The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (1 Viewer)

Users who are viewing this thread

    Andrus

    Admin
    Staff member
    Joined
    Oct 6, 2018
    Messages
    2,028
    Reaction score
    851
    Age
    64
    Location
    Sunset, Louisiana
    Offline
    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
     
    We aren't a democracy.

    Our constitutional republic is designed to have friction between the branches in a never ending power struggle.

    Each branch is designed to check the excesses of the others.

    So what we are seeing when the President resists Congressional overreach is by design.

    Now, if we had a Speaker of the House ordering articles of impeachment be drafted without a vote of the full House, that would be unconstitutional abuse of power and the action of a "dictator", one who dictates without the consent of those constitutionally mandated to approve impeachment.
    It's interesting that in your loaded rationalization you left out entirely the total systemic breakdown of one of the most critical assumptions the US constitutional system was built upon, which was that loyalty to your branch would override loyalty to party, especially when it comes at the expense of weakening their own branch of intended co-equal power.

    You would be hard-pressed to find any sort of non-monarchial view of the founders era that would speak in favor of the way the Republican Party has not just acted as a skeptic of the process, but an active participant in undermining their own branch's power in order to protect the member of their party in the branch they are intended to ultimately have an adversarial posture toward when challenged.
     
    Obviously we're never going to agree. I would just appreciate if you would stop distorting what has occurred in order to fit your narrative.

    To claim that Trump had done anything that could be considered as "the definition of cooperating with the congressional investigation is just laughable on its face. Trump boast daily about ignoring subpoenas.
    I would appreciate it if you would stop distorting facts. The White House turned over the phone call that is at the heart of the matter. They did not have to do that- there is a clear claim to privilege on that. But they did it. For you to suggest that it is the first WH to fight EVERY single thing in an investigation is a gross distortion of facts and is easily refuted. To claim I am distorting facts is crazy.
    WH staff testified - as far as I am aware there was no invoking of privilege to stop them They may have been asked not to testify, which I am going to assume in your world is grounds for jail only if done by this White House.

    He can't claim executive privilege when he released the summary of the call previously.
    Right, he waived the privilege - Is it your position that had he not done so when he did, but rather waited for a subpoena that it puts him in less jeopardy for obstruction? Its such a bizarre argument you are making.

    So no, none of that qualifies as cooperation.
    Its weird being in a world where turning over the most important piece of evidence in an investigation, and one where there is a clear case of privilege, does not qualify as cooperation.
     
    Its weird being in a world where turning over the most important piece of evidence in an investigation, and one where there is a clear case of privilege, does not qualify as cooperation.

    Doesn't count if it doesn't support the narrative.

    It does, however, give Schiff something to pretend he is quoting.
     
    I would appreciate it if you would stop distorting facts. The White House turned over the phone call that is at the heart of the matter. They did not have to do that- there is a clear claim to privilege on that. But they did it. For you to suggest that it is the first WH to fight EVERY single thing in an investigation is a gross distortion of facts and is easily refuted. To claim I am distorting facts is crazy.
    WH staff testified - as far as I am aware there was no invoking of privilege to stop them They may have been asked not to testify, which I am going to assume in your world is grounds for jail only if done by this White House.

    Right, he waived the privilege - Is it your position that had he not done so when he did, but rather waited for a subpoena that it puts him in less jeopardy for obstruction? Its such a bizarre argument you are making.


    Its weird being in a world where turning over the most important piece of evidence in an investigation, and one where there is a clear case of privilege, does not qualify as cooperation.

    I've explained myself plenty clearly and stand by what I've said. Moreover, it's backed up by the actually occurred. It's clear you've chosen this hill to die on, as distortion is the only thing you have left.

    I'm not responding any more on this topic, it's pointless. Enjoy the rhetorical victory that you undoubtedly think you won.
     
    Key individuals who refused to comply with the inquiry include Vice President Mike Pence, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, former National Security Adviser John Bolton, Energy Secretary Rick Perry, Acting Director of the Office of Management and Budget Russell Vought, and Rudy Giuliani. Other White House officials who have also refused to testify include National Security Council lawyers John Eisenberg and Michael Ellis; Mulvaney adviser Robert Blair; and Brian McCormack, the associate director for natural resources, energy, and science at the Office of Management and Budget. Additionally, as specified in the report, the White House, the Office of the Vice President, the Office of Management and Budget, the Department of State, the Department of Defense and the Department of Energy failed to produce any documents in response to “71 specific, individualized requests or demands for records in their possession, custody, or control.”
    JimEverett said:
    Its weird being in a world where turning over the most important piece of evidence in an investigation, and one where there is a clear case of privilege, does not qualify as cooperation.

    How with any sense of intellectual honesty could you make that assertion when all of the above witnesses and all of that denied documentation has not been seen?

    This is the equivalent of claiming Nixon was totally cooperative because he willfully gave up edited transcripts in April of 74.
     
    Thinking and asserting something will be exculpatory as your entire justification for releasing something does not prove cooperation.

    Especially when the follow up when it turns out your assumption was incorrect, is to literally refuse any and all subsequent cooperation. Fighting it in the media, through proxies in congress, and most tellingly, in the courts. Claiming non-participation in any oversight and immunity from any sort of investigatory matter is absolute.
     
    As has been pointed out - there are numerous, numerous, numerous occasions where Administrations have ignored subpoenas, had members of an Administration refuse to testify, claim privilege. It is routine.
    Saying this is unprecedented is just flat out wrong, and easily shown to be so.

    Has another president ever claimed “universal immunity” or whatever they are calling it? Ever instructed a campaign worker who was never part of the administration to claim Executive privilege? Has another president ever gone to court and argued that he is immune from any investigations whatsoever while in office? Even when the judge asked the lawyer if that included the theoretical shooting in the middle of 5th Avenue, the administration lawyer said “yes, even if the president murders someone, he cannot even be investigated for the crime”.

    I think you’re aware of these items, and that they are unprecedented. You’re not uninformed. So why act like the actions of this administration are business as usual?
     
    He's on the verge of being impeached - is that not oversight?

    beyond that the idea that he has thumbed his nose at every request is factually wrong, consider the amount of information given to the Mueller investigation.
    ignoring subpoenas and claiming privilege are a staple of American democracy - far from being even "like" a dictatorship.

    We aren't talking about the Mueller inquiry although he did very clearly obstruct justice and remains an un-indicted co-conspirator to a number of crimes detailed in Mueller's report.
     
    We aren't a democracy.

    Our constitutional republic is designed to have friction between the branches in a never ending power struggle.

    Each branch is designed to check the excesses of the others.

    So what we are seeing when the President resists Congressional overreach is by design.

    Now, if we had a Speaker of the House ordering articles of impeachment be drafted without a vote of the full House, that would be unconstitutional abuse of power and the action of a "dictator", one who dictates without the consent of those constitutionally mandated to approve impeachment.

    Our constitutional republic is a Democracy. At least it's supposed to be, just not via direct vote.
     
    As has been pointed out - there are numerous, numerous, numerous occasions where Administrations have ignored subpoenas, had members of an Administration refuse to testify, claim privilege. It is routine.
    Saying this is unprecedented is just flat out wrong, and easily shown to be so.

    Ok, it's routine except the scale and scope of the refusals by this administration are orders greater than those of any predecessor.
     
    When did the White House release the transcript?

    The only accounting of the phone call I have seen was by several people after the fact. The document literally says on it, it isnt a transcript.

    Without the missing 18 minutes or nine missing elipses in the conversation, it is worthless.

    But nothing shady about moving the actual transcript to a classified server. I guess flat out destroying it would have raised too much suspicion.
     
    We aren't talking about the Mueller inquiry although he did very clearly obstruct justice and remains an un-indicted co-conspirator to a number of crimes detailed in Mueller's report.
    HJonestly it is a classic talking out both sides.

    As somehow Trump is both being obviously cooperative, yet also is somehow just being a good old red-blooded American that ignores subpoenas and claiming privilege around everything involving this investigatory matter, so whats the problem.

    The logical hole here is so large you could drive a double-wide attached next to another double-wide through it.
     
    We also have testimony that there were inaccuracies in that rough read out of the call that were not corrected even after being pointed out. Which was different than the usual course of business.

    So Trump released the call read out because he thought it was exculpatory. And when he figured out that it was not, he effectively has gone into obstruction mode. I have a hard time giving him a cookie for that.
     
    IDK, asking the POTUS to produce witnesses and documents all the while telling him the he can't participate is a little like telling a man that although he is not invited to a swingers' party, his wife is more than welcome.

    It's just not going to go over well, and no one should be surprised by that.
     
    IDK, asking the POTUS to produce witnesses and documents all the while telling him the he can't participate is a little like telling a man that although he is not invited to a swingers' party, his wife is more than welcome.

    It's just not going to go over well, and no one should be surprised by that.

    In what way is the president not being allowed to participate?
     
    IDK, asking the POTUS to produce witnesses and documents all the while telling him the he can't participate is a little like telling a man that although he is not invited to a swingers' party, his wife is more than welcome.

    It's just not going to go over well, and no one should be surprised by that.
    During the inquiry he doesn’t get to participate. During the senate trial he does. What part of this is not understood? Did Clinton get to provide lawyers during his inquiry? He does have GOP members able to question witnesses as we have seen the last couple of weeks.
     
    IDK, asking the POTUS to produce witnesses and documents all the while telling him the he can't participate is a little like telling a man that although he is not invited to a swingers' party, his wife is more than welcome.

    It's just not going to go over well, and no one should be surprised by that.
    Make up your mind.

    You all keep high fiving each other and continue to weave back and forth between two diametrically opposed arguments, you can try and own the libs by claiming he is cooperating when people are saying it's obvious he is not, or you can try and defend Trump by claiming his refusal is justified based on some made-up precedent, but you can't claim both.

    Continuing to do so comes off like you are simply trying to frustrate others as opposed to putting forth an honest effort.
     

    Create an account or login to comment

    You must be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create account

    Create an account on our community. It's easy!

    Log in

    Already have an account? Log in here.

    Advertisement

    General News Feed

    Fact Checkers News Feed

    Sponsored

    Back
    Top Bottom