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

 

[Lapaz]

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).

Do you think Lindsay Graham has credibility? Well he said no crime is needed to impeach Clinton. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that Trump committed extortion and obstruction of justice, and I think Democrats should’ve explicitly included those charges, but the language used in the articles with respect to abuse of power and obstruction of Congress can cover those crimes. Any honest observer knows he’s guilty. You guys defending his guilt are dishonest. I would respect a discussion about whether his crimes merit impeachment, but claims of his innocence are plainly dishonest.

 

[Dadsdream]

Agree or disagree - Under concepts of Separation of Powers, and Executive Privilege, there can be no such thing as Obstructing Congress with regard to the Chief Executive.

I say TRUE.

What do you say?

 

[JimEverett]

Do you think Lindsay Graham has credibility? Well he said no crime is needed to impeach Clinton. Nevertheless, I have no doubt that Trump committed extortion and obstruction of justice, and I think Democrats should’ve explicitly included those charges, but the language used in the articles with respect to abuse of power and obstruction of Congress can cover those crimes. Any honest observer knows he’s guilty. You guys defending his guilt are dishonest. I would respect a discussion about whether his crimes merit impeachment, but claims of his innocence are plainly dishonest.

So what is your position - that Trump has committed crimes but no one can prove he committed crimes?

 

[Archies Ghost]

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.

Actually, prosecutors have no business publicly expressing any opinion regarding exoneration. That is what we have judges, juries and trials for. The prosecutor does not make that judgment for exactly the reasons you are displaying.

The role of the prosecution is to gather and present evidence to the court. The court makes the determination of guilt or innocence.

In order to charge a crime there must be evidence of the crime and evidence the crime in question was committed by the person(s) charged/indicted.

Adjudication does not rest with the prosecution.

In the instance of Trump campaign coordination/conspiracy/collusion with the Russian government, no evidence of a crime was found because evidence of a criminal conspiracy would necessarily produce evidence of WHO was involved in the conspiracy.

If evidence of a criminal conspiracy had been found, charges (criminal referral) would have been brought.

The mental gymnastics required to continue to believe that there was a criminal conspiracy and, therefore, obstruction of justice are pretty impressive.

 

[Lapaz]

So what is your position - that Trump has committed crimes but no one can prove he committed crimes?

You know he's guilty, and he's blocked his administration from testifying, because they don't want to perjure themselves, and if they tell the truth about his crimes, even the Senate will have no choice but to remove. It's disingenuous to argue otherwise. His crimes are in plain sight, and everyone that has testified supports that. Just the call itself revealed extortion. His letter blocking congress is a crime. The timeline of events proves his guilt. The only honest question is whether the crime justifies impeachment.

 

[Archies Ghost]

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?

Very few investigations start with no evidence of a crime having been committed.

When it does happen, I do hold that, in absence of any evidence of an actual crime, obstruction of justice is impossible since there is no justice to obstruct.

If the police knock on your door and ask to search your house just in case you are doing something criminal, are you obstructing justice by refusing entry?

 

[JimEverett]

You know he's guilty, and he's blocked his administration from testifying, because they don't want to perjure themselves, and if they tell the truth about his crimes, even the Senate will have no choice but to remove. It's disingenuous to argue otherwise. His crimes are in plain sight, and everyone that has testified supports that. Just the call itself revealed extortion. His letter blocking congress is a crime. The timeline of events proves his guilt. The only honest question is whether the crime justifies impeachment.

You know in your heart of hearts he is innocent - and that is why he is not charged with a crime - after all the investigations - really since before he became President. So you really know he is innocent, you are just afraid to say it because otherwise, how to make sense of him not being charged with a single crime after all the years of investigating.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Agree or disagree - Under concepts of Separation of Powers, and Executive Privilege, there can be no such thing as Obstructing Congress with regard to the Chief Executive.

I say TRUE.

What do you say?

Congress has the job of oversight in regards to the Executive. Refusing to cooperate in any manner- obstructing the legitimate oversight process- is not just possible in theory. It is happening right now.

 

[JimEverett]

Congress has the job of oversight in regards to the Executive. Refusing to cooperate in any manner- obstructing the legitimate oversight process- is not just possible in theory. It is happening right now.

So your position is that Obama should have been impeached when he ignored subpoenas issued by Congress?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Very few investigations start with no evidence of a crime having been committed.

When it does happen, I do hold that, in absence of any evidence of an actual crime, obstruction of justice is impossible since there is no justice to obstruct.

If the police knock on your door and ask to search your house just in case you are doing something criminal, are you obstructing justice by refusing entry?

Is it your position that there was no legitimate reason to open the investigation?

 

[Lapaz]

You know in your heart of hearts he is innocent - and that is why he is not charged with a crime - after all the investigations - really since before he became President. So you really know he is innocent, you are just afraid to say it because otherwise, how to make sense of him not being charged with a single crime after all the years of investigating.

I laughed out loud at such an outrageous statement. Sadly this lowers the integrity of this board.

Setting aside the implausible possibility that Trump could be innocent, can you address whether the crime for which he has been impeached is worthy of impeachment?

 

[JimEverett]

I laughed out loud at such an outrageous statement. Sadly this lowers the integrity of this board.

Setting aside the implausible possibility that Trump could be innocent, can you address whether the crime for which he has been impeached is worthy of impeachment?

It may lower the integrity for those living in the bubble where there are Russian agents under every bed but for people who actually live in the world of facts - no, that post raised the integrity.
Can you please provide me the CRIME for which he is impeached?

 

[Archies Ghost]

Is it your position that there was no legitimate reason to open the investigation?

Afraid to answer my earlier question?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Afraid to answer my earlier question?

Just trying to gauge your understanding of the facts before proceeding, given your trouble and flawed analogy.

 

[Lapaz]

Actually, prosecutors have no business publicly expressing any opinion regarding exoneration. That is what we have judges, juries and trials for. The prosecutor does not make that judgment for exactly the reasons you are displaying.

The role of the prosecution is to gather and present evidence to the court. The court makes the determination of guilt or innocence.

In order to charge a crime there must be evidence of the crime and evidence the crime in question was committed by the person(s) charged/indicted.

Adjudication does not rest with the prosecution.

In the instance of Trump campaign coordination/conspiracy/collusion with the Russian government, no evidence of a crime was found because evidence of a criminal conspiracy would necessarily produce evidence of WHO was involved in the conspiracy.

If evidence of a criminal conspiracy had been found, charges (criminal referral) would have been brought.

The mental gymnastics required to continue to believe that there was a criminal conspiracy and, therefore, obstruction of justice are pretty impressive.

I agree that a regular prosecutor doesn’t publicly adjudicate nor exonerate, but this was a special prosecutor report that was not bound by that standard. Also, there was plenty of evidence given throughout the report of both collusion and obstruction, but Mueller chose not to take a stance. It’s far from the truth to say there was no evidence.

 

[Lapaz]

It may lower the integrity for those living in the bubble where there are Russian agents under every bed but for people who actually live in the world of facts - no, that post raised the integrity.
Can you please provide me the CRIME for which he is impeached?

Don’t need a crime to get impeached. He’s being impeached for abusing his office to benefit his re-election and obstructing congress.

 

[JimEverett]

Don’t need a crime to get impeached. He’s being impeached for abusing his office to benefit his re-election and obstructing congress.

Glad to see you figured out he has not been impeached on the basis of any actual crime because based on the question you asked it appeared you didn't.

 

[superchuck500]

Agree or disagree - Under concepts of Separation of Powers, and Executive Privilege, there can be no such thing as Obstructing Congress with regard to the Chief Executive.

I say TRUE.

What do you say?

With respect to "Obstruction of Congress" as an impeachable offense, I'd say it's true - it has to be true.

Congress has certain oversight roles with respect to the Executive Branch. Traditionally, executive privilege has been most appropriately invoked on highly-sensitive national security subject matter (but even then typically shared with a small group of relevant people in Congress) and when the subject matter is deliberative (which means questions about the varying advice given by executive officials during a deliberative process or information about decisions that have not yet been made).

Executive privilege does not operate as a broadly-applicable shield of congressional oversight over the executive branch. And where a president orders legitimate congressional oversight requests to be ignored - and not with a legitimate basis for executive privilege - it can reasonably be described as obstruction of Congress. And the remedy for it is impeachment.