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

 

[Beach Friends]

There is NOBODY who is going to be called to testify in any of these hearings that isn't going to be accused of bias. NOBODY!

Didn't I just say that a witness's bias is always at issue? In really extreme cases, such as with Kaplan, an evaluation of bias will justify people disregarding the witness's testimony altogether.

It's my opinion that Kaplan comes across as more of an activist than an expert. In fact, she was so bad that her presence highlighted the biases of the other two Democratic witnesses.

My opinion is that calling her was a mistake so large that it is what many, if not most, Americans will remember about yesterday's hearings.

 

[JimEverett]

Just to make sure I understand. Are you saying that if the president told Ukraine (indirectly or directly), if you want this aid money, you must first announce these two investigations, that doesn't rise to the elements required for statutory bribery?

yes

I agree...but unless I'm getting my witnesses confused, he also stated (or heavily implied) that the crime of bribery required a cash payment, and any other type of remuneration would not be considered as bribery.

A quick search of the transcript turns up nothing to suggest that, but I only searched for "money" and "cash"

House Judiciary Committee Impeachment Hearing Transcript – Day 1

Jerry Nadler Opening Statement Jerry Nadler: (00:00) This is the first hearing we are conducting pursuant to house resolution 660 and the` special judiciary c

www.rev.com

 

[LA - L.A.]

A quick search of the transcript turns up nothing to suggest that, but I only searched for "money" and "cash"

Turley: (01:16:15)
What Morris said is that we need to protect against bribery because we don’t want anything like what happened with Louis the 14th and Charles the second. That is, the example he gave of bribery was accepting actual money as the head of state. So what had happened in that example that Morris gave as his example of bribery was that Louis the 14th, who was a bit of a recidivist when it came to bribes, gave Charles the second a huge amount of money as well as other benefits, including apparently a French mistress in exchange for the Secret Treaty of Dover of 1670.

Sure seems like he suggests that bribery has to involve money.

 

[JimEverett]

Sure seems like he suggests that bribery has to involve money.

I don't see where he is claiming that bribery has to include money. His point where you are quoting is that the notion of constitutional bribery is actually quite narrow - and he is using the example the framers used, the case of Louis XIV and Charles the Second.
He is arguing against this view championed by Schiff and the folks at Lawfare that constitutional bribery included a huge sweeping amount of potential acts under its umbrella: maladministration being the one most commonly invoked.
The example the framers used shows that not to be the case - it is not an argument that bribery (whether constitutional or statutory) requires a cash exchange.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Kaplan is so filled with hate for Trump that she said she crossed the street when walking on front of Trump Towers. That's not rational. That sort of thinking is the result of TDS.

I was reading through your post and really taking in the merits of your argument until I reached this point. If you think TDS is a thing then you must also believe that ODS is also a thing....a thing that turned American flag waving self-declared patriotic republicans into Russian sympathizers. If you want your argument to be taken seriously (I was taking it serious), you should consider leaving out TDS as if it were a real thing.

I will say this, in a matter of 9 years, Republicans have gone from rule of law, American loving patriots to what we see on display every day from them now....to the point of having one of the most popular so-called conservative talking heads taking sides with Russia against an ally.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I don't see where he is claiming that bribery has to include money. His point where you are quoting...

I read his full testimony for myself. I have my own thoughts regarding his testimony that come from taking into consideration everything he said, and just as importantly, everything that he didn't say.

He clearly stated that those who say that what Trump did is bribery, within the context of the constitution, are wrong because they are interpreting bribery too broadly.

Then he clearly stated that we have an example of what was considered bribery by the framers, which is the part I quoted.

In providing that example, he twice emphasized the inclusion of "actual money" in that bribe.

Then he shifted away and just left it hanging on the example involving money. He did not offer any other examples of what the framers consider to be bribery other than the one example involving "actual money."

His line of argumentation implies it has to involve money even though he doesn't say so outright. That's why I said he seems to "suggest" that it has to involve money, not that he said it does.

The only thing I see him stating with any real clarity and conviction was that everyone else is wrong in how they interpret constitutional bribery.

He seemed vague and non-committal when it came to actually laying out what all is considered bribery by the framers and why what Trump did doesn't qualify as such.

I saw a whole lot of "they're wrong" without any real effort to show "this is what's right." He seemed just as partisan and biased as the others, he just wrapped it up in a "good ole boy" demeanor and language.

 

[Dadsdream]

Normally very composed Nancy Pelosi had a moment of passionate discourse today when asked if she hated DJT after she announced the impeachment would proceed.

"Don't mess with me when it comes to things like that."
- Nancy Pelosi

 

[Beach Friends]

I was reading through your post and really taking in the merits of your argument until I reached this point. If you think TDS is a thing then you must also believe that ODS is also a thing....a thing that turned American flag waving self-declared patriotic republicans into Russian sympathizers. If you want your argument to be taken seriously (I was taking it serious), you should consider leaving out TDS as if it were a real thing.

I will say this, in a matter of 9 years, Republicans have gone from rule of law, American loving patriots to what we see on display every day from them now....to the point of having one of the most popular so-called conservative talking heads taking sides with Russia against an ally.

I don't think it's listed in the DSM, but it sure seems to me that there is a hate for Trump that transcends the rational and causes people to make themselves look unhinged. BTW, I also think Trump realizes this and uses it to his advantage.

 

[Dadsdream]

I've watched the video several times now.
Simply put, you don't announce impeachment, then turn around and get baited into calling the President a coward and go on a rant about DACA and immigrants.
Bad move on Nancy's part. This does not bode well for the Democrats.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I don't think it's listed in the DSM, but it sure seems to me that there is a hate for Trump that transcends the rational and causes people to make themselves look unhinged. BTW, I also think Trump realizes this and uses it to his advantage.

I think Trump also uses the flip side of that coin to his advantage as well. There are those that behave in the same irrational way out of devotion to Trump.

Both sides of the irrational coin are a problem for the overall health of our society. My hope is that this dysfunctional political codependency ends or at least subsides when Trump's presidency ends.

 

[LA - L.A.]

This does not bode well for the Democrats.

What's your prediction for how the Senate will proceed after the House impeaches Trump?

 

[Dadsdream]

What's your prediction for how the Senate will proceed after the House impeaches Trump?

My prediction?

The Senate will adopt rules that totally support the majority.
Witnesses who try to provide hearsay testimony will be shredded or thrown out entirely.
Character, voting records and campaign contribution records of all witnesses will be fair game.
If they take it to the extreme, they'll subpoena everybody from Pelosi on down and try to catch them in lies in order to indict them.

OR

Summary vote to accept or decline. Declined. Move to the next item on the days agenda.

What do you think, LA-LA?

EDIT - Oh, pigeon-hole it in committee and let it sit there until after the election and let it die from neglect. That's always an option.

 

[Saintamaniac]

I don't think it's listed in the DSM, but it sure seems to me that there is a hate for Trump that transcends the rational and causes people to make themselves look unhinged. BTW, I also think Trump realizes this and uses it to his advantage.

All I'm saying is that your argument would be better served and better received if there were no mention of the so-called TDS. And again, if you are going to subscribe to the realness of the so-called TDS, then you must also accept Obama Derangement Syndrome for having turned American flag waving self-declared patriotic republicans into Russian sympathizers. And yes, I believe that trump uses it to his advantage. I believe he uses the fact that he's lied pretty much every day since taking office without any real repercussions to his advantage as well. Imagine that power that one must feel to know that you can make up and say anything you want to and have people risk their reputations to defend it even though they KNOW you are lying.

 

[LA - L.A.]

What do you think, LA-LA?

I think I'll keep waiting to see what happens, as it happens.

 

[Beach Friends]

All I'm saying is that your argument would be better served and better received if there were no mention of the so-called TDS.

Point taken.

 

[coldseat]

Normally very composed Nancy Pelosi had a moment of passionate discourse today when asked if she hated DJT after she announced the impeachment would proceed.

"Don't mess with me when it comes to things like that."
- Nancy Pelosi

That was totally predictable. And quick.

What do you think? About another 100 years before men stop labeling to every instance of a women reacting to something as, uncomposed, emotional, unhinged, etc.?

Ehh ... probably 200 years for the Fox News crowd.

 

[Dadsdream]

That was totally predictable. And quick.

What do you think? About another 100 years before men stop labeling to every instance of a women reacting to something as, uncomposed, emotional, unhinged, etc.?

Ehh ... probably 200 years for the Fox News crowd.

First a second there, she totally was her father's daughter . . . Baltimore Mayor Thomas D'Alesandro.

 

[Beach Friends]

Ehh ... probably 200 years for the Fox News crowd.

Hmmmm. Anyway, I meant to mention that Tucker almost certainly will be covering Nancy's hysterics during his show tonight, which starts at 7:00pm CST.