The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (5 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

 

[Eeyore]

Late Spring means June.

Fits the prophecy

 

[TaylorB]

• The Trump administration cannot provide a legitimate explanation as to why the aid was withheld; Nor should he have to. He's the Chief Executive and Commander-in-Chief. The Supreme Court has long held that presidents have latitude in international military affairs.
• No one in the OMB or NSC knows why the aid was being withheld; I would amend this to say no one in the OMB or NSC will publicly say why the aid was being withheld. They serve at the pleasure of the President. Past presidents ensured their loyalty by keeping their pre-signed resignations in his desk.
• The Trump administration had set up an “irregular” foreign policy apparatus through Rudy Giuliani designed to conceal Giuliani's influence campaign; Sounds like Obama/Kerry all over again.
• US officials in the “regular” foreign policy channel to Ukraine did not understand why aid was being withheld; The "regular" foreign policy channel? The president appoints the Secretary of State and all the ambassadors. Previous presidents had all the ambassadors from the previous administration resign so they could appoint their own people. If this president did anything wrong, it was not doing so as well.
• No one is able to provide an alternative explanation for what Giuliani was doing in Ukraine in recent months; Damage control, I would think, but Giuliani is the only one who really knows.
• 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; The keyword here is "potential." No proof otherwise, so it's speculation.
• Certain people within the “irregular” channel, including Ambassador Sondland, have admitted under oath that military aid was conditioned on Zelensky publicly announcing an investigation; Sondland was engaging in a bit of CUYA, in my opinion.
• Mulvaney admitted to a quid pro quo on TV; Blurs together with other quid pro quo news bites in my head.
• 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; Keyword is "indicates," which is an opinion.
• The Trump administration has gone to great lengths to prevent those with knowledge from testifying; Separation of powers means that presidents, regardless of political party, do not automatically roll over and answer every request that a single house of Congress issues, especially those involving Congress sticking their noses into the internal workings of the Executive Branch.
• 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 Had not heard this. I wouldn't doubt it, though.
• The Trump administration has offered practically zero exculpatory evidence Ever watch Cool Hand Luke? Sometimes nothing can be a real cool hand.

Nice talking with you, TaylorB. Now, I'm going to tune in to the Iranians firing ballistic missiles at bases in Iraq. Jesus.

Dadsdream, nice talking with you too. With sincere respect, I can't see our future political conversations being very productive, but I'll respond since you're the only Trump defender who took the time to respond to those facts (and am happy to chat with you about your military and political experiences in a separate forum anytime, as I'm genuinely interested).

You are right that the president has great latitude in military affairs under Article 2. But the constitutionality of the hold is not the heart of the problem; if you want to make this about constitutional powers, remember that Congress, which has the sole power to declare war, specifically said this in the appropriation: “it is the sense of Congress that in order to strengthen the defense of the US allies and partners in Europe, the Secretary of Defense should… support robust security sector assistance for Ukraine, including for defensive lethal assistance… develop and implement a comprehensive security cooperation strategy that integrates support for allies and partners most directly threatened by Russian aggression and malign influence…”

Congress thought our national security would improve by giving assistance to our ally Ukraine against our enemy Russia. By hiding behind Article 2, you're implying that Trump unilaterally decided that US foreign policy with respect to Ukraine was exactly the opposite of what a bipartisan Congress -- the only branch with the power to declare war -- wanted it to be.

Many of the rest of your responses rely upon loose notions of extreme deference to the executive branch, presumably under Article 2. Again, whether or not Trump had a constitutional obligation to disclose his reasoning behind the Ukraine hold, he owed an explanation to Congress and to the American people why he decided it was in the USA's best interest to do the opposite of what our congressional representatives thought was appropriate. The fact that he still hasn't provided any such explanation in the face of impeachment leads anyone who is not instinctively defending Trump to believe the reason was a personal one, and not connected to legitimate US foreign policy. If Congress decided our national security was helped by sending money to Ukraine, and Trump didn't send money to Ukraine for a personal reason, then according to Congress, he's making the country less safe. That's why I support impeachment, in a nutshell.

Re: Trump/Giuliani being like Obama/Kerry all over again - Unless I'm not understanding the reference, Kerry was Obama's Secretary of State, and was being paid by the United States, not guys like Lev Parnas. So it's more like the opposite of Obama/Kerry.

Re: the irregular foreign policy apparatus - the point was that Trump knew the career state department officials wouldn't do the shakedown he wanted, so he was using guys like Giuliani to do things "off the record" and ousting only those people who stood in the way, like the OMB official Mark Sandy who refused to hold the Ukraine funds using footnotes. And using guys like Sondland, who was using his role as EU ambassador to accomplish the task, because the ambassadors to Ukraine, Yavanovitch and Bill Taylor, weren't expected to play ball. It was obvious that the people involved were used because they were the ones who had no problem with undertaking the inappropriate task and concealing it.

Re: the quid pro quo - that the Mulvaney TV admission "blurs in your head with the others" is not a rebuttal to the quid pro quo admission -- it's more like an admission to it. You used my phrasing "potential" which I used while predicting these facts before the House hearings -- if you listened to Mulvaney and Sondland and the others, you know it's not true to say there was "no proof" of a quid pro quo or that it was "speculation," because in addition to all the circumstantial evidence, they admitted to it. I said "potential" before I was sure it was true -- now I am sure.

Re: the Cool Hand Luke reference - For those who don't know the scene, the phrase "sometimes nothin' can be a real cool hand" was what Luke said after winning a poker hand by bluffing because he had, in his words, "nothing." Dadsdream, that's actually perfect -- Trump's had plenty of chances to lay his cards down if he's got 'em, but he's got nothing. That's why McConnell doesn't want a real trial. Your responses seem to say that in truth, you know he's got nothing, and just don't care. That's frightening for democracy, but at least I respect your honesty.

 

[BrewDrees9]

This process ensured his re-election. Kind of ironic.

 

[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.

He isn't killing it so he either believes Pelosi is holding impeachment until the heart of the campaign or sees an opportunity in recent Democrat uneasiness with the inexplicable delay.

McConnell Joins Hawley in Resolution to Throw Out Impeachment | National Review

McConnell has grown increasingly confident in forcing Pelosi’s hand.

www.nationalreview.com

 

[JimEverett]

So the Rule that allows Pelosi to hold on to the Articles of Impeachment is actually a Senate rule? I did not realize that.

 

[samiam5211]

This process ensured his re-election. Kind of ironic.

The outcome of this election will be decided by the last month of the election.

Either some major event will happen close enough to the election and Trump is blamed or credited for it, or if for example, the economy starts doing poorly and Trump gets blamed.

There isn’t a Hillary in this bunch. This election won’t be about the democratic candidate.

 

[MT15]

You could actually change "Marxist" to "Nazi/White supremacists" and "Soros" to "Trump" and swap "fox" and "CNN" and you would have the exact same argument from the right. Just saying.

Also, I don't know a single person, online or in the real world that 'hates' immigrants or muslims.

I’m sure I could, but the difference is in the degree, which is what I said. My liberal friends and or family aren’t really angry people that hate on Trump all the time, whether you believe it or not. Mostly we just roll our eyes or laugh at the stupid stuff he tweets or says. The media has found it profitable to focus in on him, for sure, but it’s a two way street. He keeps giving them material.

The conservative family and friends are just “outraged” about how “unfairly“ he is being treated. He courts that outrage, he thrives on it. He just loves playing the victim.

I honestly wish they would quit covering his rallies and his tweets. Just ignore him unless he’s doing his presidential duties. Maybe we could forget he is there.

 

[MT15]

I'm not saying it happened and that's why I said if. But there does appear there was some questionable things going on and it's worth letting Durham investigate. I'll support whatever Durham finds or doesn't find, but the IG report has enough damning information that ought to be concerning to anyone.

My "diabtribes" are simply me posting information from investigations that debunks the things CNN, MSNBC, NYT, Washington Post, the Democrats and many here were claiming to be unquestionable facts for 3 years. I do find it curious that just about every person who replies to my "diatribes" never even comment or refute specifically the things I'm talking about.

I'm sure you know that campaign officials having contacts with people in Russia isn't illegal even if it's with the left's articfical boogeyman.... Russia.

Obama wasn't concerned with the Russian meddling because he assumed Clinton would win and knows Russia as well as the US do that all the time. It was only after Trump won that it became this huge deal.

We refute you, you just don’t listen. Seriously.

you last paragraph is just simply untrue. Obama should have acted more decisively and I think he can be fairly criticized for not doing so. He wanted to make a bipartisan announcement that the Russians were trying to help Trump get elected, which is and was known to be a fact at the time, but Mitch McConnell refused to be a part of it. The first link lists the things Obama did to try to curtail Russian interference in the 2016 election.

Fact-checking Trump's claims Obama 'did nothing' to stop Russian election interference

As Washington was glued to Attorney General William Barr's public hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, President Donald Trump renewed his allegation that President Barack Obama "did nothing" to stop Russian interference in the final months of the 2016 election.

www.cnn.com

https://www.kentucky.com/opinion/editorials/article120718538.html

Biden: McConnell Refused To Sign Bipartisan Statement On Russian Interference

Speaking at the Council on Foreign Relations, the former vice president said the Senate majority leader "wanted no part" of a statement condemning Russian interference in the 2016 election.

www.npr.org

 

[Intensesaint]

I guess if this fails they will go after the war crimes angle next?

 

[superchuck500]

Looks like the House is finally preparing to send the articles.

And it looks like there is some movement in GOP ranks to have an actual substantive proceeding (with witnesses and documents) as opposed to a summary vote.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Looks like the House is finally preparing to send the articles.

And it looks like there is some movement in GOP ranks to have an actual substantive proceeding (with witnesses and documents) as opposed to a summary vote.

A long trial at this point hurts many of the candidates in the Democrat field. We are three weeks from Iowa and McConnell has said the trial will be 6 days a week.

I have heard speculation that the timing of this is meant to damage Sanders.

 

[reubenray]

Is it normal to have something to vote on again? Isn't this the third time the House or committee voted on a part of this process?

 

[JimEverett]

Is it normal to have something to vote on again? Isn't this the third time the House or committee voted on a part of this process?

Aren't they voting on Managers? I think that is "normal." I mean there has only been one impeachment since 1870, so it seems weird to say it is normal. But I think that is what was done in 1998.

 

[wardorican]

Looks like the House is finally preparing to send the articles.

And it looks like there is some movement in GOP ranks to have an actual substantive proceeding (with witnesses and documents) as opposed to a summary vote.

I mean, it sure looks cleaner and better if you do a full and normal process and can win on the merits of the case, mostly due to the broad powers of the Executive.

They can come to roost another day and regret the crap out of this, but if they sham this through and get cute, it would look really bad.

 

[superchuck500]

The Lev Parnas documents are starting to be released.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[samiam5211]

It is going to get really hard for people to keep rationalizing this stuff...,I hope.

 

[superchuck500]