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

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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.

Are those witnesses incapable of claiming executive privilege if asked something they can't discuss? I find it hard to believe that WH personnel are incapable of knowing what is covered and what is not.

 

[Dadsdream]

Are those witnesses incapable of claiming executive privilege if asked something they can't discuss? I find it hard to believe that WH personnel are incapable of knowing what is covered and what is not.

Ever hear of Miranda?

 

[Beach Friends]

Are those witnesses incapable of claiming executive privilege if asked something they can't discuss? I find it hard to believe that WH personnel are incapable of knowing what is covered and what is not.

LOL, that sounds like a script from an AT&T "just okay is not okay" commercial.

Imagine an attorney stepping outside to make a call and telling the witness it's up to him to make the objections.

Besides, it's really the executive's privilege to assert, not the individual witnesses. The party needs to be present to protect his rights. It's not sufficient to hope that a non attorney employee who is possibly disgruntled will protect the party's rights.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Ever hear of Miranda?

Did anyone say that the witnesses would be denied counsel if they made the request?

 

[Dadsdream]

Did anyone say that the witnesses would be denied counsel if they made the request?

Your initial response seemed to indicate the witnesses would have to decide what they should be free to discuss and what they should not all by themselves. I'm sure the intelligence community and the State Department would not appreciate that at all.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

This board needs more @superchuck500 (and @UncleTrvlingJim ). I think we've been stuck in purgatory here since the last time y'all posted much.

Sorry, I've been traveling a lot (shocking I know), and just taking a breather. I'd suggest it to everyone. Honestly, I also wanted to step back for a bit and let things sit for a bit.

I generally hate the idea of impeachment. It literally makes me nauseous, even though I really think Trump makes a poor president with no respect for democratic norms and institutions.

So, what am I left with?

I think it's pretty clear that Trump wanted to use foreign aid to coerce a nation to give him material support in his re-election bid by damaging a political adversary. I think that was the sole purpose for doing what he did. I think he pursued a course outside the judicial system because he was not interested in law and order, but political gain.

I also will freely admit I don't know what rises to the level of impeachment. Is what he did a threat to our Republic? I could argue it is, and I could argue it isn't.

I also think that the failure to provide any meaningful check on Trump by his own base has made it seem like impeachment was the best course of action by the House to provide a check on Trump that he'd care about. If I had the time and energy, I think it would be interesting to create an overarching timeline of events from the time that Trump started to run for office until today to see how things escalated. From his loyal base, it appears that people have had it out for him since day 1 and his actions had little bearing on what has transpired. From my perspective, his actions and the lack of condemnation of those actions have elicited stronger and stronger reactions from his opposition.

That's all I got for now.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Your initial response seemed to indicate the witnesses would have to decide what they should be free to discuss and what they should not all by themselves. I'm sure the intelligence community and the State Department would not appreciate that at all.

I should have been more clear. I assume a decision like that would be made in conjunction with counsel.

 

[Joe Okc]

So, what am I left with?

I think it's pretty clear that Trump wanted to use foreign aid to coerce a nation to give him material support in his re-election bid by damaging a political adversary. I think that was the sole purpose for doing what he did. I think he pursued a course outside the judicial system because he was not interested in law and order, but political gain.

I just wonder if Trumps kid Ivanka was working on the board of a Sudie Oil Company making tons of money with absolutely zero experience and that company was being investigated... and for some reason Trump offers money for the Prosecutor to be removed from the case... How you would feel if the Next president of the USA asked the Saudies to investigate why that prosecutor was released and the investigation terminated?

For some strange reason I have a feeling that every single person here calling for Trump's head would have supported that in the hopes of turning something up that would put Trump in Jail...

 

[Lapaz]

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.

Trump was invited to testify before the fact witnesses by Pelosi:

Democrats invite Trump to testify in impeachment inquiry

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited President Donald Trump to testify in front of investigators in the House impeachment inquiry ahead of a week that will see several key witnesses appear publicly.

www.pbs.org

And then later by the Judiciary Committee:

Democrats invite Trump to testify in December impeachment inquiry

The US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee on Tuesday (26 November) invited President Donald Trump to its first impeachment hearing, scheduled for 4 December, starting a new phase of the inquiry that could lead to formal charges against the president within weeks.

www.euractiv.com

So he had ample opportunity, but didn't take the opportunity, even via council, because it would've led him to perjury.

 

[Joe Okc]

Trump was invited to testify before the fact witnesses by Pelosi:

Democrats invite Trump to testify in impeachment inquiry

Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi invited President Donald Trump to testify in front of investigators in the House impeachment inquiry ahead of a week that will see several key witnesses appear publicly.

www.pbs.org

And then later by the Judiciary Committee:

Democrats invite Trump to testify in December impeachment inquiry

The US House of Representatives Judiciary Committee on Tuesday (26 November) invited President Donald Trump to its first impeachment hearing, scheduled for 4 December, starting a new phase of the inquiry that could lead to formal charges against the president within weeks.

www.euractiv.com

So he had ample opportunity, but didn't take the opportunity, even via council, because it would've led him to perjury.

Invited to The house for his Impeachment so he could testify in his defense before the Democrats?

Here's a picture of Trump in the House of representatives.

 

[Lapaz]

I just wonder if Trumps kid Ivanka was working on the board of a Sudie Oil Company making tons of money with absolutely zero experience and that company was being investigated... and for some reason Trump offers money for the Prosecutor to be removed from the case... How you would feel if the Next president of the USA asked the Saudies to investigate why that prosecutor was released and the investigation terminated?

For some strange reason I have a feeling that every single person here calling for Trump's head would have supported that in the hopes of turning something up that would put Trump in Jail...

If the new president makes it public, rather than private, as investigations should be, then I would criticize that new president. Still I would need to know if there would be any national interest in that investigation. I would want to know if the new president seems to be doing it only for political purposes. Is that president investigating corruption on all matters, or is he pursuing a vendetta? The answers are obviously all bad for Trump.

Speaking of Ivanka, she's been getting a lot of trademarks. Do y'all think these are being influenced by being the daughter of Donald Trump?

China Approves 5 New Trademarks For Ivanka Trump Business As President Forges ZTE Deal

The trademark approvals raise new concerns about potential Trump family conflicts of interest.

www.huffpost.com

Ivanka Trump’s Brand Received Five New Trademarks From China This Month

The trademarks raise concerns over conflicts of interest, as the U.S. is negotiating trade with China.

fortune.com

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I just wonder if Trumps kid Ivanka was working on the board of a Sudie Oil Company making tons of money with absolutely zero experience and that company was being investigated... and for some reason Trump offers money for the Prosecutor to be removed from the case... How you would feel if the Next president of the USA asked the Saudies to investigate why that prosecutor was released and the investigation terminated?

For some strange reason I have a feeling that every single person here calling for Trump's head would have supported that in the hopes of turning something up that would put Trump in Jail...

Terrible analogy, Joe, and I have trouble believing that you don't know the facts of this by now.

Shokin was fired under pressure from the EU, IMF, and US. He was fired because he was slow walking corruption investigations, including the one into Burisma/Mykola Zlochevsky. Biden helped get fired the guy that was refusing to investigate Burisma.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I just wonder if Trumps kid Ivanka was working on the board of a Sudie Oil Company making tons of money with absolutely zero experience and that company was being investigated... and for some reason Trump offers money for the Prosecutor to be removed from the case... How you would feel if the Next president of the USA asked the Saudies to investigate why that prosecutor was released and the investigation terminated?

For some strange reason I have a feeling that every single person here calling for Trump's head would have supported that in the hopes of turning something up that would put Trump in Jail...

Before I answer this, I need to know if you're going to stick around and talk through this.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Invited to The house for his Impeachment so he could testify in his defense before the Democrats?

Some of you guys argue that he was never given a chance, now you are arguing that he shouldn't have taken it when offered. Fantastic.

What should he have done, Joe? Only agree to speak with the Republican members of the committees? He was offered a chance to answer written questions. Wouldn't even have to sit in front of the committees or cameras. He turned that down as well.

 

[FullMonte]

If the new president makes it public, rather than private, as investigations should be, then I would criticize that new president. Still I would need to know if there would be any national interest in that investigation. I would want to know if the new president seems to be doing it only for political purposes. Is that president investigating corruption on all matters, or is he pursuing a vendetta? The answers are obviously all bad for Trump.

Speaking of Ivanka, she's been getting a lot of trademarks. Do y'all think these are being influenced by being the daughter of Donald Trump?

China Approves 5 New Trademarks For Ivanka Trump Business As President Forges ZTE Deal

The trademark approvals raise new concerns about potential Trump family conflicts of interest.

www.huffpost.com

Ivanka Trump’s Brand Received Five New Trademarks From China This Month

The trademarks raise concerns over conflicts of interest, as the U.S. is negotiating trade with China.

fortune.com

Exactly..she is working in the White House, and meeting foreign officials in her official capacity...and then being granted trademarks by the country.

That's clearly not like a foreign company hiring her because they think they'll get better treatment from the US because her father is president.

 

[JimEverett]

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?

It wouldn;t change my mind if and when SCOTUS makes a ruling on whatever EP issues are before them. My point on the issue was that forcing judicial review should not be grounds for Obstruction of Justice charges - and the House Democrats obviously agree with that take - given that they did not impeach on Obstruction of Justice.

 

[JimEverett]

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.

I don't know.

One partial answer is this - if you give an inch, expect to be pushed for a mile. Consider McGahn's case. He went ahead and testified in the Mueller investigation. Didn't have to, or at least could have fought it and at a minimum probably would have had a partial victory. But, at least according to one view - he did the "right" thing and testified. Now he is in Court where the Democrats are saying he has waived privilege across the board.

It is not quite the same thing - but attorneys routinely counsel clients to ignore subpoenas and/or discovery requests under court order whenever there is even a hint of a potential claim of privilege. And we don't even really have to worry about the "precedential" nature of the situation in the way an Executive might.

I don't think that fully answers the question - I just think it goes to the complexity of it all. And I do think BeahFirends has covered some of the other reasons by why there would be a refusal to testify or pressure by the Executive on some not to testify.

 

[Joe Okc]

Before I answer this, I need to know if you're going to stick around and talk through this.

There really is no right answer to be expected because it's just my opinion... and also my niece just got here and she's gonna stay a day or so... So I may not have time to give this my full attention.

I just find it funny what of all people Putin said:,
Putin said during an annual press conference that US Democrats were seeking to make up for their loss in the 2016 presidential elections “by other means”, ascribing the impeachment proceedings to political infighting.
“The Democratic party, which lost the elections, is achieving results through other means, by accusing Trump at first of conspiracy with Russia, then it turns out, there was no conspiracy at all,” Putin said during the marathon Q&A session in Moscow. “It then turned out that there was no collusion and it could not form the basis for an impeachment, and now there is this made-up pressure on Ukraine.”

I mean really.. When the leader of a foreign country sees it exactly the same way that I do... I am sure that other world leaders do it.. It could not be any more clear whats going on...