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

 

[farfromsilent]

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

Alan Dershowitz is still a top mind in Constitutional law. Just because you disagree with him, doesn’t make that untrue.

 

[samiam5211]

Alan Dershowitz is still a top mind in Constitutional law. Just because you disagree with him, doesn’t make that untrue.

Alan Dershowitz is a sex abuser and has lost his mind the past couple of years.

 

[farfromsilent]

Alan Dershowitz is a sex abuser and has lost his mind the past couple of years.

Where is the judgement against him? I’ve looked, I haven’t seen anything that backs up your claim that he is a sex abuser. He’s been accused, but not convicted.

 

[samiam5211]

Where is the judgement against him? I’ve looked, I haven’t seen anything that backs up your claim that he is a sex abuser. He’s been accused, but not convicted.

You’re right.

OJ was acquitted and I still believe he’s a murderer.

 

[farfromsilent]

You’re right.

OJ was acquitted and I still believe he’s a murderer.

Dershowitz hasn’t even been tried yet lol. You’ve seen no evidence to support your claim. OJ was put on trial before the whole world with evidence out the wazoo. Big difference.

 

[BobE]

Alan Dershowitz is still a top mind in Constitutional law. Just because you disagree with him, doesn’t make that untrue.

The moment Alan said don't impeach Trump he was deemed an incompetent idiot

 

[Archies Ghost]

Clinton (Bill) cannot be the only simultaneous brilliant legal/political mind and pedophile in the universe. I think there is a whole tribe of them.

 

[coldseat]

The moment Alan said don't impeach Trump he was deemed an incompetent idiot

Actually well before that, when he started appearing on Fox News schlepping for Trump.

I've always just thought the guy was opportunistic and willing to argue whatever side paid him (like a lawyer, ).

Seriously though, all of the accusations and past close relationship with Epstein does cloud his aura substantially. Let's just say that if I had daughters, I'd keep them away from him.

 

[V Chip]

The moment Alan said don't impeach Trump he was deemed an incompetent idiot

Interestingly, that was the first time conservatives actually started calling him a legal scholar and quoting his opinions.

 

[MT15]

FFS, welcome, good to see you!

You can always find someone who disagrees with any legal opinion.

I‘d be more interested in why you think Dershowitz‘s opinion is more valid than the one I quoted?

I thought the blog was pretty even handed, and you have to admit that Dershowitz has been very partisan the last few years.

For one thing, the administration didn’t say “we just want the courts to rule on this”. They said to Congress, you have no right to subpoena anything. We aren’t going to give you one document, nor send even one witness. That‘s an unprecedented assertion, one that’s not supported by the Constitution. They made up a new definition of executive privilege and are trying to use it to completely nullify the checks on the Executive that the founders intended for Congress.

The blog states that if there were a valid reason to deny the subpoenas, then the article of impeachment would be an overreach. The crux of the matter is the intent of the denial. Bad intent, meaning to cover up wrongdoing, makes the impeachment article valid. That’s what I remember, anyway. Been a while since I read it.

 

[farfromsilent]

FFS, welcome, good to see you!

You can always find someone who disagrees with any legal opinion.

I‘d be more interested in why you think Dershowitz‘s opinion is more valid than the one I quoted?

I thought the blog was pretty even handed, and you have to admit that Dershowitz has been very partisan the last few years.

For one thing, the administration didn’t say “we just want the courts to rule on this”. They said to Congress, you have no right to subpoena anything. We aren’t going to give you one document, nor send even one witness. That‘s an unprecedented assertion, one that’s not supported by the Constitution. They made up a new definition of executive privilege and are trying to use it to completely nullify the checks on the Executive that the founders intended for Congress.

The blog states that if there were a valid reason to deny the subpoenas, then the article of impeachment would be an overreach. The crux of the matter is the intent of the denial. Bad intent, meaning to cover up wrongdoing, makes the impeachment article valid. That’s what I remember, anyway. Been a while since I read it.

The reason I believe it to be more valid is because it maintains that the subpoenas have to go through the courts before there can be an obstruction charge. There are separation of powers for a reason. The courts are there to be arbiters between the other two branches. Trump was fully within his authority to claim executive privilege. Had Congress gone through the courts and Trump refused to oblige, then he would have been in obstruction.

 

[MT15]

Well, we’re probably at an impasse then. I don’t need a court ruling (which would undoubtedly come down on the side of Congress) to know that there is a lot of evidence of the corrupt intent behind Trump’s unprecedentedly broad and absurd attempt to use ”absolute immunity” to cover up what happened.

Trump’s use of the concept of “absolute immunity” should bother anyone who thinks that we should have a president instead of a king. No president has ever made a claim like this, that I’m aware of.

Dershowitz is, IMO, like one of the talking heads on a sports show. He is paid to put forth a certain point of view (which is pro-Trump) whether he actually believes what he is saying is another thing entirely.

 

[MT15]

This twitter thread puts the recent NYT reporting into perspective. If that reporting is true, that several senior members of his own administration told Trump in August that withholding the military aid was contrary to US interests, and Trump withheld it anyway until he was forced to back off, that means Trump was willing to sacrifice the good of the country for his own gain. And everyone around him knew it. That’s why there was a whistleblower and people resigning from OMB.

 

[JimEverett]

Dershowitz is, IMO, like one of the talking heads on a sports show. He is paid to put forth a certain point of view (which is pro-Trump) whether he actually believes what he is saying is another thing entirely.

How did Dershowitz turn into pro-Trump? He has been very critical of the President on most issues. The fact that anytime anyone doesn't fall into this wholesale criticism of Trump suddenly turns them into "pro-Trump" or "schlepping" for the President really shows the true irrationality Trump brings out in many of his critics.

 

[Maxp]

How did Dershowitz turn into pro-Trump? He has been very critical of the President on most issues. The fact that anytime anyone doesn't fall into this wholesale criticism of Trump suddenly turns them into "pro-Trump" or "schlepping" for the President really shows the true irrationality Trump brings out in many of his critics.

I think this is a Trump phenomenon on both sides. If I mention any criticism of Trump at work, I'm immediately labeled a commy snowflake liberal Clinton lover and on and on. He is just that polarizing a figure.

 

[Dadsdream]

I wish I had a nickle for every "explosive" and "bombshell" report by the NYT that "unnamed senor officials" said they told DJT to do one thing in the interest of the nation, but he did something else, so THAT is proof that he only looks out for his own interests and THAT warrants removing him from office.

Good grief, Charlie Brown.

 

[MT15]

The officials are definitely named. They were Bolton, Pompeo and Esper. We should hear from them during the impeachment trial.

So, if he did withhold the aid, contrary to national interest, and did it to try to influence our election with a phony cooked up scandal, you’re just A-OK with that, correct?

 

[MT15]

How did Dershowitz turn into pro-Trump? He has been very critical of the President on most issues. The fact that anytime anyone doesn't fall into this wholesale criticism of Trump suddenly turns them into "pro-Trump" or "schlepping" for the President really shows the true irrationality Trump brings out in many of his critics.

ETA: I didn’t say that Dershowitz was pro-Trump, I said he was being paid to put out a pro-Trump POV. But thanks for implying I‘m being irrational.

Do you think he would be appearing on Fox as often as he has been had he not been very vocal in his defense of Trump and equally vocal in his criticism of Mueller? It’s not “irrational“ to recognize that his appearances on Fox depend on him pushing the POV they want to hear. He knows that. It’s all part of the game. It goes the somewhat the same on other networks as well, but on Fox they are pretty strict about allowing any dissenting opinions. Ask Shep Smith about that.