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

 

[insidejob]

Evidence

Good lord. That's some dirty stuff right there. Really long read but well worth it to understand the actual timeline and goings on that surrounded the hold(s) on the Ukraine money.

 

[wardorican]

It's also the same opinion he spouted on CNN long before Fox and the reason CNN gave him the boot. Also Judge Nap agrees.

I'll just say this. The SCOTUS doesn't say why they take a case, right? So, I think people are reading tea leaves too hard here.

It can be that the president has a legal argument here. Or that the SCOTUS wants to have a clear ruling one way or the other. The fact they accepted the case doesn't mean it will work out for the president.

 

[wardorican]

Evidence

Oh wow.

A small interesting tidbit. They were ordered by a judge to release 300 documents, but the second set had a bunch of redactions. I'd be curious if the order allowed for that.

(the direct link minus twitter) https://www.justsecurity.org/67863/...ts-reveal-extent-of-pentagons-legal-concerns/

And before anyone starts to cry about bias... https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/just-security/

 

[wardorican]

So, reading this quickly. It seems like most of the redactions are mostly dissent from the "company line". Not anything sensitive.

 

[superchuck500]

So, reading this quickly. It seems like most of the redactions are mostly dissent from the "company line". Not anything sensitive.

One common FOIA redaction is for “agency deliberations” or the deliberative process exemption - it can cover material that was part of discussion but ultimately not reflected in the final decision. So comments in dissent are often redacted on that basis.

 

[FullMonte]

So, this article mentions something with regards to Pence's meeting with Zelenskyy that applies to the entire situation....and I would challenge ANYONE to answer the question...

If the aid to Ukraine was withheld for a legitimate reason, why is there no one who seems to know what needed to be done to get the aid released? For example, if it was all about corruption in Ukraine, why hasn't anyone spelled out exactly what Ukraine needed to do to address corruption? If it was about other European countries not paying their share, why is there no list of how much each country needed to contribute before the aid was released?

 

[samiam5211]

So, this article mentions something with regards to Pence's meeting with Zelenskyy that applies to the entire situation....and I would challenge ANYONE to answer the question...

If the aid to Ukraine was withheld for a legitimate reason, why is there no one who seems to know what needed to be done to get the aid released? For example, if it was all about corruption in Ukraine, why hasn't anyone spelled out exactly what Ukraine needed to do to address corruption? If it was about other European countries not paying their share, why is there no list of how much each country needed to contribute before the aid was released?

The truth is that Trumps supporters don’t really care why he withheld the aid.

 

[wardorican]

One common FOIA redaction is for “agency deliberations” or the deliberative process exemption - it can cover material that was part of discussion but ultimately not reflected in the final decision. So comments in dissent are often redacted on that basis.

Thanks.

So, what are your thoughts on this?

 

[TaylorB]

On November 14th, before the impeachment proceedings began, I posted a thread (the Ukraine situation - a primer) which set forth a non-exhaustive list of inculpatory facts about the Ukraine hold:

• The Trump administration cannot provide a legitimate explanation as to why the aid was withheld;
• No one in the OMB or NSC knows why the aid was being withheld;
• The Trump administration had set up an “irregular” foreign policy apparatus through Rudy Giuliani designed to conceal Giuliani's influence campaign;
• US officials in the “regular” foreign policy channel to Ukraine did not understand why aid was being withheld;
• No one is able to provide an alternative explanation for what Giuliani was doing in Ukraine in recent months;
• Numerous non-partisan witnesses, including diplomats involved with Ukraine policy, ultimately came to understand (after being kept out of the “irregular” loop) that aid was being withheld as part of a potential quid pro quo for investigations;
• Certain people within the “irregular” channel, including Ambassador Sondland, have admitted under oath that military aid was conditioned on Zelensky publicly announcing an investigation;
• Mulvaney admitted to a quid pro quo on TV;
• The transcript of the Zelensky call, in the context of prior communications with Ukraine via our “irregular” back-channel, indicates that Zelensky must have understood that the reason aid was being withheld was because he had not yet publicly announced these investigations;
• The Trump administration has gone to great lengths to prevent those with knowledge from testifying;
• The Trump administration hid the transcript of the call on a private server until it became obvious that the public, after learning of the concealed whistleblower complaint, would demand its release; and
• The Trump administration has offered practically zero exculpatory evidence.

The impeachment proceedings took place after that thread was posted, and over and over again, the witnesses confirmed all of the above points.

In civil cases, when a litigant fails to produce evidence available to him/her and gives no reasonable explanation for its unavailability, there is often a presumption that the evidence would have been unfavorable. If you've ever been involved in civil litigation you know that as a practical matter, a party that has favorable evidence always manages to produce it.

The Just Security article published this morning highlights the first two bullet points, but further indicates that government officials were outraged and knew it was illegal. No one is surprised that the FOIA'd emails are even more incriminating for Trump than what we knew before obtaining them -- I mean, why else were they being withheld? Predictably, DOJ's redactions focused on the most incriminating discussions -- officials trying to take an illegal and immoral directive from the President and trying to manufacture justification for it. Until today we didn't know exactly what was being discussed in those emails, but we had a pretty good idea that it was really bad for Trump, and we were right.

The facts have been bad for Trump since this story broke, and have gotten progressively worse, so it was inevitable that his defenders would retreat to the last line of defense -- that this is all partisan nonsense. I keep thinking about Senator Kennedy's interview with MSNBC in mid-September when the Ukraine story broke, and he kept saying "let's just see what the facts bear out..." implying that facts could come out which would justify some action by Congress re: Trump's behavior. I doubt he or Trump's defenders will have much to say about the Just Security article. Like so many of the other fact-based revelations, it incriminates the president, plain and simple.

 

[MT15]

IDK, but I suspect your opinion of Fox's bias relative to the bias of other networks is affected by your own bias.

The more traditional news has lots of people with different views. Hannity - meh, he does offer to have people on but apparently people are not quick to accept (can't say I blame them, he's unbearable IMO).

Tucker has folks he doesn't agree with on all the time. And, Tucker will absolutely blast away at Republicans he disagrees with.

That's it - you should watch Tucker every night for say... six months.

Why would you ask me to watch someone promoting white nationalism?

 

[wardorican]

On November 14th, before the impeachment proceedings began, I posted a thread (the Ukraine situation - a primer) which set forth a non-exhaustive list of inculpatory facts about the Ukraine hold:

• The Trump administration cannot provide a legitimate explanation as to why the aid was withheld;
• No one in the OMB or NSC knows why the aid was being withheld;
• The Trump administration had set up an “irregular” foreign policy apparatus through Rudy Giuliani designed to conceal Giuliani's influence campaign;
• US officials in the “regular” foreign policy channel to Ukraine did not understand why aid was being withheld;
• No one is able to provide an alternative explanation for what Giuliani was doing in Ukraine in recent months;
• Numerous non-partisan witnesses, including diplomats involved with Ukraine policy, ultimately came to understand (after being kept out of the “irregular” loop) that aid was being withheld as part of a potential quid pro quo for investigations;
• Certain people within the “irregular” channel, including Ambassador Sondland, have admitted under oath that military aid was conditioned on Zelensky publicly announcing an investigation;
• Mulvaney admitted to a quid pro quo on TV;
• The transcript of the Zelensky call, in the context of prior communications with Ukraine via our “irregular” back-channel, indicates that Zelensky must have understood that the reason aid was being withheld was because he had not yet publicly announced these investigations;
• The Trump administration has gone to great lengths to prevent those with knowledge from testifying;
• The Trump administration hid the transcript of the call on a private server until it became obvious that the public, after learning of the concealed whistleblower complaint, would demand its release; and
• The Trump administration has offered practically zero exculpatory evidence.

The impeachment proceedings took place after that thread was posted, and over and over again, the witnesses confirmed all of the above points.

In civil cases, when a litigant fails to produce evidence available to him/her and gives no reasonable explanation for its unavailability, there is often a presumption that the evidence would have been unfavorable. If you've ever been involved in civil litigation you know that as a practical matter, a party that has favorable evidence always manages to produce it.

The Just Security article published this morning highlights the first two bullet points, but further indicates that government officials were outraged and knew it was illegal. No one is surprised that the FOIA'd emails are even more incriminating for Trump than what we knew before obtaining them -- I mean, why else were they being withheld? Predictably, DOJ's redactions focused on the most incriminating discussions -- officials trying to take an illegal and immoral directive from the President and trying to manufacture justification for it. Until today we didn't know exactly what was being discussed in those emails, but we had a pretty good idea that it was really bad for Trump, and we were right.

The facts have been bad for Trump since this story broke, and have gotten progressively worse, so it was inevitable that his defenders would retreat to the last line of defense -- that this is all partisan nonsense. I keep thinking about Senator Kennedy's interview with MSNBC in mid-September when the Ukraine story broke, and he kept saying "let's just see what the facts bear out..." implying that facts could come out which would justify some action by Congress re: Trump's behavior. I doubt he or Trump's defenders will have much to say about the Just Security article. Like so many of the other fact-based revelations, it incriminates the president, plain and simple.

Do Americans Support Impeaching Trump?

FiveThirtyEight is tracking polls that ask whether respondents support impeaching President Trump.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

And you see it in public sentiment. That Basically, those major points you've outlined have remained the same. Just with some added color commentary in them. So, since the Ukraine story broke, public sentiment towards impeachment and removal both increased by a significant margin. Just not enough Republicans. Is that because it is unfair, or because they just don't care?

 

[TaylorB]

Do Americans Support Impeaching Trump?

FiveThirtyEight is tracking polls that ask whether respondents support impeaching President Trump.

projects.fivethirtyeight.com

And you see it in public sentiment. That Basically, those major points you've outlined have remained the same. Just with some added color commentary in them. So, since the Ukraine story broke, public sentiment towards impeachment and removal both increased by a significant margin. Just not enough Republicans. Is that because it is unfair, or because they just don't care?

If I surveyed my conservative friends (which in Louisiana is nearly all of my friends), the consensus would likely be to admit Trump is a bad person and corrupt, but to say his brand of corruption is no different than everyone else's. So the impeachment story blends in with the other stories, the whole of which they consider partisan "noise" and pay little attention to. If you understand that mindset, it's easier to understand how someone could still think he's a good president despite the awful stories you see day after day.

I don't think most of those people are in bad faith. It's easy to maintain your belief system when you share it with most of the people you know, when it's bolstered by the news channels you watch, and when the leadership of your party unifies around that belief system without questioning it.

A smaller portion of conservatives are in bad faith, and in my opinion, so are most of the GOP leaders in the trenches of impeachment. They know the behavior is bad, impeachable, contrary to US foreign policy, etc., and believe that maintaining power justifies whatever lies they tell to obscure that. The rest (those not in bad faith) tend to just ignore the situation and assume their belief system is solid until proven otherwise.

The Ukraine story is a microcosm of the broader threat Trump presents to democracy. It's hard work persuading reasonable conservatives/independents to recognize how different he and his enablers are from run-of-the-mill corrupt politicians, but the 2018 midterms taught us it's feasible to persuade enough people to make a difference. It's not like we have a better alternative right now.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

If I surveyed my conservative friends (which in Louisiana is nearly all of my friends), the consensus would likely be to admit Trump is a bad person and corrupt, but to say his brand of corruption is no different than everyone else's. So the impeachment story blends in with the other stories, the whole of which they consider partisan "noise" and pay little attention to. If you understand that mindset, it's easier to understand how someone could still think he's a good president despite the awful stories you see day after day.

I don't think most of those people are in bad faith. It's easy to maintain your belief system when you share it with most of the people you know, when it's bolstered by the news channels you watch, and when the leadership of your party unifies around that belief system without questioning it.

A smaller portion of conservatives are in bad faith, and in my opinion, so are most of the GOP leaders in the trenches of impeachment. They know the behavior is bad, impeachable, contrary to US foreign policy, etc., and believe that maintaining power justifies whatever lies they tell to obscure that. The rest (those not in bad faith) tend to just ignore the situation and assume their belief system is solid until proven otherwise.

The Ukraine story is a microcosm of the broader threat Trump presents to democracy. It's hard work persuading reasonable conservatives/independents to recognize how different he and his enablers are from run-of-the-mill corrupt politicians, but the 2018 midterms taught us it's feasible to persuade enough people to make a difference. It's not like we have a better alternative right now.

it’s hard to simultaneously call a group of people that have conditioned themselves to embrace intellectual dishonesty and rationalize away critical thinking to rest on such a dismissive both sides false equivocation as also being “reasonable.”

Since by definition that is exactly the challenge being confronted: persuading currently unreasonable people to start using reason.

But this is just a nitpicking side rant, I think you pretty much nailed the psychology underlying this rationalization process for a lot of casual Trump supporters. “He’s our corrupt guy” though is a pervasive one I also hear.

 

[SaintForLife]

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.

Doesn't the President decide what the country's Foreign policy or interests are?

 

[superchuck500]

Thanks.

So, what are your thoughts on this?

So it appears that they (White House) are fully withholding 20 emails - presumably about the debate over whether the President's withholding of the Ukraine aid package was legal. The argument is that this is internal deliberation and dissent - and the deliberative-process privilege holds that in order to facilitate free discussion and dissent inside the executive branch, these kinds of internal arguments are privileged.

 

[samiam5211]

Doesn't the President decide what the country's Foreign policy or interests are?

Yes.

Should we have a problem if he decides to align US foreign policy with his personal interests?

Is there no line at all you‘d have a problem with? Could the President use the US military to bomb hotels in Dubai because he wanted to build a hotel there?

 

[superchuck500]

Doesn't the President decide what the country's Foreign policy or interests are?

Generally yes - the president has substantial discretion on matters of international relations but it isn't complete, unadulterated power. When specific international aid is funded and programmed by a federal appropriations law that has been passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president, I don't think the president can dispense or withhold that aid on his own - at least not absent some emergency power declaration.

 

[superchuck500]

Yes.

Should we have a problem if he decides to align US foreign policy with his personal interests?

Is there no line at all you‘d have a problem with? Could the President use the US military to bomb hotels in Dubai because he wanted to build a hotel there?

Just to be precise with concepts here, I don't think it's relevant if the internal debate in the executive branch is about what is in the US's interests. That's ultimately the president's call and it doesn't really matter if the Pentagon dissented.

But if the nature of the debate is about what is legal as a matter of federal law, that's different.