Of course, the average voter pays little attention to the realities of foreign affairs so the bribery charge is used because it has been calculated to be effective at changing public perception, which is of course what this is really about.

No one pushing this charade actually cares whether or not any bribery, constitutional or statutory is legally provable or even exists. They only care about what plays with the voting public.

Of course, in trying to make a case that an administration could be considered guilty of a criminal offense for pursuing legitimate foreign policy objectives that are also politically expedient, much future harm is being done to the United States.

Who cares about that when you might be able to get Trump impeached?

 

[samiam5211]

It certainly isn't clear that he did and there is a reasonable benefit to the US in his request.

What is the reasonable benefit to the US?

DoD signed off on the aid being released after doing their own assessment of Ukranian corruption.

Trump did not delay the aid in 2017 and 2018.

What changed in 2019?

What benefit to the US are you referring to here?

 

[JimEverett]

Do you believe that Trump withheld aid and a white house visit because he wanted an announcement of an investigation for the purpose of hurting his political opponent?

Would you be ok with a president doing that?

Enough with this nonsense of saying "maybe he was really interested in rooting out corruption". This is not a courtroom. He does not get to be innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Form your opinion based on the facts available and back it up. Stop pretending technical arguments matter outside the courtroom.

Either you think the president withheld official acts for the purpose of benefiting his political campaign and you think it is ok, or you do not believe that he withheld aid for the purpose of benefitting his political campaign.

If the question of whether someone broke a law or whether grounds for removing a sitting President are "technical" and don't matter than that really speaks to where people are at today.

I think the benefit to his campaign was/is tenuous at best. I think the investigation into Ukraine's 2016 activities are more beneficial, even though I don't think that amounts to much at all.

Do you think the Medicaid expansion scheme was bribery? Do you think it benefitted Obama's campaign when states expanded Medicaid and got billions of dollars in funding for doing so?