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

 

[MT15]

That is a weird way of looking at it.

It sounds like Pelosi saying they gave the President a chance to prove his innocence.

it is what Mueller said. If there were no evidence that the President committed a crime, as Archie tried to say, Mueller told us he would have said so. But Mueller also said that he could not say that. There’s nothing weird about that. My comprehension is on solid ground there.

Trump indeed could have prevented his impeachment, but he chose not to participate. We don’t know why he chose that path. Maybe he didn’t think they’d actually go through with it. Maybe he knew if he allowed his aides to speak they would only confirm what he knew he did. Maybe the hubris brought on by a lifetime of getting away with whatever he feels like doing without ever once taking personal responsibility for his own actions finally caught up with him. Who knows?

He could have even tried the “my bad, I shouldn’t have done that, I see that now” route, and I honestly think Pelosi would have preferred to censure him and move on. That would have been out of character for him though. I don’t think he’s capable of taking personal responsibility at all for anything.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Since I did not, and would never vote for Trump... and She showed some level of sanity / fortitude... sure.

Just like I did not, and would never vote for Hillary....

I like my leaders to be... Leaders... not mouth pieces, puppets, and/or fair weather, phony, partisan hacks that would say or do anything to farm votes.

it's a cool theory, but it pretty much guarantees that you will opt for a 'leader' who will never lead

 

[JimEverett]

it is what Mueller said. If there were no evidence that the President committed a crime, as Archie tried to say, Mueller told us he would have said so. But Mueller also said that he could not say that. There’s nothing weird about that. My comprehension is on solid ground there.

Trump indeed could have prevented his impeachment, but he chose not to participate. We don’t know why he chose that path. Maybe he didn’t think they’d actually go through with it. Maybe he knew if he allowed his aides to speak they would only confirm what he knew he did. Maybe the hubris brought on by a lifetime of getting away with whatever he feels like doing without ever once taking personal responsibility for his own actions finally caught up with him. Who knows?

He could have even tried the “my bad, I shouldn’t have done that, I see that now” route, and I honestly think Pelosi would have preferred to censure him and move on. That would have been out of character for him though. I don’t think he’s capable of taking personal responsibility at all for anything.

I am not sure what quote of Mueller's you are referring.
No one in America needs or has to prove innocence.

 

[Archies Ghost]

I am not sure what quote of Mueller's you are referring.
No one in America needs or has to prove innocence.

Here are some of Mueller quotes that MT15 think show evidence of a crime

We applied the term coordination in that sense when stating in the report that the investigation did not establish that the Trump Campaign coordinated with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

did not find that the Trump campaign, or anyone associated with it, conspired or coordinated with the Russian government in these efforts, despite multiple efforts from Russian-affiliated individuals to assist the Trump campaign.

And a John Solomon piece relevant to the issue

Lisa Page bombshell: FBI couldn't prove Trump-Russia collusion before Mueller appointment

To date, Lisa Page’s infamy has been driven mostly by the anti-Donald Trump text messages she exchanged with fellow FBI agent Peter Strzok as the two engaged in an affair while investigating the president for alleged election collusion with Russia. Yet, when history judges the former FBI lawyer...

thehill.com

Which raises the question: If there was no concrete evidence of collusion, why did we need a special counsel?
Page’s comments also mean FBI and Justice officials likely leaked a barrage of media stories just before and after Mueller’s appointment that made the evidence of collusion look far stronger than the frontline investigators knew it to be. Text messages show contacts between key FBI and DOJ players and The Washington Post, The Associated Press and The New York Times during the ramp-up to Mueller’s probe.

It is rather frightening that American citizens actually believe guilty until proven innocent should ever be operative in this country.

There is reasonable doubt all over the place on every investigation of DJT and here we are wondering if the fruit of these incredibly biased and bungled investigations, articles of impeachment, will be sent to the Senate as mandated by the Constitution or if the Democrats are going to attempt to subvert that in the desperate attempt to get the Senate to continue the endless investigations to oblivion.

 

[wardorican]

The relevance was clear.

Please explain to the dumb guy here.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Here are some of Mueller quotes that MT15 think show evidence of a crime





And a John Solomon piece relevant to the issue

Lisa Page bombshell: FBI couldn't prove Trump-Russia collusion before Mueller appointment

To date, Lisa Page’s infamy has been driven mostly by the anti-Donald Trump text messages she exchanged with fellow FBI agent Peter Strzok as the two engaged in an affair while investigating the president for alleged election collusion with Russia. Yet, when history judges the former FBI lawyer...

thehill.com

It is rather frightening that American citizens actually believe guilty until proven innocent should ever be operative in this country.

There is reasonable doubt all over the place on every investigation of DJT and here we are wondering if the fruit of these incredibly biased and bungled investigations, articles of impeachment, will be sent to the Senate as mandated by the Constitution or if the Democrats are going to attempt to subvert that in the desperate attempt to get the Senate to continue the endless investigations to oblivion.

I believe this is what you are looking for:

"The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation, and we conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work, and as set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

"We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.

The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/muellers-statement-annotated-if-we-had-confidence-that-president-clearly-did-not-commit-crime-we-would-have-said-so/

 

[Lapaz]

I am not sure what quote of Mueller's you are referring.
No one in America needs or has to prove innocence.

You're innocent until proven guilty, but when you're the focus of an investigation, and the investigator states that he couldn't exonerate you, then that suggests that there is plenty of evidence suggesting you are guilty. Mueller stated:
""Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime," Mueller said, referring to the longstanding policy set by the department's Office of Legal Counsel against indicting a sitting president. "

'Not a witch hunt': Mueller says Trump not exonerated, knocks his praise of WikiLeaks

The former special counsel testified before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees.

www.nbcnews.com

That's a roundabout way of saying the he committed a crime, but policy forbids him from making a determination, because if he had NOT committed a crime, there wouldn't be any concern about fairness.

 

[wardorican]

Here are some of Mueller quotes that MT15 think show evidence of a crime





And a John Solomon piece relevant to the issue

Lisa Page bombshell: FBI couldn't prove Trump-Russia collusion before Mueller appointment

To date, Lisa Page’s infamy has been driven mostly by the anti-Donald Trump text messages she exchanged with fellow FBI agent Peter Strzok as the two engaged in an affair while investigating the president for alleged election collusion with Russia. Yet, when history judges the former FBI lawyer...

thehill.com

It is rather frightening that American citizens actually believe guilty until proven innocent should ever be operative in this country.

There is reasonable doubt all over the place on every investigation of DJT and here we are wondering if the fruit of these incredibly biased and bungled investigations, articles of impeachment, will be sent to the Senate as mandated by the Constitution or if the Democrats are going to attempt to subvert that in the desperate attempt to get the Senate to continue the endless investigations to oblivion.

The burden on an investigation isn't to prove innocence or only investigate what is easily established guilt. It is to to follow what seems to have happened, and then go from there. Either you can build a case or you can't.

Similar to police entering your home due to reasonable suspicion (or grounds). Investigations are to get to the truth and then make a decision. If you could only investigate what you could already prove someone's guilty of.. then why investigate? That's like the line about losing something, then finding it in the last place you'd look. Well duh, why keep looking for something found?

 

[JimEverett]

I believe this is what you are looking for:

"The order appointing me special counsel authorized us to investigate actions that could obstruct the investigation, and we conducted that investigation and we kept the office of the acting attorney general apprised of the progress of our work, and as set forth in the report after that investigation, if we had had confidence that the president clearly did not commit a crime, we would have said so."

"We did not, however, make a determination as to whether the president did commit a crime. The introduction to the volume two of our report explains that decision. It explains that under long-standing department policy, a president cannot be charged with a federal crime while he is in office. That is unconstitutional. Even if the charge is kept under seal and hidden from public view, that, too, is prohibited.

The special counsel’s office is part of the Department of Justice and by regulation, it was bound by that department policy. Charging the president with a crime was therefore not an option we could consider."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/05/29/muellers-statement-annotated-if-we-had-confidence-that-president-clearly-did-not-commit-crime-we-would-have-said-so/

Okay - so it was on the question of obstruction of justice not on the question of collusion, which is what I thought the topic was. I think the impeachment speaks to that. No obstruction of justice articles filed at all - whether with respect to the Mueller investigation or to the Ukraine phone call investigation. So the President is clearly innocent on both.

 

[Beach Friends]

Please explain to the dumb guy here.

That other guy thought that the reason I was posting a video of Tlaib was that she was a woman of color. I pointed out that I also posted an image of white people doing the same thing (celebrating impeachment).

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Okay - so it was on the question of obstruction of justice not on the question of collusion, which is what I thought the topic was. I think the impeachment speaks to that. No obstruction of justice articles filed at all - whether with respect to the Mueller investigation or to the Ukraine phone call investigation. So the President is clearly innocent on both.

Just because tone does not translate through text- please tell me this isn’t actually what you believe.

 

[JimEverett]

Just because tone does not translate through text- please tell me this isn’t actually what you believe.

Why wouldn't it be what I believe? You think the Democrats in Congress would hold off filing an Article of impeachment on Obstruction of Justice if there was actual evidence of it?
If so, why?

 

[Beach Friends]

Why wouldn't it be what I believe? You think the Democrats in Congress would hold off filing an Article of impeachment on Obstruction of Justice if there was actual evidence of it?
If so, why?

They were in a hurry you know. (Gotta keep Trump from stealing another election and all that). I know that seems to be contradicted by the fact Pelosi is sitting on the articles, but Schiff said so and he doesn't seem like the kinda guy who would tell a fib.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Just because tone does not translate through text- please tell me this isn’t actually what you believe.

With no evidence of a crime to obstruct the justice for, other reasonable explanations are easily found for the behavior.

In the United States, reasonable doubt equals a verdict of not guilty.

Watch a few dozen Law and Order episodes or something.

 

[dtc]

Okay - so it was on the question of obstruction of justice not on the question of collusion, which is what I thought the topic was. I think the impeachment speaks to that. No obstruction of justice articles filed at all - whether with respect to the Mueller investigation or to the Ukraine phone call investigation. So the President is clearly innocent on both.

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

They've explained in great detail why they kept the articles to 2 and it had nothing to do with innocence.

 

[dtc]

Here are some of Mueller quotes that MT15 think show evidence of a crime





And a John Solomon piece relevant to the issue

Lisa Page bombshell: FBI couldn't prove Trump-Russia collusion before Mueller appointment

To date, Lisa Page’s infamy has been driven mostly by the anti-Donald Trump text messages she exchanged with fellow FBI agent Peter Strzok as the two engaged in an affair while investigating the president for alleged election collusion with Russia. Yet, when history judges the former FBI lawyer...

thehill.com

It is rather frightening that American citizens actually believe guilty until proven innocent should ever be operative in this country.

There is reasonable doubt all over the place on every investigation of DJT and here we are wondering if the fruit of these incredibly biased and bungled investigations, articles of impeachment, will be sent to the Senate as mandated by the Constitution or if the Democrats are going to attempt to subvert that in the desperate attempt to get the Senate to continue the endless investigations to oblivion.

Investigators investigate.

Jurors determine reasonable doubt, but there is no prescribed burden of doubt for impeachment so it lies completely in the hands of the Senate.

Your argument is hollow. We do not begin an investigation only when there is unquestionable proof of guilt. It's a ridiculous notion.

 

[Beach Friends]

Are you intentionally being obtuse?

They've explained in great detail why they kept the articles to 2 and it had nothing to do with innocence.

I missed those explanations. I would love to hear why they decided to go with no crimes whatsoever. Was it because they were in a hurry? They just don't care for rules and such? (I can believe that one).

 

[cuddlemonkey]

With no evidence of a crime to obstruct the justice for, other reasonable explanations are easily found for the behavior.

In the United States, reasonable doubt equals a verdict of not guilty.

Watch a few dozen Law and Order episodes or something.

Your stance is that if someone obstructs an investigation and the investigators subsequently fail to find evidence of the crime being investigated, then there is a reasonable explanation for the obstruction that doesn’t involve attempting to cover up the crime being investigated?