The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (27 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

 

[samiam5211]

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?

What do you believe the intention of Trump was by withholding the aid?

 

[brandon]

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.

For what it’s worth, I think you have laid out the most coherent argument in support of Trump this far.

But I am not aware of the statute that says that if it was even slightly beneficial to the US that it is legal.

While there may have been some benefit to the country (which is hard to quantify at this point), I would argue that the if Trump made his request PRIMARILY for his own benefit, rather than SOLELY for his own benefit, that it would still be bribery for personal gain, and not standard foreign policy action.

 

[coldseat]

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?

What I think really speaks to where we are today, is that you have bought into the right wing talking points (as you seemingly always do in the end).

This is truly disappointing. There is no other logical and rational explanation to everything Trump and Guiliani did than that it was for the benefit of Trump's 2020 re-election. Whether they believed in the conspiracy theories about crowd strike or not, they wanted that to be a story so that they could continue with their deep state narrative and so that they could deflect criticism of Russia and Trump/the campaign. They did everything possible to make this a story. Chasing after Hunter Biden investigation was clearly to get at Biden and make that a talking point. Even though the bribery scheme failed in the end (because it was discovered), he still mostly got what he wanted out of it. Just look at where we're at.

You're whole point about Obama and medicaid expansion is a complete and total red herring. Just more deflection painted over to make it look like a legitimate comparison. It tarnishes the appearance you like to keep as somebody who's just playing devils advocate and looking at the other side of the coin.

 

[JimEverett]

What do you believe the intention of Trump was by withholding the aid?

Sounds like we are getting into technicalities or what might pass in a courtroom. Are you sure that is okay?

Which was the point of my last question.

 

[Dadsdream]

The assumption that any of us actually know why a president does something is highly problematic. Although some of us are not shy about stating categorically that DJT does everything in his own self-interest and not for the country, the truth is that we really do not know.

It's going to take years before we will be privy to all the info the president had at his disposal when he made the decision about the aid.
In my experience, when you try to second-guess why a president made this decision or took this action and not another regarding international diplomacy, you're shooting in the dark.

The CIA recently declassified the last documents from WWI, dealing with secret ways to open sealed documents without detection and secret German ink formulas.

Freedom of Information Act Electronic Reading Room | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)

www.cia.gov

All her life, my wife thought her father was a janitor on deep sea mining ship. Then, I showed her a book about the Jennifer Project and we watched a History Channel special. There was her father, on the phone, on the bridge of the Glomar Explorer, the CIA ship that picked up a sunken Russian sub from the bottom of the Pacific. The video was from the 1970s. It was declassified in the 1990s.

It's awfully presumptuous to think we know why a president currently in office makes any decision involving international diplomacy.

 

[samiam5211]

Sounds like we are getting into technicalities or what might pass in a courtroom. Are you sure that is okay?

Which was the point of my last question.

You refuse to say what you think was going on with Rudi and Trump in Ukraine.

 

[JimEverett]

The assumption that any of us actually know why a president does something is highly problematic. Although some of us are not shy about stating categorically that DJT does everything in his own self-interest and not for the country, the truth is that we really do not know.

It's going to take years before we will be privy to all the info the president had at his disposal when he made the decision about the aid.
In my experience, when you try to second-guess why a president made this decision or took this action and not another regarding international diplomacy, you're shooting in the dark.

The CIA recently declassified the last documents from WWI, dealing with secret ways to open sealed documents without detection and secret German ink formulas.

Freedom of Information Act Electronic Reading Room | CIA FOIA (foia.cia.gov)

www.cia.gov

All her life, my wife thought her father was a janitor on deep sea mining ship. Then, I showed her a book about the Jennifer Project and we watched a History Channel special. There was her father, on the phone, on the bridge of the Glomar Explorer, the CIA ship that picked up a sunken Russian sub from the bottom of the Pacific. The video was from the 1970s. It was declassified in the 1990s.

It's awfully presumptuous to think we know why a president currently in office makes any decision involving international diplomacy.

I also think it is relevant to consider the fact that no one that I am aware ever considered Obama's "bribery" of Germany, UK, and Spain (amongst others) to stop their investigations into U.S. torture of their citizens as impeachable. Even though such action can easily be seen as having a corrupt intent and most certainly provided a great political benefit to Obama.

 

[crosswatt]

The assumption that any of us actually know why a president does something is highly problematic. Although some of us are not shy about stating categorically that DJT does everything in his own self-interest and not for the country, the truth is that we really do not know.

Is it possible that a 73 year old man who, in his 53 year professional career has done nothing that doesn't benefit himself above everything else, has suddenly had a change of heart and truly cares about the United States more than himself. It is possible that he has seen the error of his ways, and has shifted fully into an altruistic and magnanimous phase of life, and is adapting a true "Servant Leadership" towards his fellow man. Maybe he has gone full Christmas Carol and has begun an attempt to unmake his chain, link by link, yard by yard. It's possible.

But I'm pretty sure we all know the real answer.

 

[crosswatt]

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?

Bill Clinton was impeached on two charges: lying under oath and obstruction of justice. The fact that every single effort to resist any semblance of oversight has been deployed by this administration, and that clear refusals to comply in any way with legally acquired subpoenas, is the simplest form of obstruction of justice there can be.

Now, the narrative has been shifted along this path from "nothing happened" to "something happened but it wasn't wrong" to "something happened and it's a little wrong but not worth this level of outrage" to "of course it's wrong and he shouldn't have done it but Biden did it too" to "this is a crazy rigged secret witch hunt hoax" to "this public and transparent testimony is all hearsay and conjecture" and "why isn't the President being given due process and why can't he face the whistle blower" to what I expect us to hear this week that "this is a sham and even though I'm being offered a chance for my lawyers to participate and refute all of this nonsense once and for all I'm instead not going to dignify this hoax with my involvement even though my mouth pieces have been clamoring for my involvement for a month and I could finally call witnesses but I'm not going to", which has already started.

And probably two minutes into any testimony he makes we'll have lying under oath to match perfectly the high crimes that led to Clinton's impeachment.

See, it really doesn't matter now if he did the things he was originally accused of, because his actions to avoid any outside view of his conduct has cast him in very suspect light. Like when your kid won't let you see their report card.And in doing that, he's reached the bar of what was once an unacceptable limit on how this nation allowed it's leader to act. Add to that the near three dozen associates of his campaign currently convicted or charged with criminal activities, and the clear statement from the Mueller report that states "If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so", I think that we have a pretty decent idea where the future harm to our nation is stemming from.

 

[JimEverett]

Bill Clinton was impeached on two charges: lying under oath and obstruction of justice. The fact that every single effort to resist any semblance of oversight has been deployed by this administration, and that clear refusals to comply in any way with legally acquired subpoenas, is the simplest form of obstruction of justice there can be.

Now, the narrative has been shifted along this path from "nothing happened" to "something happened but it wasn't wrong" to "something happened and it's a little wrong but not worth this level of outrage" to "of course it's wrong and he shouldn't have done it but Biden did it too" to "this is a crazy rigged secret witch hunt hoax" to "this public and transparent testimony is all hearsay and conjecture" and "why isn't the President being given due process and why can't he face the whistle blower" to what I expect us to hear this week that "this is a sham and even though I'm being offered a chance for my lawyers to participate and refute all of this nonsense once and for all I'm instead not going to dignify this hoax with my involvement even though my mouth pieces have been clamoring for my involvement for a month and I could finally call witnesses but I'm not going to", which has already started.

And probably two minutes into any testimony he makes we'll have lying under oath to match perfectly the high crimes that led to Clinton's impeachment.

See, it really doesn't matter now if he did the things he was originally accused of, because his actions to avoid any outside view of his conduct has cast him in very suspect light. Like when your kid won't let you see their report card.And in doing that, he's reached the bar of what was once an unacceptable limit on how this nation allowed it's leader to act. Add to that the near three dozen associates of his campaign currently convicted or charged with criminal activities, and the clear statement from the Mueller report that states "If we had confidence that the president did not commit a crime, we would have said so", I think that we have a pretty decent idea where the future harm to our nation is stemming from.

It will be hilarious if the Democrats charge Trump with obstruction due to fighting Congressional subpoenas. What President hasn't fought congressional subpoenas?

 

[JimEverett]

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

That seems dubious.

Once an impeachment is over then the "case of impeachment" ends.

I mean a President who is removed from office via impeachment cannot have that impeachment pardoned or reversed, but I am not sure why the Constitutional language bars a pardoning for criminal charges brought in a new case even if based on the charges brought in the impeachment proceeding.

 

[crosswatt]

It will be hilarious if the Democrats charge Trump with obstruction due to fighting Congressional subpoenas. What President hasn't fought congressional subpoenas?

There is a distinction in my mind with "fought" and "completely refused and ignored". And I have no recollection of any administration refusing to comply with the subpoena at all, just a negotiation as to what all would be shared and when in previous situations. Do you have a particular instance in mind here?

*EDIT*

I found this, from a similar case in history:

In 1927, the Supreme court said the Senate acted lawfully in sending its deputy sergeant-at-arms to Ohio to arrest and detain the brother of the then-attorney general, who had refused to testify about a bribery scheme known as the Teapot Dome scandal.

 

[JimEverett]

There is a distinction in my mind with "fought" and "completely refused and ignored". And I have no recollection of any administration refusing to comply with the subpoena at all, just a negotiation as to what all would be shared and when in previous situations. Do you have a particular instance in mind here?

*EDIT*

I found this, from a similar case in history:

In 1927, the Supreme court said the Senate acted lawfully in sending its deputy sergeant-at-arms to Ohio to arrest and detain the brother of the then-attorney general, who had refused to testify about a bribery scheme known as the Teapot Dome scandal.

The Obama Administration alone fought congressional subpoenas many times. Perhaps most famously in the Fast and Furious case, but also in Kagan's records as Solicitor General, Ben Rhodes refusing to appear, Lois Lerner refusing to appear, etc.

 

[wardorican]

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.

Impeachment isnt removal though. So, why are you looking through all of this using the lens of removal?

 

[wardorican]

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?

Is withholding aid in order to have a public announcement of an investigation about a political rival (rival party at the least) by a foreign power, absent the normal channels now part of the greater Republican platform? Is that why he was voted into office?

What you reference was a specific political mandate. Yes, doing things you ran on can grant political benefits. People that get stuff done are rewarded. That doesnt mean everything done for political purposes are always ok.

 

[crosswatt]

The Obama Administration alone fought congressional subpoenas many times. Perhaps most famously in the Fast and Furious case, but also in Kagan's records as Solicitor General, Ben Rhodes refusing to appear, Lois Lerner refusing to appear, etc.

Were those congressional requests or subpoenas? Or requests to come and testify on a voluntary basis?

 

[JimEverett]

Were those congressional requests or subpoenas? Or requests to come and testify on a voluntary basis?

subpoeanas

 

[crosswatt]

subpoeanas

I'll have to refamiliarize myself there, because I don't remember anything past Chaffetz alluding to the threat of subpoenas.