The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (2 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

 

[wardorican]

Nah. We're onto the "Yea, it was a crime, but it's not serious enough to warrant removal of the president" phase.

We will be here for some time.

I'm sure there is some nuance that the OMB violated the law, but that doesn't mean the President violated it. Even if he instructed it be violated or ignored it.

The decision from the GAO is that the OMB violated the law.

 

[samiam5211]

I'm sure there is some nuance that the OMB violated the law, but that doesn't mean the President violated it. Even if he instructed it be violated or ignored it.

The decision from the GAO is that the OMB violated the law.

Yea, but it kills the defense that everything he did was legal and within his authority.

 

[Dadsdream]

Oh, he'll dispute the GAO and say it's a congressional entity . . . which it is . . . but the GAO is no lapdog.
I've always considered them to be the real deal. You never want to see those folks coming up the sidewalk to your building.

 

[SaintForLife]

Your news sources are what’s sad, actually, BF.

But Maddow is a good interviewer right?

 

[wardorican]

Yea, but it kills the defense that everything he did was legal and within his authority.

Yes and no. Not a lawyer though.

I'm going to be slow and measured about this.

The OMB violated the law by not reporting why it was being delayed. Not the delay. They can still delay, but have to give a reason. They didn't. Maybe they didn't know the reason.

So, the question is, can the OMB/White House / President, delay or prevent funding approved by congress to a foreign government for "any reason". they'd use a "national security" blanket, since that has broad authority.

That may turn into a SCOTUS Article I v Article II discussion on difference to the executive vs congressional appropriations and the timeliness of those appropriations being completed. I don't know if that's something that has gone to court or not.

I think what it does clearly show is that a lot of government workers were clear that this was wrong and a violation of law and were worried they'd be held responsible for it and they needed to answer the question or remove the hold. They got neither.

The fact that no reason was given, when I'm sure almost any reason would "fly", just adds to the idea that what the President, and Rudy G, and others were doing was shady, unethical, and probably illegal.

I'm sure Taylor B or Superchuck500 could break this down better.

A lot of this reminds me about my thoughts on why Pelosi didn't want to act after the Russian Investigation came out. There was a legit legal argument about if a President can Obstruct Justice (he can Obstruct Congress though, since he has no authority over them), and they knew that argument would be made. So, they didn't want to push for that. Clear case, but not a strong enough hook.

The solicited bribe (which is what I think they should have used as an article of impeachment, vs just abuse of power.. but I'm sure they had a reason), was too big to ignore though. She even flat out said that, and I think her actions bare that out.

 

[SaintForLife]

Was coming here to post the same.

Watchdog: White House violated law in freezing Ukraine aid

The White House violated federal law in withholding security assistance to Ukraine, an action at the center of President Donald Trump's impeachment, a federal watchdog agency said Thursday. The aid in question was held up last summer on orders from Trump but was released in September after...

finance.yahoo.com

Direct link to the report.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

It may be easier to read the linked document, it was hard to copy the text, so the formatting may be off below.

Thats good to know. Trump shouldn't have withheld the aid even temporarily. IMO it still doesn't rise to the level of impeachment.

 

[wardorican]

Thats good to know. Trump shouldn't have withheld the aid even temporarily. IMO it still doesn't rise to the level of impeachment.

I've been on the fence about removal from office vs Censure.. I think both would be appropriate. Not just from the with holding of funds, but because of what seems to be the reason for it, which was to get a personal political favor, not further national security or other American interests.

 

[SaintForLife]

Yes and no. Not a lawyer though.

I'm going to be slow and measured about this.

The OMB violated the law by not reporting why it was being delayed. Not the delay. They can still delay, but have to give a reason. They didn't. Maybe they didn't know the reason.

So, the question is, can the OMB/White House / President, delay or prevent funding approved by congress to a foreign government for "any reason". they'd use a "national security" blanket, since that has broad authority.

That may turn into a SCOTUS Article I v Article II discussion on difference to the executive vs congressional appropriations and the timeliness of those appropriations being completed. I don't know if that's something that has gone to court or not.

I think what it does clearly show is that a lot of government workers were clear that this was wrong and a violation of law and were worried they'd be held responsible for it and they needed to answer the question or remove the hold. They got neither.

The fact that no reason was given, when I'm sure almost any reason would "fly", just adds to the idea that what the President, and Rudy G, and others were doing was shady, unethical, and probably illegal.

I'm sure Taylor B or Superchuck500 could break this down better.

A lot of this reminds me about my thoughts on why Pelosi didn't want to act after the Russian Investigation came out. There was a legit legal argument about if a President can Obstruct Justice (he can Obstruct Congress though, since he has no authority over them), and they knew that argument would be made. So, they didn't want to push for that. Clear case, but not a strong enough hook.

The solicited bribe (which is what I think they should have used as an article of impeachment, vs just abuse of power.. but I'm sure they had a reason), was too big to ignore though. She even flat out said that, and I think her actions bare that out.

I've been on the fence about removal from office vs Censure.. I think both would be appropriate. Not just from the with holding of funds, but because of what seems to be the reason for it, which was to get a personal political favor, not further national security or other American interests.

Your next post about OMB violating the law due to not reporting thr reason and not the delay gives more context. That does seem to cover Trump if they had given a reason.

 

[MT15]

But Maddow is a good interviewer right?

She is. Cool your jets.

 

[bdb13]

I've been on the fence about removal from office vs Censure.. I think both would be appropriate. Not just from the with holding of funds, but because of what seems to be the reason for it, which was to get a personal political favor, not further national security or other American interests.

What is it that leaves you on the fence between removal and censure?

The act and the attempt to hide it are just so egregious in my eyes that a censure falls short in recognizing the severity of the corruption.

 

[FullMonte]

I'm sure there is some nuance that the OMB violated the law, but that doesn't mean the President violated it. Even if he instructed it be violated or ignored it.

The decision from the GAO is that the OMB violated the law.

Nope...there is no nuance there. The ICA specifically states that the PRESIDENT must transmit a special message to congress specifying why the aid was help up, for how long, etc. So, by not telling congress that the aid was being held up, the PRESIDENT violated the law.

 

[insidejob]

What is it that leaves you on the fence between removal and censure?

The act and the attempt to hide it are just so egregious in my eyes that a censure falls short in recognizing the severity of the corruption.

I agree with you but think that a censure is the most that will come of this - if even that.

Running a shadow operation with Giuliani as the frontman speaks for itself. And the more that comes out about what he was doing there, the more guilty and complicit the White House looks (is).

 

[Nebaghead]

Thats good to know. Trump shouldn't have withheld the aid even temporarily. IMO it still doesn't rise to the level of impeachment.

Your next post about OMB violating the law due to not reporting thr reason and not the delay gives more context. That does seem to cover Trump if they had given a reason.

The reason the Impoundment act was created was a result of Nixon acting in this manner. At the time, there was no way to enforce the corruption. If this isn't reason to impeach Trump, then what does he have to do to be considered abusing power? Abuse of power is one of the primary reasons the founding fathers included the impeachment process in the constitution.

 

[bdb13]

I agree with you but think that a censure is the most that will come of this - if even that.

Running a shadow operation with Giuliani as the frontman speaks for itself. And the more that comes out about what he was doing there, the more guilty and complicit the White House looks (is).

How many votes are required for a censure, 51? If so, I think it's conceivable that you could have three Republicans cross over.

Regardless of the end result and regardless of Democratic mistakes and motivations, I ultimately still feel strongly that Trump's impeachment was justified and necessary.

 

[insidejob]

How many votes are required for a censure, 51? If so, I think it's conceivable that you could have three Republicans cross over.

Regardless of the end result and regardless of Democratic mistakes and motivations, I ultimately still feel strongly that Trump's impeachment was justified and necessary.

To the bold, I'm not so sure since they could apparently filibuster it which would then require 60 votes to cut off the debate:

4. A majority is all that's needed to censure.
While a majority of the House can impeach a president, it takes two-thirds of the Senate to convict and remove the chief executive from office.

The Senate could pass a censure resolution by majority vote. But senators could filibuster the proposal, requiring 60 votes to cut off debate.

Punishing Trump: What's the difference between censure and impeachment?

A censured president would remain in office, for one.

www.nj.com

 

[bdb13]

To the bold, I'm not so sure since they could apparently filibuster it which would then require 60 votes to cut off the debate:

Punishing Trump: What's the difference between censure and impeachment?

A censured president would remain in office, for one.

www.nj.com

So yeah, no censure coming lol.

 

[Lapaz]

What is so sad is that with every new revelation, trump supporters here are finding new ways to pretzel themselves into a justification. @FullMonte laid it out why it is a violation of the law. Basically at this point, trump supporters are pretty much saying that the laws of the US don't apply to the trump if trump if trump decides they don't apply. It now looks like beyond a shadow of a doubt that pretty much the whole damn republican party is complicit with the biggest coverup in the country's history and it's in plain sight. They are willing to do anything to protect trump. This goes beyond politics. These are people who come from honorable backgrounds who are willing to shirt on their honor, lie and cheat for one man. You have supposed Christians who are willing to ignore the teachings of the religion that they supposedly hold so devoutly to support one man who has showed himself to be the antithesis of everything they claim to believe.

It is such a helpless feeling to see everything that you've ever believed about this country, everything that you thought could never happen, happen right before your eyes because 52 men and women have decided that they will allow the laws of this nation and it's constitution be broken to maintain power. At this point, Hunter and Joe Biden need to be sacrificed by the Democrats to force Republican senators to see if any of them have any decency and loyalty to this country rather than to trump. Witnesses need to be called even if it means allowing the Republicans to call the whistleblower and Hunter Biden. Make them give the constitution and rule of law the finger for the world to see.

It’s okay to call Hunter and Joe Biden, even though they have no information about whether Trump committed the offenses; however we can not allow the whistleblower because that will destroy the whistleblower statute. Whistleblowers are too important to uncovering corruption. Everything the whistleblower stated has been corroborated by multiple witnesses, so trying to get his testimony is completely unn and political.

 

[samiam5211]

It’s okay to call Hunter and Joe Biden, even though they have no information about whether Trump committed the offenses; however we can not allow the whistleblower because that will destroy the whistleblower statute. Whistleblowers are too important to uncovering corruption. Everything the whistleblower stated has been corroborated by multiple witnesses, so trying to get his testimony is completely unn and political.

If they call Hunter Biden, he will probably have an attorney advise him to just claim 5th amendment to every question. He's being accused of a crime.