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

 

[SaintForLife]

Mueller called him and unindicted co-conspirator. I don't think that means he can't prove it. I think it means policy he followed prevented him from trying or even making the accusation.

That policy is only an OLC opinion and has never been challenged in court. It's not an established law.

When you said Mueller did you really mean Weissmann? Mueller could barely answer any questions and it was clear he knew little to nothing about "his" investigation. Horowitz was an example of someome who was clearly leading his investigation.

 

[Taurus]

No, it gives the Judiciary the power to decide whether or not the actions taken by the other two branches is constitutional and that includes actions that Congress takes regarding impeachment.

Nope. Not when it comes to impeachment.

The near-unanimous view of constitutional commentators is that the House of Representatives' "sole power" of impeachment is a political question and therefore not reviewable by the judiciary. The House is constitutionally obligated to base a bill of impeachment on the standards set out in Article II. (See Article II, Section 4.) However, the fact that the Constitution's text grants the House the "sole power," and the fact that such a review is not clearly within the Article III power of the federal judiciary indicate that this responsibility is the House's alone. The Supreme Court has found that the Senate's "sole power" to try impeachments is not justiciable. Nixon v. United States (1993).

From Heritage.org. https://www.heritage.org/constitution/#!/articles/1/essays/11/impeachment

When it says "sole power", it means it.

 

[dtc]

It was not meant as one. meant in the sense of "Even a supporter of impeachment"
I will change the post to reflect that.

I am a supporter of impeachment because I see criminality a lack of ethics and a cloud of immorality surrounding this president. It starts with the arguments against his ethical makeup which extend back 40 / 50years. It doesn't end with all the Russian questions nor does it end with his absolute refusal to behave in any fashion worthy of his office. The name calling, threats, insults, bullying, blatant incitement to violence, ignorance of the law and constitution, and clear emoluments violations all add up to paint a picture of a man unworthy of the office.

I support impeachment because as I said during the Clinton impeachment and I'll quote myself:

"His actions demean the office of the President and, as such, he is unworthy of the position"

Call me a harsh judge of character or whatever, but don't tell me I'm stupid. I'm not. And I can see that Donald Trump is a miscreant and a scofflaw. He obviously enjoys his NPD, but his temperament makes him unfit to hold any office. My god, the man just paid 2mil in fines for bilking money from his own charity.

So, it's rich for you to call me blind or ignorant when you could literally fill volumes with all the things that make this man unfit. But just in case you forgot or blocked it, Donald Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator to at least 12 crimes for which Mueller did NOT exonerate him.

 

[dtc]

I think your point is mostly semantic.

Or, pedantic?

 

[dtc]

How can that be considered an impeachable offense when the Democrats refuse to let the courts decide on the disputes? Wouldnt it only be applicable if the courts ruled on the disputes and then the Trump administration refused to follow the court orders?

Ok, so you and Jim and Beach adn the rest will change your mind once the SC rules that the EP argument is wrong, right?

 

[dtc]

That policy is only an OLC opinion and has never been challenged in court. It's not an established law.

When you said Mueller did you really mean Weissmann? Mueller could barely answer any questions and it was clear he knew little to nothing about "his" investigation. Horowitz was an example of someome who was clearly leading his investigation.

Mueller, et al. He was the titled officer. But that doesn't matter.

The Mueller Report was clear. Trump was not charged because of his observance of policy. It was as clear as the nose on my face that the only reason Trump was not charged was because of adherence to that policy.

Therefore, it was the judgment of the body that Trump was, in fact, guilty of at least 12 crimes.

 

[wardorican]

I just don't see it. Where does "Obstruction of Congress" come from?
I can follow your notion of the oversight role Congress plays - but going down that route still is ethereal and really boundless, and even confusing. Why not go with the more defined and clear "Contempt" charge?

Maybe it is better to ask, what was the Executive specifically blocking and why?

Shouldn't a denial of any request be met with a reason? I haven't followed so closely as to know what was or wasn't stated.

 

[Dadsdream]

Mueller, et al. He was the titled officer. But that doesn't matter.

The Mueller Report was clear. Trump was not charged because of his observance of policy. It was as clear as the nose on my face that the only reason Trump was not charged was because of adherence to that policy.

Therefore, it was the judgment of the body that Trump was, in fact, guilty of at least 12 crimes.

It was the judgement of the body that there was not sufficient evidence to charge him with anything.
Your last sentence is a pipe dream. Hope it's legal where you are.

 

[Dadsdream]

Maybe it is better to ask, what was the Executive specifically blocking and why?

Shouldn't a denial of any request be met with a reason? I haven't followed so closely as to know what was or wasn't stated.

The Tonkin Gulf Incident took place in the early 1960s.
The fact that it was a US set up wasn't declassified until the 1990s.
Sure, you can ask what the Executive was specifically blocking and why.
That doesn't mean you'll get an answer in this decade . . . or the next . . . or the next after that.
Remember, when it comes to Ukraine, you're still talking about a former Soviet republic.

 

[Lapaz]

The Tonkin Gulf Incident took place in the early 1960s.
The fact that it was a US set up wasn't declassified until the 1990s.
Sure, you can ask what the Executive was specifically blocking and why.
That doesn't mean you'll get an answer in this decade . . . or the next . . . or the next after that.
Remember, when it comes to Ukraine, you're still talking about a former Soviet republic.

That’s nonsense. He hasn’t exerted executive privilege or given any reason except for unitary executive that I know of. Even if he did eventually exert EP, select members of Congress would be allowed to see it, and if it involved criminal or unconstitutional acts, then it wouldn’t remain privileged. You think presidents are immune from oversight when they claim EP? That would take another step to a dictatorship.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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

Sorry I missed this earlier. Running errands and responding from my phone led me to mentally bookmark this comment, then promptly forget said bookmark.

My answer is that it doesn't matter. This is a thread about Trump and the current impeachment proceedings, not about the guy that left office 3 years ago. Whataboutism has no place in this discussion. If you want to discuss Obama and his administration's dealings with Congress, feel free to start a thread about it.

 

[JimEverett]

I am a supporter of impeachment because I see criminality a lack of ethics and a cloud of immorality surrounding this president. It starts with the arguments against his ethical makeup which extend back 40 / 50years. It doesn't end with all the Russian questions nor does it end with his absolute refusal to behave in any fashion worthy of his office. The name calling, threats, insults, bullying, blatant incitement to violence, ignorance of the law and constitution, and clear emoluments violations all add up to paint a picture of a man unworthy of the office.

I support impeachment because as I said during the Clinton impeachment and I'll quote myself:

"His actions demean the office of the President and, as such, he is unworthy of the position"

Call me a harsh judge of character or whatever, but don't tell me I'm stupid. I'm not. And I can see that Donald Trump is a miscreant and a scofflaw. He obviously enjoys his NPD, but his temperament makes him unfit to hold any office. My god, the man just paid 2mil in fines for bilking money from his own charity.

So, it's rich for you to call me blind or ignorant when you could literally fill volumes with all the things that make this man unfit. But just in case you forgot or blocked it, Donald Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator to at least 12 crimes for which Mueller did NOT exonerate him.

If I called or insinuated you were blind or ignorant I apologize. It certainly isn't what I think.

 

[Beach Friends]

Ok, so you and Jim and Beach adn the rest will change your mind once the SC rules that the EP argument is wrong, right?

I don't know how much confidence you should have in the SC ruling in favor of the Democrats. Two of the members of the Court have a very good memory about what it's like to be at the wrong end of a Democratic smear campaign.

That’s nonsense. He hasn’t exerted executive privilege or given any reason except for unitary executive that I know of. Even if he did eventually exert EP, select members of Congress would be allowed to see it, and if it involved criminal or unconstitutional acts, then it wouldn’t remain privileged. You think presidents are immune from oversight when they claim EP? That would take another step to a dictatorship.

Oh well, that's what the Democrats get when they decided they would not allow the POTUS to participate.

If I have someone to whom a privilege applies as to any information and I am not allowed to be present, through counsel, to raise that privilege when the need arises, then I will prevent that person from testifying at all if I can.

He did the right thing.

History is not going to look at this Congress favorably.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I don't know how much confidence you should have in the SC ruling in favor of the Democrats. Two of the members of the Court have a very good memory about what it's like to be at the wrong end of a Democratic smear campaign.

Oh well, that's what the Democrats get when they decided they would not allow the POTUS to participate.

If I have someone to whom a privilege applies as to any information and I am not allowed to be present, through counsel, to raise that privilege when the need arises, then I will prevent that person from testifying at all if I can.

He did the right thing.

History is not going to look at this Congress favorably.

He could have participated by not blocking document requests and witnesses. If these witnesses and documents contain exculpatory evidence, it would have made sense to get that on the public record.

 

[Lapaz]

I don't know how much confidence you should have in the SC ruling in favor of the Democrats. Two of the members of the Court have a very good memory about what it's like to be at the wrong end of a Democratic smear campaign.

Oh well, that's what the Democrats get when they decided they would not allow the POTUS to participate.

If I have someone to whom a privilege applies as to any information and I am not allowed to be present, through counsel, to raise that privilege when the need arises, then I will prevent that person from testifying at all if I can.

He did the right thing.

History is not going to look at this Congress favorably.

Where do you get the idea that Trump wasn’t invited? Numerous times the Democrats invited Trump during the hearings.

 

[JimEverett]

I think your point is mostly semantic.

The idea that all those highly trained and brilliant lawyers who drafted these articles just left the wording to chance is virtually impossible in my opinion.
There is a reason they went with the non-statutory/non criminal charge.

 

[Beach Friends]

He could have participated by not blocking document requests and witnesses. If these witnesses and documents contain exculpatory evidence, it would have made sense to get that on the public record.

It seems like you are ignoring the point I made.

I am not going to make witnesses available if I am not allowed to appear by counsel to object if there are questions that go into privileged communications. That should be very easy for anyone to appreciate.

 

[Beach Friends]

Where do you get the idea that Trump wasn’t invited? Numerous times the Democrats invited Trump during the hearings.

If my memory is correct, he was only invited after the fact witnesses testified. The only time he was invited was when it was down to hearing law professors express their opinions on issues such as his child's name.