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

 

[coldseat]

The results of the 2016 election: Trump wins a Presidential term that lasts 4 years.

Impeachment: Removal of Trump before Trump serves 4 years

Therefore:
Impeachment is overturning the results of the election.

Not sure why that offends you so much.

Again, it's not offensive. I'm not offended. I'm just more factual than you are, apparently.

Impeachment is not overturning the results of the election. You haven't made that point.

 

[samiam5211]

The results of the 2016 election: Trump wins a Presidential term that lasts 4 years.

Impeachment: Removal of Trump before Trump serves 4 years

Therefore:
Impeachment is overturning the results of the election.

Not sure why that offends you so much.

If Trump were impeached and removed from office, who would be the winner of the 2016 election?

 

[Farb]

For what it’s worth
=================

“President Trump’s lawless obstruction of the House of Representatives, which is rightly seeking documents and witness testimony in pursuit of its constitutionally-mandated oversight role, has demonstrated brazen contempt for representative government,” the scholars write in the letter, which was published online by the nonprofit advocacy group Protect Democracy.

“So have his attempts to justify that obstruction on the grounds that the executive enjoys absolute immunity, a fictitious doctrine that, if tolerated, would turn the president into an elected monarch above the law,” they add.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/more-than-700-scholars-pen-letter-urging-house-to-impeach-trump/2019/12/16/575d980a-2060-11ea-86f3-3b5019d451db_story.html

You cannot have 'obstruction' without the courts ruling that the subpoenas are enforceable. If the executive branch still does not turn over documents or prevents witnesses from testifying then you have obstruction. If the courts have ruled on that, I must have missed it.

If the congress asks for something and the executive branch tells them to go pound sand, then that is exactly how the system is suppose to work. It is then on the congress to determine if their requests will be upheld by the Judiciary.
Seems odd that 700 activists in academia would just throw that out as fact.

 

[JimEverett]

Again, it's not offensive. I'm not offended. I'm just more factual than you are, apparently.

Impeachment is not overturning the results of the election. You haven't made that point.

You can keep saying that, but I did make the point.

 

[brandon]

Not sure why that offends you so much.

Because it's inaccurate.

overturn
[ verb oh-ver-turn; noun oh-ver-turn ]SHOW IPA
SEE SYNONYMS FOR overturn ON THESAURUS.COM
verb (used with object)
to destroy the power of; overthrow; defeat; vanquish.
to turn over on its side, face, or back; upset:to overturn a vase.
verb (used without object)
to turn on its side, face, or back; capsize:The boat overturned during the storm.

Which of these definitions do you feel describes the current situation?

Further, I am just annoyed by the suggestion that impeachment requires broad support from the American people. It doesn't. It requires that the president have committed bribery, treason, or high crimes or misdemeanors. That's it. If he has, it is the DUTY of congress to impeach. Whether the president or the decision to impeach is popular is IRRELEVANT to Congress' constitutional obligation to impeach a president who has committed an impeachable offense.

 

[samiam5211]

You cannot have 'obstruction' without the courts ruling that the subpoenas are enforceable. If the executive branch still does not turn over documents or prevents witnesses from testifying then you have obstruction. If the courts have ruled on that, I must have missed it.

If the congress asks for something and the executive branch tells them to go pound sand, then that is exactly how the system is suppose to work. It is then on the congress to determine if their requests will be upheld by the Judiciary.
Seems odd that 700 activists in academia would just throw that out as fact.

No, the whitehouse is supposed to comply with subpoenas unless it believes they are not legally sufficient.

Only the subpoenas that are articulately not legally sufficient should be brought to court.

Bringing every subpoena to court because you want to tell the legislative branch to "pound sand", is textbook obstruction of justice.

 

[JimEverett]

If Trump were impeached and removed from office, who would be the winner of the 2016 election?

That is not what is meant by "results"

Is the point here that "results" mean vote totals? If you think that is what people mean when they say that impeachment overturns the results of an election then I don;t know what to say other than that is ridiculous.

"Results" means just that - the situation that follows from the election.

 

[JimEverett]

Bringing every subpoena to court because you want to tell the legislative branch to "pound sand", is textbook obstruction of justice.

Funny that the Democratic House seems to disagree with you on that - as do many others.

 

[Beach Friends]

The results of the 2016 election: Trump wins a Presidential term that lasts 4 years.

Impeachment: Removal of Trump before Trump serves 4 years

Therefore:
Impeachment is overturning the results of the election.

Not sure why that offends you so much.

It seems like "overturning the results of an election" is appropriate given that impeachment has been the battle cry since before the man was even sworn in.

 

[JimEverett]

It seems like "overturning the results of an election" is appropriate given that impeachment has been the battle cry since before the man was even sworn in.

I am guessing there is some Democratic talking point out there to fight back on the term. It seems innocuous enough to me in the context of impeachment, but apparently it is a sore spot for those wishing to overturn the results of the election.

 

[coldseat]

You can keep saying that, but I did make the point.

Sure you did.

Regardless of what happens with Impeachment, Trump is still the winner of the 2016 election. The results of the election stand (which means they are not overturned) even if if Trump is removed from office for impeachment.

Your inability to acknowledge this simple fact if very telling. What this is really about, it seems, is that defining this as "overthrowing the results of the election" is clearly central to your opposition to impeachment. Which is the reasons Republicans keep repeating it as a catch phrase, a very effective one apparently.

No matter what you think of Republicans, they clearly know how to message better to their core constituents than democrats do to get them emotionally involved.

 

[JimEverett]

You refuse to acknowledge how the term "results" is used when people are speaking. No one in their right mind thinks that impeachment means that the vote totals from 2016 are changed. It is very telling that that is your position as it shows the tendency to argue against strawmen

 

[coldseat]

I am guessing there is some Democratic talking point out there to fight back on the term. It seems innocuous enough to me in the context of impeachment, but apparently it is a sore spot for those wishing to overturn the results of the election.

There are no talking points that I read. LMAO.


I've just head the phrase repeated relentlessly and always thought is was a mis-characterization of what is happening. I finally just said something about it. I honestly didn't realize how important this little line was to Republicans until I just challenged it. Honestly it just kind of scares me how effective messaging is with people (I've also felt that for a long time too).

 

[brandon]

You refuse to acknowledge how the term "results" is used when people are speaking. No one in their right mind thinks that impeachment means that the vote totals from 2016 are changed. It is very telling that that is your position as it shows the tendency to argue against strawmen

I'm sorry, if the president is impeached, how are the "results" of the 2016 election changed? He was elected president, served, committed bribery, and was removed. The election result was the same. He was elected president and served until he did something that required his removal. This is a separate incident.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I am guessing there is some Democratic talking point out there to fight back on the term. It seems innocuous enough to me in the context of impeachment, but apparently it is a sore spot for those wishing to overturn the results of the election.

The act that is happening, by your estimation, is the overturning of the results. Why don't we define the term "overturn" to see if it's even valid.

o·ver·turn
verb

/ˌōvərˈtərn/

1. tip (something) over so that it is on its side or upside down.
   "the crowd proceeded to overturn cars and set them on fire"
   
   
   
2. abolish, invalidate, or reverse (a previous system, decision, situation, etc.).
   "the results overturned previous findings"

The first entry is about physically overturning something, like a bucket, so I think we can safely skip that.

The second entry seems to be what we need. If Trump is impeached and removed from office, the 2016 election is not reversed, as the same party and the person on the ticket with Trump (Mike Pence) would become president. A reversal means that the election would be given to Hillary instead.

It's definitely not invalidating the election, for the same reason that it is not reversing it. If impeachment and removal from office invalidated the election, then the entire voting process would have to be started over. We aren't scrapping the election so it's not being invalidated.

Is it abolishing the results? No. It's not putting an end to the election. If anything, it is the opposite. The end result would be that the person Trump chose to be his running mate would take over.

What is being ignored when someone says that impeachment would "overturn the results of the 2016 election" is that the people voted for more than Trump. When they vote for him, they also cast a vote for Mike Pence. As long as Mike Pence is sworn in as President upon Trump's removal, nothing is being overturned. A mechanism in place to remove a corrupt president is being used and the president's hand picked right hand man take his place.

 

[Farb]

No, the whitehouse is supposed to comply with subpoenas unless it believes they are not legally sufficient.

Only the subpoenas that are articulately not legally sufficient should be brought to court.

Bringing every subpoena to court because you want to tell the legislative branch to "pound sand", is textbook obstruction of justice.

The past administration disagrees with you as seen with AG Holder.

 

[Joe Okc]

It is overturning the last election and trying to stack the cards in the next one.
Jim Everett is correct....

Trying to say otherwise is just lying to try and convince yourself it's a just cause when it's just a political circus side show...

 

[samiam5211]

Funny that the Democratic House seems to disagree with you on that - as do many others.

The democrats didn’t draft articles of impeachment for everything they feel Trump is guilty of.

They should have.

That is not what is meant by "results"

Is the point here that "results" mean vote totals? If you think that is what people mean when they say that impeachment overturns the results of an election then I don;t know what to say other than that is ridiculous.

"Results" means just that - the situation that follows from the election.

Overturning the election would be if after removal Hillary was sworn in.

It is an intentionally misleading statement to say impeachment overturns and election.