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

 

[JimEverett]

I don't understand why they don't make the refusal to testify go to the SCOTUS. Are they afraid if it takes to long our ADHD country will move on? How long would it take. Didn't it take about 3 months for this to go to the SCOTUS with Nixon?

Its a good question.

The time would be accelerated due to impeachment. Then a refusal to appear would be solid grounds for obstruction.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Because we don't have enough shirt going on

He's an example of why partisan Gerrymandering is bad for our country. The people of his district really needs to vote him out cause he is definitely not representing them in a positive light.

 

[samiam5211]

That's basically his main argument. There's some truth there, but it's full of holes because of his opinion on the obstruction charges and his lack of candor on the administrations attempts to prevent any of that information from coming forward. You can't say there isn't enough evidence but then not acknowledge all the efforts Trump and his hirelings have undertaken to prevent that evidence from coming forward. It's where his argument really falls apart in my lay opinion.

Yea, it seems like Turley may have unintentionally helped strengthen the case for any obstruction article of impeachment.

 

[CoolBrees]

So for those scoring at home, that was two constitutional scholars saying he should be impeached and convicted, and one that says what he did was reprehensible, it is not impeachable.

That is where discussion should stay. Whether or not his actions, now verified as fact and no longer disputed, are impeachable.

I don’t see how you can dispute anymore after the communications between Giuliani, Nunez and Parnas. This was handled through back channels, not the Justice Department. You don’t move stuff to classified servers, and run shadow campaigns because of the lying media. You do it because you don’t want to get caught.

Speaking of guilt, the burden of proof the R’s are requiring is ridiculous. They are asking for signed documents and cash exchange receipts. As if those ever exist in a bribery case. “Sure I will look the other way for money or favors. But first I am going to need you to sign here, initial here and here and date here.... Great! Now that you have successfully submitted a bribe I have accepted, please provide a receipt of the transaction for tax purposes. I can’t be sure but I think this bumps me into a new tax bracket”

 

[Dadsdream]

Not sure when expert witnesses became empowered to pronounce someone guilty, but then you have to consider the source.

 

[CoolBrees]

Ever heard of expert witnesses? They are pretty common.

And they are under oath. So either they are speaking what they consider accurately or they are perjuring themselves.

 

[JimEverett]

Yea, it seems like Turley may have unintentionally helped strengthen the case for any obstruction article of impeachment.

No, not at all.

It leads to the conclusion that the Democrats really are not serious about actually trying to find evidence to make a strong case for impeachment. Otherwise, why not go through the process of forcing turnover of material and testimony.
That is what has happened in the past.

 

[Dadsdream]

Ever heard of expert witnesses? They are pretty common.

And they are under oath. So either they are speaking what they consider accurately or they are perjuring themselves.

I've heard expert witnesses live in court on many occasions in person.
They and the jury were frequently instructed by the judge that expert testimony does not constitute a guilty verdict.
It is improper for the expert to proclaim guilt or innocence, using those particular words.
The person who wrote that headline is ignorant.

 

[CoolBrees]

So this is a court of law?

 

[samiam5211]

No, not at all.

It leads to the conclusion that the Democrats really are not serious about actually trying to find evidence to make a strong case for impeachment. Otherwise, why not go through the process of forcing turnover of material and testimony.
That is what has happened in the past.

I would rather the Democrats just use their control of the house to keep digging. We need to find out how many congressmen are active participants in the president's fight against the rule of law and make sure every single one of them held accountable.

The Nunez involvement needs to be developed further. I don't think it can be overstated how pathetic it is that the former chairman of the house intelligence committee was apparently an active participant in the activity his committee was investigating. It is laughable that he sat there and said over and over how Adam Schiff should recuse himself because he was a fact witness due to his interaction with the whistleblower. Meanwhile, Nunez was in contact with Rudy and the Ukrainian Mobsters running Trump's shadow state department.

He's probably not the only one either.

Republicans should be ashamed and want toxic waste like Nunez purged from their party, but they are afraid that the truth is so bad, it's better to try and help cover it up even if they think it is deplorable.

 

[superchuck500]

I've heard expert witnesses live in court on many occasions in person.
They and the jury were frequently instructed by the judge that expert testimony does not constitute a guilty verdict.
It is improper for the expert to proclaim guilt or innocence.
The person who wrote that headline is ignorant.

The headline attributes the idea to the experts. They’re entitled to conclude he’s “guilty” - which obviously refers to general culpability in this context and not a criminal “verdict” because this isn’t a criminal trial - nor a trial of any sort (yet).

 

[JimEverett]

I would rather the Democrats just use their control of the house to keep digging. We need to find out how many congressmen are active participants in the president's fight against the rule of law and make sure every single one of them held accountable.

The Nunez involvement needs to be developed further. I don't think it can be overstated how pathetic it is that the former chairman of the house intelligence committee was apparently an active participant in the activity his committee was investigating. It is laughable that he sat their and said over and over how Adam Schiff should recuse himself because he was a fact witness due to his interaction with the whistleblower. Meanwhile, Nunez was in contact with Rudy and the Ukrainian Mobsters running Trump's shadow state department.

He's probably not the only one either.

Republicans should be ashamed and want toxic waste like Nunez purged from their party, but they are afraid that the truth is so bad, it's better to try and help cover it up even if they think it is deplorable.

I do not think the court process will take that long - relatively speaking. As someone pointed out - I think in the Nixon case you had movement within a few months. It certainly wouldn't take years

The fact that this is not the route Democrats are seemingly going to take leads many to question if they really want to get to the bottom of it and/or really want to remove the President.[/QUOTE]

 

[coldseat]

No, not at all.

It leads to the conclusion that the Democrats really are not serious about actually trying to find evidence to make a strong case for impeachment. Otherwise, why not go through the process of forcing turnover of material and testimony.
That is what has happened in the past.

Really, that's your interpretation? I guess we should ignore the administration blocking every attempt to get that information.

The democrats are still going through the court process to enforce the subpoenas, they're just not waiting for the results. I think the hope is that it will be resolved in time for the Senate trial. Maybe that's a mistake or maybe not, but I don't think it's because they're not actually serious about finding the evidence, it's just they believe they have enough evidence with the testimony provided. Sending the subpoena in the first place indicates they are serious about getting the information.

 

[Dadsdream]

So this is a court of law?

The headline attributes the idea to the experts. They’re entitled to conclude he’s “guilty” - which obviously refers to general culpability in this context and not a criminal “verdict” because this isn’t a criminal trial - nor a trial of any sort (yet).

The average person won't differentiate between a congressional hearing expert opinion and a criminal verdict.
They'll just read "Trump is Guilty" and that's pretty much the Washington Post's editorial stance.
But, I do understand your point . . . the keyword is "yet."

 

[crosswatt]

The average person won't differentiate between a congressional hearing expert opinion and a criminal verdict.
They'll just read "Trump is Guilty" and that's pretty much the Washington Post's editorial stance.
But, I do understand your point . . . the keyword is "yet."

Kind of like when Trump slipped that "Totally exonerated" thing in...

 

[SaintForLife]

anyone who doesn’t believe in an imperial presidency.

So being friends with someone you don't like makes Turley a bad person?

 

[SaintForLife]

No, not at all.

It leads to the conclusion that the Democrats really are not serious about actually trying to find evidence to make a strong case for impeachment. Otherwise, why not go through the process of forcing turnover of material and testimony.
That is what has happened in the past.

Bingo. It's all about harming Trump as much as possible for the next election.

 

[Nebaghead]

So being friends with someone you don't like makes Turley a bad person?

Being friends with someone who directs the DOJ and stated that the IC WB Report didn't warrant any investigation could be considered troubling. He has the credentials for his testimony but his alliances could be put into question.