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

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Apparently not, or the people charged with building the case would have subpoenaed him.

Do you really think the House didn't think Bolton had relevant information?

 

[JimEverett]

Do you really think the House didn't think Bolton had relevant information?

They did not subpoena him. Not sure what other conclusion you can come to from that fact.

 

[samiam5211]

Why should it? The House did not even subpoena Bolton. It is not the Senate's responsibility to ake the prosecution's case.

How would you feel if the house intel committee subpoena’d Bolton before the articles are sent over?

 

[MT15]

It’s like a circular argument. The House didn’t subpoena him because he wouldn’t come, and now that he will testify, he can’t come because the House didn’t subpoena him.

He knows what happened, without a doubt. He should testify, lay it to rest whether the president withheld the aid for political gain or not.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

They did not subpoena him. Not sure what other conclusion you can come to from that fact.

That they didn't think he would show up? He didn't show up for his deposition, which indicated he would fight a subpoena. That's not an unreasonable conclusion is it?

 

[samiam5211]

That they didn't think he would show up? He didn't show up for his deposition, which indicated he would fight a subpoena. That's not an unreasonable conclusion is it?

No, but it is another example of a situation where the democrats should have been more assertive. If they had subpoena’d him, he may have had this constitutional premonition months ago instead of wandering the road to Damascus into the new year.

Regardless, it would have given them more standing to compel his testimony now.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

No, but it is another example of a situation where the democrats should have been more assertive. If they had subpoena’d him, he may have had this constitutional premonition months ago instead of wandering the road to Damascus into the new year.

Regardless, it would have given them more standing to compel his testimony now.

Sure, there are lots of things the Democrats should have done differently, but my point is that there is another (and IMO more probable) reason they didn't subpoena him earlier.

 

[TaylorB]

No, but it is another example of a situation where the democrats should have been more assertive. If they had subpoena’d him, he may have had this constitutional premonition months ago instead of wandering the road to Damascus into the new year.

Regardless, it would have given them more standing to compel his testimony now.

If the House had subpoenaed him, he would have fought it per his instruction from Trump (that’s also what his lawyer told the House) and it could have ended up in a court battle lasting months. At that point the House could have stuck around and fought it or moved on without it. If they stuck around and fought, Trump’s defenders would accuse them of dragging it out. If the House had let it go, Trump’s defenders would be screaming the House impeached without the testimony of a key witness.

The House said the reason they didn’t subpoena him was because of court battle, not because he didn’t have relevant information (remember the GOPs incessant whining about the lack of first-hand information?). Let’s not act like we don’t know that. He’s got relevant information that possibly bolsters the case. These intellectual jousts about impeachment procedure can be used in perpetuity by those who don’t want him impeached, but trials and litigation in general are efforts to search for the truth, not to obscure it.

 

[samiam5211]

Sure, there are lots of things the Democrats should have done differently, but my point is that there is another (and IMO more probable) reason they didn't subpoena him earlier.

I know. I’m not really disagreeing with you, but this is still an ongoing process. With Iran flaring up, there is even more pressure on the Democrats to go easy on Trump than ever before unless we make sure there is more pressure from the other side to hold him accountable.

The Democrats have been weak on impeachment the entire time hoping to project the image that they were drug kicking and screaming to impeachment. Trump’s supporters don’t respond the same way democrats imagine and instead see it as weakness and Trump’s default response takes advantage of this by fighting back.

They need to go hard. It time to stop the purseyfooting.

 

[TaylorB]

I know. I’m not really disagreeing with you, but this is still an ongoing process. With Iran flaring up, there is even more pressure on the Democrats to go easy on Trump than ever before unless we make sure there is more pressure from the other side to hold him accountable.

The Democrats have been weak on impeachment the entire time hoping to project the image that they were drug kicking and screaming to impeachment. Trump’s supporters don’t respond the same way democrats imagine and instead see it as weakness and Trump’s default response takes advantage of this byfighting back.

They need to go hard. It time to stop the purseyfooting.

Agreed. Setting aside the gravity of the moment, the chess match is fascinating if you appreciate competition. The stakes are indeed high.

 

[wardorican]

Can you have someone testify at a trial who wasn't a part of a grand jury indictment? i.e. didn't testify, but was identified?

Isn't the Senate portion a trial?

 

[Lapaz]

Since Bolton is saying he would testify if the Senate subpoenas him, why didn't he say he would testify if the House subpoenas him? I think the House should reopen the investigation and subpoena him, rather than risking that the Senate won't subpoena him.

 

[JimEverett]

Sure, there are lots of things the Democrats should have done differently, but my point is that there is another (and IMO more probable) reason they didn't subpoena him earlier.

There was nothing preventing them from subpoenaing him.
The impeachment has happened - the record is made. Why should the Senate adopt rules to make the case for impeachment?

 

[TaylorB]

There was nothing preventing them from subpoenaing him.
The impeachment has happened - the record is made. Why should the Senate adopt rules to make the case for impeachment?

Do you think the existing record established the inculpatory facts below? I still haven’t seen you or Trump defenders acknowledge or dispute them. Perhaps Bolton could explain some of this away with his first-hand knowledge? Except Bolton called the whole shakedown of Zelensky a drug deal, so again, we’re all well aware the House didn’t avoid subpoenaing him due to a lack of helpful information.

The reason they didn’t subpoena him has been repeatedly explained, you are just ignoring it. And as you know, the Senate isn’t reviewing the House record like an appellate court so the trial is not limited to what’s in the “record.” The trial is a search for a truth — a truth Trump defenders simply prefer not to hear. Hence the pushback against testimony of a witness they think would be bad for them. List of inculpatory facts I’m not seeing defenders acknowledge:

• 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

 

[brandon]

Why should the Senate adopt rules to make the case for impeachment?

Because the Senate is not the president’s defense attorney. The Senate is the jury. The jury should want all available facts about the case to make a properly informed decision.

 

[Archies Ghost]

GOP senators introduce resolution to change rules, dismiss impeachment without articles

Roughly a dozen GOP senators want to change the Senate’s rules and allow for lawmakers to dismiss articles of impeachment against President Trump before the House sends them over.Sen. Josh Hawley (…

thehill.com

I think a dismissal for failure to prosecute is what Pelosi actually wants. If McConnell kills this resolution, I will take that as confirmation of my theory.

 

[donato]

GOP senators introduce resolution to change rules, dismiss impeachment without articles

Roughly a dozen GOP senators want to change the Senate’s rules and allow for lawmakers to dismiss articles of impeachment against President Trump before the House sends them over.Sen. Josh Hawley (…

thehill.com

I think a dismissal for failure to prosecute is what Pelosi actually wants. If McConnell kills this resolution, I will take that as confirmation of my theory.

The GOP keeps finding ways to hit new lows.

 

[Dadsdream]

Do you think the existing record established the inculpatory facts below? I still haven’t seen you or Trump defenders acknowledge or dispute them. Perhaps Bolton could explain some of this away with his first-hand knowledge? Except Bolton called the whole shakedown of Zelensky a drug deal, so again, we’re all well aware the House didn’t avoid subpoenaing him due to a lack of helpful information.

The reason they didn’t subpoena him has been repeatedly explained, you are just ignoring it. And as you know, the Senate isn’t reviewing the House record like an appellate court so the trial is not limited to what’s in the “record.” The trial is a search for a truth — a truth Trump defenders simply prefer not to hear. Hence the pushback against testimony of a witness they think would be bad for them. List of inculpatory facts I’m not seeing defenders acknowledge:

• 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

Italics normally means you're quoting something or someone else. If so, could you please provide a link to the source?