The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (3 Viewers)

[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]

Really, it is just the opposite. Glaringly obvious to anyone who actually reads words. Obstruction of Justice does not equal Obstruction of Congress. In fact, I imagine part of the reason such language was chosen was in order to fool some people into thinking they were the same thing, or "similar enough" - whatever that means.

Since you said obstruction of congress is whimsical, I would love for you to explain the difference. And, I'll repeat, Trump is obstructing justice, regardless of your technicalities.

 

[Lapaz]

It seems that a growing number of people don't take this "bad press" seriously and in fact our POTUS is arguably benefiting from it. His base is energized - I saw where his campaign raised 10 million the day of and the day after the House voted. I have seen polls where his approval rating increases by, I think it was 6 points. More people now oppose impeachment than support it.

Granted, polls are always suspect. But the man is amazingly resilient- no doubt you admire him for that.

So far at least, the House's big adventure just hasn't panned out for them. Republicans are in a great mood.

First of all, Nixon was also doing great early on. Secondly, Democrats knew that Trump could benefit, but they also knew that his actions could not stand, otherwise Trump and future presidents would be able to seek foreigners to interfere at will. So Trumpers can get pleasure from polls all they like, while the rest of us can take pleasure in someone protecting the integrity of our democracy.

 

[JimEverett]

Since you said obstruction of congress is whimsical, I would love for you to explain the difference. And, I'll repeat, Trump is obstructing justice, regardless of your technicalities.

My technicalities?
I had nothing to do with drawing up the Articles of Impeachment.

I gave you the differences as I see them a few posts up.

 

[FullMonte]

One is an actual crime, codified in federal law and many other jurisdictions, tried and tested over thousands of cases, specific and well defined.
The other is something up to the whimsy of whatever Congress wants to say it is that day.

There is a reason this Congress chose the latter and not the former.

Actually, to be specific, Trump is committing a codified crime. He is in violation of 18USC1505.

"Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communications influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress..."

I would say that Trump's instruction to his administration to ignore congressional subpoenas would be "communications influences" that are there to "influence, obstruct, or impede the inquiry by the House Intelligence Committee.

 

[wardorican]

Yeah, it's pretty embarrassing for the Democrats. No wonder you want to parse words over that. Of course, that same group also wanted persue impeachment because POTUS was mean to "the squad."

I haven't read it all, but is the exact parliamentary procedure incorrect? If correct, then it isn't parsing words it is being accurate

 

[MT15]

Here’s a pretty good blog about obstruction of Congress and how it is being used in this impeachment. It comes from the point of view that it’s being used correctly, obviously. But it’s nice to see a legal opinion to counteract the claim that it’s “whimsy”, which is a bit over the top, IMO.

Why Obstruction of Congressional Investigations Could Be Grounds for Impeachment | ACS

www.acslaw.org

ETA a salient paragraph that I think fairly addresses the current situation.

“Trump’s total war on oversight presents a challenging question for impeachment. On matters grave and small, he has directed his administration to resist all scrutiny, famously saying he was “fighting all the subpoenas” and pledging to adopt a “warlike posture” to investigations. While many of the issues at stake do not implicate the president’s personal interests — many do, of course — the aggregate level of defiance is unprecedented and highly problematic. Impeachment for such conduct would be equally unprecedented but not necessarily improper. Congress would need to tie the aggregate defiance to a corrupt intent. For example, evidence that Trump ordered the blockade of all oversight to lend cover to one area in which he needed to protect himself would show the blockade is self-interested. And conceivably Congress could make the case that the total scale of the blockade reflects a corrupt approach to governance and a violation of Trump’s presidential obligations. But the case would need to be very compelling or it would risk turning routine oversight negotiations into scandals, which historically they are not.”

 

[Beach Friends]

I haven't read it all, but is the exact parliamentary procedure incorrect? If correct, then it isn't parsing words it is being accurate

You don't need to brush up.on your parliamentary skills, it's all pretty simple. A Democratic House member actually introduced that crap. Most of the party had sense enough to recognize that most of the nation is not ready for that level of foolishness.

So, the majority of Democrats wanted to get rid of it as soon as possible so they voted to table it. 58, however, are foolish enough to have actually wanted to proceed.

 

[RobF]

It's only peripherally relevant as it was tabled, but the house resolution (with full text) being discussed is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/646/text

As V Chip correctly stated, it cited a number of misdemeanours. And as anyone can see by reading it, none of them is "being mean to Colin Kaepernick", a claim I can only describe as childishly partisan mischaracterisation.

 

[Beach Friends]

It's only peripherally relevant as it was tabled, but the house resolution (with full text) being discussed is here: https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-resolution/646/text

As V Chip correctly stated, it cited a number of misdemeanours. And as anyone can see by reading it, none of them is "being mean to Colin Kaepernick", a claim I can only describe as childishly partisan mischaracterisation.

Yeah, we haven't gone down the unfortunate path that the UK has, where speech that hurts one's feels might be considered a misdemeanor.

You guys oughta look into getting yourselves one of them First Amendments once you finally get out of the EU. They are very nice.

 

[samiam5211]

Yeah, we haven't gone down the unfortunate path that the UK has, where speech that hurts one's feels might be considered a misdemeanor.

You guys oughta look into getting yourselves one of them First Amendments once you finally get out of the EU. They are very nice.

No, but I’m not sure our situation is much better.

People seem to be becoming more comfortable being intentionally offensive.

One example is the “circle game” seemingly making a comeback not as an excuse for pubescent boys to punch each other, but simply because it triggers the libs.

 

[Beach Friends]

No, but I’m not sure our situation is much better.

People seem to be becoming more comfortable being intentionally offensive.

One example is the “circle game” seemingly making a comeback not as an excuse for pubescent boys to punch each other, but simply because it triggers the libs.

IDK, the circle game has been around forever but I don't agree with using it like you are describing it.

Having said that, I am in favor of pushing back on the insane cancel culture and a good way of doing that is through humor. I appreciate folks like Dave Chappelle and Bill Barr taking the risks they take. Granted they both are successful and can afford to take more risks, but if they don't do it no one can.


Mocking that type of insanity is a public service. Cancel culture, intersectionality ideology, it's all unsustainable. People have to stand up against it for the good of our society, including those on the left because they are not immune either.

 

[samiam5211]

IDK, the circle game has been around forever but I don't agree with using it like you are describing it.

Having said that, I am in favor of pushing back on the insane cancel culture and a good way of doing that is through humor. I appreciate folks like Dave Chappelle and Bill Barr taking the risks they take. Granted they both are successful and can afford to take more risks, but if they don't do it no one can.


Mocking that type of insanity is a public service. Cancel culture, intersectionality ideology, it's all unsustainable. People have to stand up against it for the good of our society, including those on the left because they are not immune either.

I agree with you that the cancel culture has gotten overboard, but it feels like that pendulum is starting to swing back.

I think it’s a mistake to totally ignore the point being overzealously made by some.

We should always go out of our way to be polite. Thats not PC, it’s just general human decency.

 

[RobF]

Yeah, we haven't gone down the unfortunate path that the UK has, where speech that hurts one's feels might be considered a misdemeanor.

That's not a thing. Have you finished now, or do you want to wildly mischaracterise anything else?

Either way, it's Christmas. So if you do, I'll be ignoring it for at least a few days. (Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!)

 

[Beach Friends]

That's not a thing. Have you finished now, or do you want to wildly mischaracterise anything else?

Either way, it's Christmas. So if you do, I'll be ignoring it for at least a few days. (Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!)

Merry Christmas to you. If you run into Mark Meechan maybe you can convince him that all is well with free speech in the UK.

 

[Beach Friends]

That's not a thing. Have you finished now, or do you want to wildly mischaracterise anything else?

Either way, it's Christmas. So if you do, I'll be ignoring it for at least a few days. (Merry Christmas to all, and to all a good night!)

Merry Christmas to you. If you run into Mark Meechan maybe you can convince him that all is well with free speech in the UK.

 

[wardorican]

You don't need to brush up.on your parliamentary skills, it's all pretty simple. A Democratic House member actually introduced that crap. Most of the party had sense enough to recognize that most of the nation is not ready for that level of foolishness.

So, the majority of Democrats wanted to get rid of it as soon as possible so they voted to table it. 58, however, are foolish enough to have actually wanted to proceed.

Ok, so you're making "a no to table" be equivalent to wanting it to "proceed". Proceed in what sense? Allow discussion? Ok, sure. But it doesn't meant they'd also vote yet on the main issue. Some folks just vote that way because they don't like tabling anything.

 

[farfromsilent]

Here’s a pretty good blog about obstruction of Congress and how it is being used in this impeachment. It comes from the point of view that it’s being used correctly, obviously. But it’s nice to see a legal opinion to counteract the claim that it’s “whimsy”, which is a bit over the top, IMO.

Why Obstruction of Congressional Investigations Could Be Grounds for Impeachment | ACS

www.acslaw.org

ETA a salient paragraph that I think fairly addresses the current situation.

“Trump’s total war on oversight presents a challenging question for impeachment. On matters grave and small, he has directed his administration to resist all scrutiny, famously saying he was “fighting all the subpoenas” and pledging to adopt a “warlike posture” to investigations. While many of the issues at stake do not implicate the president’s personal interests — many do, of course — the aggregate level of defiance is unprecedented and highly problematic. Impeachment for such conduct would be equally unprecedented but not necessarily improper. Congress would need to tie the aggregate defiance to a corrupt intent. For example, evidence that Trump ordered the blockade of all oversight to lend cover to one area in which he needed to protect himself would show the blockade is self-interested. And conceivably Congress could make the case that the total scale of the blockade reflects a corrupt approach to governance and a violation of Trump’s presidential obligations. But the case would need to be very compelling or it would risk turning routine oversight negotiations into scandals, which historically they are not.”

Alan Dershowitz disagrees with that.

Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment

A review of lower court decisions on subpoenas directed at the president changes the circumstances.

thehill.com

"But they are close enough. Even if the high court were eventually to rule against the claims by President Trump, the fact that the justices decided to hear them, in effect, supports his constitutional contention that he had the right to challenge congressional subpoenas in court, or to demand that those issuing the subpoenas seek to enforce them through court.

It undercuts the contention by House Democrats that President Trump committed an impeachable offense by insisting on a court order before sending possibly privileged material to Congress. Even before the justices granted review of these cases, the two articles of impeachment had no basis in the Constitution. They were a reflection of the comparative voting power of the two parties, precisely what one of the founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned would be the “greatest danger” of an impeachment."

"The first article goes too far in authorizing impeachment based on the vague criterion of abuse of power. But it is the second article that truly endangers our system of checks and balances and the important role of the courts as the umpires between the legislative and executive branches under the Constitution. It would serve the national interest for thoughtful and independent minded Democrats to join Republicans in voting against the second article of impeachment, even if they wrongly vote for the first."

 

[samiam5211]

Alan Dershowitz disagrees with that.

Alan Dershowitz doesn't have any credibility left. He's elbow deep in Epstein.