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]

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.

Eazy now, no one has said anything about owning anyone. You have your opinions, I have mine. They don't have to be the same.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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.

Terrible analogy. Unless you view your wife as something you own and control, of course.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

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.

Are you under the impression that what was released was a transcript?

Are you aware that there is testimony of someone who listened to the phone call that states the summary of the phone call in question was not complete?

If the only thing the White House has cooperated on is releasing a summary of that phone call, and if that summary is not complete, then how cooperative is that?

Now, I'm of the opinion that the President does not need to cooperate more than he is, however, as you yourself has said, his behavior in this matter is troubling, and if he was acting above board and wanted to clear things up he should consider being more open.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Eazy now, no one has said anything about owning anyone. You have your opinions, I have mine. They don't have to be the same.

So what is your official opinion then?

As just pointed out, you are speaking out both sides here. Both positions are in irreconcilable tension(unless you can demonstrate otherwise) and therefore can't both be true. You are high fiving and leaning into narratives that claim Trump has been cooperating so well that it breaks the narrative on the left that he is resisting, then turning right around and claiming he is in fact resisting but it is totally justified because of a made-up precedent the president is supposedly rightfully justified in being offended by to the point of his absolute resistance.

So which is it?

There also seems to be this larger misperception assumed into a number of responses, that because you have an opinion, and others have an opinion, that they are on equal planes. But if one person can factually, logically, and through critical thinking processes back up their opinion, and the other person can not, they do not really hold the same weight or merit any longer. And that is essentially what debate is predicated on. Not to mention I thought people on the right hated participation trophy culture? So it is odd so many want to seemingly equivocate all opinions as equally valid and worthy of equal respect. Hand Jason David the same banner we will give Brees?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I am not sure if you mean in this particular (Ukraine) incident or more in general.

Basically both. I think this President is acting outside of basic norms that are important to our Republic, and he's getting little push back from the people whose opinions he cares about, namely his base supporters.

But I do think the House should investigate more. Go through the courts to get the information they need, investigate what Giuliani is doing, and anything else they may find.

I don't think this is an unreasonable opinion, however in general there is little support from the people Trump cares about for more investigation. I think if more of them were willing, that in itself would reign him in.

I have read some suggestions that they vote to "censure" the President. Not sure how effective that would be.

If it were only from Democrats that passed the censure resolution, then it probably would not be effective. If it was a bipartisan censure, then it probably would be. In fact a bipartisan censure would be more effective than what is likely going to be a one sided vote for impeachment and a one side vote for acquittal in the Senate.

Yes, but I do think that impeachment should be based on violation of existing laws. Without such a grounding it becomes far too easy to use impeachment as a simple political weapon. But we may already be crossing into that territory.

So, I get what you're saying and probably agree with it. However, I do find it unsettling that a President can attempt to use the resources of the state purely for his own benefit.

For example, let's say instead of Trump asking for a public announcement into Biden, he asked for $2 billion into his personal account. That would be illegal right? But asking for something that will give him a material benefit in the form of election help is not?

 

[Beach Friends]

So what is your official opinion then?

As just pointed out, you are speaking out both sides here. Both positions are in irreconcilable tension(unless you can demonstrate otherwise) and therefore can't both be true. You are high fiving and leaning into narratives that claim Trump has been cooperating so well that it breaks the narrative on the left that he is resisting, then turning right around and claiming he is in fact resisting but it is totally justified because of a made-up precedent the president is supposedly rightfully justified in being offended by to the point of resistance.

So which is it?

I kinda like the way you described it. Let's stick with that for now. It's nuanced, with a touch of mystery.

Seriously, I am not sure what you are expecting. The man turned over the transcript of the call. Earlier I was told that there was no reason to even have the whistleblower testify because everything had been verified. And now I am told that there is no reason for Trump's counsel to participate, because all that happens in the House is a determination of whether this should go to the Senate, where there will be rules about presenting evidence and the POTUS will even be able to participate and call witnesses.

Well, let's tee it up and go to the Senate. I am already tired of watching Nadler take naps while overseeing the proceedings.

And honestly, I am not sure Pelosi can take anymore. She looks extremely stressed out and today was not a good day for her.

 

[dtc]

I kinda like the way you described it. Let's stick with that for now. It's nuanced, with a touch of mystery.

Seriously, I am not sure what you are expecting. The man turned over the transcript of the call. Earlier I was told that there was no reason to even have the whistleblower testify because everything had been verified. And now I am told that there is no reason for Trump's counsel to participate, because all that happens in the House is a determination of whether this should go to the Senate, where there will be rules about presenting evidence and the POTUS will even be able to participate and call witnesses.

Well, let's tee it up and go to the Senate. I am already tired of watching Nadler take naps while overseeing the proceedings.

And honestly, I am not sure Pelosi can take anymore. She looks extremely stressed out and today was not a good day for her.

You do realize that what was released was not a transcript, right? At best it was a summary. At worst, it was a purposefully edited summary intended to conceal wrongdoing. Hell, the disclaimer on the cover of the document clearly said "this is not a transcript" and within the 4 corners of the report are numerous elipses intended to show missing material.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Basically both. I think this President is acting outside of basic norms that are important to our Republic, and he's getting little push back from the people whose opinions he cares about, namely his base supporters.



I don't think this is an unreasonable opinion, however in general there is little support from the people Trump cares about for more investigation. I think if more of them were willing, that in itself would reign him in.



If it were only from Democrats that passed the censure resolution, then it probably would not be effective. If it was a bipartisan censure, then it probably would be. In fact a bipartisan censure would be more effective than what is likely going to be a one sided vote for impeachment and a one side vote for acquittal in the Senate.




So, I get what you're saying and probably agree with it. However, I do find it unsettling that a President can attempt to use the resources of the state purely for his own benefit.

For example, let's say instead of Trump asking for a public announcement into Biden, he asked for $2 billion into his personal account. That would be illegal right? But asking for something that will give him a material benefit in the form of election help is not?

Well that is sort of the brilliance of the Gingrich/McConnell strategy isn't it? Claim the process is biased/invalid unless there is bipartisan support, then deny any and all bipartisan support, then point to the lack of bipartisan support as justification for why the process is invalid. Baking into that calculus a press that struggles with not affording a sense of goodwill while striving for equivocation to both sides of the governing body, likely for fear of being called biased. Which leads to a public that forever struggles to see a dangerous asymmetrical strategy for what it is.


As to basing impeachment on a criminal statute. I would like a better defense of that position. And I have honestly been seeking it for a couple of months. As the founders roundly disagreed and given that bribery, which was explicitly mentioned in the constitution as an impeachable offense, was not a statutory law at the time, it factually makes the case difficult to maintain for me IMO. Furthermore, I think examples like Trump illuminate why they were exactly right to not tie impeachment to criminal statutes. As Hamilton and others wrote, violations of the public trust, or the abuse of the office, are not necessarily criminally liable actions, but their activity nonetheless can not go without recourse because it tears away at the very legitimacy and heart of the republic. And if a president has corrupted the avenues through which he would be held criminally liable, he essentially becomes above the law. And Barr essentially refusing to act like the independent branch of justice it is intended speaks to why alternative paths are so necessary for dealing with abuse of power or violating the public trust.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I kinda like the way you described it. Let's stick with that for now. It's nuanced, with a touch of mystery.

Seriously, I am not sure what you are expecting. The man turned over the transcript of the call. Earlier I was told that there was no reason to even have the whistleblower testify because everything had been verified. And now I am told that there is no reason for Trump's counsel to participate, because all that happens in the House is a determination of whether this should go to the Senate, where there will be rules about presenting evidence and the POTUS will even be able to participate and call witnesses.

Well, let's tee it up and go to the Senate. I am already tired of watching Nadler take naps while overseeing the proceedings.

And honestly, I am not sure Pelosi can take anymore. She looks extremely stressed out and today was not a good day for her.

I'm hoping for efforted participation in conversation. The supposed point of this board and what people participating on it are being asked to strive for.

You typed a lot and managed to not answer a single question I asked of you, or address a single point I made.

If you take issue with aspects of my framing, clarify it, then rectify the discrepancies I spoke to.

 

[Joe Okc]

Man.. Is this still going on???

I haven't been paying any attention anymore...

 

[LA - L.A.]

IDK, asking the POTUS to produce witnesses and documents all the while telling him the he can't participate...

Trump was offered the opportunity to participate in the Judiciary committee's hearing, he declined.

That shows the whole "it's not fair because I can't participate" argument was insincere on Trump and his supporter's part.

 

[Beach Friends]

Man.. Is this still going on???

I haven't been paying any attention anymore...

Well Joe, what the heck have you been doing? You really have not missed all that much.

The Democrats put on 3 law professors who said it would be okay to impeach, the Republicans put on one who said that this was no way to go about impeaching a president.

Nancy said she doesn't hate the POTUS, prays for him nightly, but that it is the will of the founding fathers that Trump be impeached so she directed her party to draft articles of impeachment.

I think that's it in a nutshell.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The man turned over the transcript of the call.

That is completely false. The actual document that was provided says very clearly on the first page that it was not an actual transcript of the call.

If someone is basing their opinions on the false statement above being true, then their opinions are flawed and invalid.

 

[JimEverett]

Are you under the impression that what was released was a transcript?

Are you aware that there is testimony of someone who listened to the phone call that states the summary of the phone call in question was not complete?

If the only thing the White House has cooperated on is releasing a summary of that phone call, and if that summary is not complete, then how cooperative is that?

Now, I'm of the opinion that the President does not need to cooperate more than he is, however, as you yourself has said, his behavior in this matter is troubling, and if he was acting above board and wanted to clear things up he should consider being more open.

The idea I was responding to was a claim that the way the WH has responded is unprecedented. It is not.

If the release of the "transcript" of the phone call was not the full release it is akin to a partial document dump - which Presidents do, see Obama the Fast and Furious investigation.

Beyond that - the fact that there was testimony at all about the phone call - either what was released or what was allegedly not released presents a prima facie case of privilege that was either expressly waived or implied. The WH certainly could have fought it but did not.

Someone can argue that the release was merely strategy and that somehow proves what? Of course it was strategy. I would bet the idea was to go more of the route Reagan took in Iran Contra - but that went to hell once serious talks of impeachment began to circulate. That still doesn't mean there was some unprecedented level of non-cooperation.

 

[wardorican]

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.

This isnt the British Parliment. What congressional investigations have had a president directly participate?

 

[wardorican]

Are you under the impression that what was released was a transcript?

Are you aware that there is testimony of someone who listened to the phone call that states the summary of the phone call in question was not complete?

If the only thing the White House has cooperated on is releasing a summary of that phone call, and if that summary is not complete, then how cooperative is that?

Now, I'm of the opinion that the President does not need to cooperate more than he is, however, as you yourself has said, his behavior in this matter is troubling, and if he was acting above board and wanted to clear things up he should consider being more open.

And I will go a step further that agrees with something Jim said. If democrats really want to get the facts iron clad, they should subpoena all of those things and enforce them in the courts.

Rudy Giuliani most definitely needs to testify. Certain documents most definitely need to be produced. Force it in court.

 

[MT15]

I totally agree. They need to slow down and just expose everything. Trump won’t like that one bit, because I think what we see so far is just the tip of the iceberg.

 

[Lapaz]

I totally agree. They need to slow down and just expose everything. Trump won’t like that one bit, because I think what we see so far is just the tip of the iceberg.

I agree with slowing down to let the courts rule. It will push the impeachment well into next year, but that'll be Trump's fault for not cooperating. The result will be that impeachment will be fresher in the minds of the voters if it is pushed into Spring of next year. Voters will be reminded of Trump's wrongdoing. The courts will probably force many more witnessed to testify and many more substantiating documents to be released. The only reasons to rush it are to reduce the impact on the Democratic Senators that are running for president, to avoid the argument that we should allow the elections to decide Trump's fate, and to avoid implicating Biden. The counter is that Trump's actions are undermining or have undermined the integrity of the election, so he needs to be removed, and if Biden is implicated, then so be it. If it does get too close to the election, perhaps the senate will fast track the trial, but by that point, the House will have uncovered much more evidence.