The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (23 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

 

[wardorican]

I don't know. I would hope it is because they recognize it is not bribery


Yes, there are many people arguing that fighting congressional subpoenas and claiming executive privilege are grounds for impeaching as obstruction of justice.
If you would read what I was responding to then it should be crystal clear why I bought it up.

Is that accurate?

I think at best, any 'obstruction of (congressional) Justice' would be considered to be added to any impeachment charges. I don't think, by its self, it would be grounds to impeachment. Clearly, Congress has already tipped their hand on that when they didn't push forward with Impeachment based on Mueller's outlining of obstruction of justice cases, if a sitting President could be charged with that by the DOJ.

Anything that happens to fall similarly to Clinton.

wiki

Article I charged that Clinton lied to the grand jury concerning:[26]

1. the nature and details of his relationship with Lewinsky
2. prior false statements he made in the Jones deposition
3. prior false statements he allowed his lawyer to make characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit
4. his attempts to tamper with witnesses

Article II charged Clinton with attempting to obstruct justice in the Jones case by:[27]

1. encouraging Lewinsky to file a false affidavit
2. encouraging Lewinsky to give false testimony if and when she was called to testify
3. concealing gifts he had given to Lewinsky that had been subpoenaed
4. attempting to secure a job for Lewinsky to influence her testimony
5. permitting his lawyer to make false statements characterizing Lewinsky's affidavit
6. attempting to tamper with the possible testimony of his secretary Betty Currie
7. making false and misleading statements to potential grand jury witnesses

 

[crosswatt]

Is it grounds for impeachment to claim executive privilege and to fight congressional subpoenas? Is it even evidence of obstruction? That is a ridiculous claim. Almost as ridiculous as claiming that because it was only done x amount of times (certainly far more than 2) under Obama that it is qualitatively different from x+ times by whoever else.

It's not a ridiculous claim, and the congress at the time had every right to pursue legal action against those who refused to appear. I'm no fan of Obama at all, and feel that Issa had the right and congressional backing to go further, and don't understand why he didn't, unless it was less legally expedient and more politically expedient to do so.

And here's my opinion on Executive Privilege: it should be applied sparingly and highly limited in scope, similar to how Obama used it for the F&F report, but not for everything to do with Holder. Trump could claim it for Don McGahn for specific instances of his testimony and I'd be fine with the move. But forbidding him to testify at all? Claiming Executive Privilege over the entirety of his White House tenure? That's completely irrational and obviously an attempt to prevent the committee from asking about shady activity already delineated in the Mueller interview. And that to me is obstruction.

And maybe congress should have gone after Obama for it. And maybe the previous Congress should have gone after Bush for it. This "other people did it" is a weak and highly insulting defense, and I just don't have any use for it at all. Honestly the only reason I'm discussing it with you is that I have a good respect for you and your ability to discuss things pragmatically.

But it's just not a valid defense of the president's actions in my book. I shouldn't be allowed to get away with reckless driving just because other cars on the highway were going just as fast/faster if I'm the one who got pulled over. And previous violations of congressional subpoenas should not excuse the pretty extreme abuse of them by this administration.

 

[crosswatt]

Sorry, Lee Greenwood's "God Bless the USA" started playing on the radio and I got carried away.

You mean Back in the USSR I believe. Beatles version of course.

 

[MT15]

What I have been led to believe is that when previous administrations defied subpoenas, which was not all that common, not nearly as common as Trump has made the practice, it then led to negotiations about what material could be released and who could testify about what within the confines of Executive Privilege. There was a basic understanding that the Legislative branch had the power of oversight and there was cooperation to a certain extent, just not to the total satisfaction of either branch. Reams of documents were handed over, actually.

This administration has done things very differently, as I suspect everyone in this thread knows. It isn’t the number of times they have refused to cooperate, although that is ridiculous on its face. No, it is the way they are refusing to cooperate. This administration has asserted what it calls “total immunity“ from investigation. It has refused to release any documents, what few have been released have been released in defiance of Trump. It refuses to have anyone testify, over anything. Those who have come forward have done so in defiance, and at great cost to their careers. This is not like other administrations. They even had people who have never been part of the executive branch claim executive privilege, which is just total nonsense. This is completely asserting that the Legislative Branch has no right to investigate the Executive, at all. It undoes one of the basic checks and balances.

All of these actions are damaging to our nation. These actions run counter to the constitution. Everyone defending these actions is defending activity that is actually unamerican at it’s core.

 

[FullMonte]

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?

Why are you going back to 2017 and 2018? Between the time that the DOD signed off on the aid being released (May 2019) and July 25, the White House signed off on releasing the aid "at least 50 times" (according to a congressional report). So, what changed between May 2019 and July 2019 that suddenly made Crowdstrike and Burisma issues serious enough to warrant withholding aid?

According to the Republican report being issued about the Intelligence Committee's inquiry, Trump withheld the aid because he wanted proof that Zelensky was a "true reformer."

But, after speaking with Trump, "President Zelensky took decisive action demonstrating his commitment to promoting reform ... President Trump then released security assistance to Ukraine and met with President Zelensky in September 2019 — all without Ukraine taking any action to investigate President Trump's political rival."

So, Trump wanted proof that Zelensky was a "true reformer," and he asked him to investigate incidents that happened in 2015/2016. Somehow, without investigating either incident, Zelensky took decisive action that was good enough for Trump to determine that Zelensky was a true reformer.

Can anyone explain what that action by Zelensky was?

 

[J-DONK]

What I have been led to believe is that when previous administrations defied subpoenas, which was not all that common, not nearly as common as Trump has made the practice, it then led to negotiations about what material could be released and who could testify about what within the confines of Executive Privilege. There was a basic understanding that the Legislative branch had the power of oversight and there was cooperation to a certain extent, just not to the total satisfaction of either branch. Reams of documents were handed over, actually.

This administration has done things very differently, as I suspect everyone in this thread knows. It isn’t the number of times they have refused to cooperate, although that is ridiculous on its face. No, it is the way they are refusing to cooperate. This administration has exerted what it calls “total immunity“ from investigation. It has refused to release any documents, what few have been released have been released in defiance of Trump. It refuses to have anyone testify, over anything. Those who have come forward have done so in defiance, and at great cost to their careers. This is not like other administrations. They even had people who have never been part of the executive branch claim executive privilege, which is just total nonsense. This is completely asserting that the Legislative Branch has no right to investigate the Executive, at all. It undoes one of the basic checks and balances.

All of these actions are damaging to our nation. These actions run counter to the constitution. Everyone defending these actions is defending activity that is actually unamerican at it’s core.

McGahn's stay was denied for pretty much this reason. Invoke executive privilege if needed in your testimony, but you are not immune to congressional oversight. Also, Rudy has no privilege to invoke since he doesn't work for the executive.

This argument is playing out real time in the courts. Republicans are losing.

 

[crosswatt]

WashPost: Barr opposes key Russia probe finding by inspector general

He reportedly doesn't think the FBI had enough to probe Trump campaign in 2016.

www.axios.com

I mean c'mon. This is absurd. They aren't even trying to hide their obstruction efforts now. Why are any of us alright with this?

 

[FullMonte]

WashPost: Barr opposes key Russia probe finding by inspector general

He reportedly doesn't think the FBI had enough to probe Trump campaign in 2016.

www.axios.com

I mean c'mon. This is absurd. They aren't even trying to hide their obstruction efforts now. Why are any of us alright with this?

I mean...he does have a point...the CIA "MAY" have information that would have altered the IG's conclusion, so that conclusion is obviously wrong. That doesn't, in any way, directly oppose their position that witnesses with second hand information aren't evidence of anything.

 

[crosswatt]

I mean...he does have a point...the CIA "MAY" have information that would have altered the IG's conclusion, so that conclusion is obviously wrong. That doesn't, in any way, directly oppose their position that witnesses with second hand information aren't evidence of anything.

Barr- The CIA has pertinent information that proves that the democrats are bad people who hate puppies and cheated to try and win an election.

Media- Can like we see this proof or get a Cliff Notes version or something highlighting what was found?

Barr- Nah

Media- why tho?

Barr- That's G-37 classified executive privilege top secret protected information that can't be shared. But it totes exists and is really like compelling.

Media- ....

Barr- Ight Imma Head Out.

 

[FullMonte]

Barr- The CIA has pertinent information that proves that the democrats are bad people who hate puppies and cheated to try and win an election.

You ignored the word that I highlighted in my post. Barr said that agencies like the CIA "MAY" have information that would have made the IG reach a different conclusion. So either Barr doesn't know that they actually have information, or he knows that they do, but the IG wasn't made privy to that information. Neither of those is a good look for the administration.

Why would the IG in charge of investigating the whole Russia investigation not be allowed to see information that was pertinent and relevant? (Or, why would someone who didn't have access to information that was pertinent and relevant be investigating something?)

 

[insidejob]

Neither of those is a good look for the administration.

If only they actually cared about how the administration looks. They've not shown one iota of caring that the administration does things above board. Hence, the impeachment inquiry.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

I am shocked that Bill Barr, a political appointee that Trump treats as his personal lawyer equal to Rudy Giuliani (see the Perfect Call Transcript), would take a position that defends Trump over the employees in the department which he allegedly leads, even when independent non-partisan investigations find otherwise. Absolutely shocked I tell you.

 

[JimEverett]

It's not a ridiculous claim, and the congress at the time had every right to pursue legal action against those who refused to appear. I'm no fan of Obama at all, and feel that Issa had the right and congressional backing to go further, and don't understand why he didn't, unless it was less legally expedient and more politically expedient to do so.

And here's my opinion on Executive Privilege: it should be applied sparingly and highly limited in scope, similar to how Obama used it for the F&F report, but not for everything to do with Holder. Trump could claim it for Don McGahn for specific instances of his testimony and I'd be fine with the move. But forbidding him to testify at all? Claiming Executive Privilege over the entirety of his White House tenure? That's completely irrational and obviously an attempt to prevent the committee from asking about shady activity already delineated in the Mueller interview. And that to me is obstruction.

And maybe congress should have gone after Obama for it. And maybe the previous Congress should have gone after Bush for it. This "other people did it" is a weak and highly insulting defense, and I just don't have any use for it at all. Honestly the only reason I'm discussing it with you is that I have a good respect for you and your ability to discuss things pragmatically.

But it's just not a valid defense of the president's actions in my book. I shouldn't be allowed to get away with reckless driving just because other cars on the highway were going just as fast/faster if I'm the one who got pulled over. And previous violations of congressional subpoenas should not excuse the pretty extreme abuse of them by this administration.

I am not defending the Trump Administration's actions by saying other people did wrong therefore he can too. I am saying there is nothing wrong with fighting subpoenas and claiming privilege. There is a reason it is done routinely and that is because these are sensitive areas and often times there is not a great deal of clarity due to the different information being sought.
Even outside the White House or government in general there are situations where it would be malpractice to not, as a matter of routine, claim privilege and/or fight subpoenas.

Nothing wrong with forcing judicial review of this type of stuff.

 

[Taurus]

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.

By that standard, impeachment is impossible.
The word 'bribery' may as well not exist and the only thing a President can be removed for is murder on live TV

 

[crosswatt]

I am not defending the Trump Administration's actions by saying other people did wrong therefore he can too. I am saying there is nothing wrong with fighting subpoenas and claiming privilege. There is a reason it is done routinely and that is because these are sensitive areas and often times there is not a great deal of clarity due to the different information being sought.
Even outside the White House or government in general there are situations where it would be malpractice to not, as a matter of routine, claim privilege and/or fight subpoenas.

Nothing wrong with forcing judicial review of this type of stuff.

I agree with that, but, as with anything, abuse is possible and going to be problematic in terms of justification in the courts. And I feel there is abuse in that this administration has fought every single solitary attempt or mention of attempt at oversight, and claimed Executive Privilege over a ridiculously broad spectrum of it's conduct and actions that it is by very definition obstructionary.

 

[wardorican]

I am not defending the Trump Administration's actions by saying other people did wrong therefore he can too. I am saying there is nothing wrong with fighting subpoenas and claiming privilege. There is a reason it is done routinely and that is because these are sensitive areas and often times there is not a great deal of clarity due to the different information being sought.
Even outside the White House or government in general there are situations where it would be malpractice to not, as a matter of routine, claim privilege and/or fight subpoenas.

Nothing wrong with forcing judicial review of this type of stuff.

I agree with that in general. Nothing wrong with pushing certain issues to judicial review. I'm not sure I'd say everything needs to be done that way (you aren't saying that). There is probably a point where ethics come involved. I don't know enough about the specifics of the arguments to know if they're making reasonable arguments or just trying to do a massive blanket executive privilege that goes a bit beyond the norm. I'm ok with testing the waters though, but there is a point where you can't just keep ignoring things.

I"m not sure where that point is.

 

[BobE]

 

[superchuck500]

So the Parnas material is becoming public. The phone records in particular. Devin Nunes is a piece of work, that’s for sure.