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

 

[BobE]

Can some one check on that other site before I have withdrawals?

 

[Dadsdream]

So, if the President orders the Justice Department to do something, there is no standard needed? There is no due process needed as long as the President orders it?

Ie, if President Obama ordered the Justice Department to investigate the Donald Trump campaign just because he wanted it, there's no problem?

C'mon, Jim, you know there's all kinds of restrictions and if's and's or but's. Just like English grammar rules, there's tons of exceptions.
But, the general framework is the president appoints the Attorney General, who provides counsel and follows the lead of the Chief Executive.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Let's take this to something of an absurd level.

Imagine President Warren, who is bored one day and starts perusing message boards, and takes umbrage to something DadsDream said. Can she then offer Mexico an aid package in exchange for announcing a prostitution sting with DadsDream's name prominently listed as one of the biggest johns?

(substitute the country and any scandal sufficient to cause enough embarrassment or material harm)

Is that within the President's appropriate use of power?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Can some one check on that other site before I have withdrawals?

Can't get on.... d'oh!!!

 

[Dadsdream]

Can some one check on that other site before I have withdrawals?

Other site? You holding out on me BobE? Seeing other sites?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

C'mon, Jim, you know there's all kinds of restrictions and if's and's or but's. Just like English grammar rules, there's tons of exceptions.
But, the general framework is the president appoints the Attorney General, who provides counsel and follows the lead of the Chief Executive.

Right, but that is getting to the heart of the matter. President Trump is accused of trying to personally damage someone he doesn't like and using his office as President to do so. There are supposed to be rules and procedures and norms in place to prevent those in authority from using their office as their own personal playground. That people have abused it in the past, and will do so in the future, this is no doubt, but when caught, we expect them to be censured, reprimanded, and otherwise have checks placed on them so we as a country can have confidence that those in power's main focus is on us and not themselves.

 

[BobE]

Schiff may have mischaracterized Parnas evidence, documents show

Unredacted material shows he may have referred to the wrong "Mr. Z."

www.politico.com

M head hurts

 

[Sledge Hammer]

So by sandbagging, we’re left with few other conclusions than the House has Trump dead to rights, and the Senate can’t risk any sort of public hearing the ads can’t control
Everyone on this board knows Trump did what he is accused of - and some are choosing to play along to endorse corruption

Those posters cede every ethical and moral prouncement they could ever make from now into the future

The self-righteousness is somewhat tiring.

Don’t i know

I concur. We can talk about this without the personal attacks and condemnations, y'all.

DD, I think you make a point that both GMRfellowtraveller and JimEverett should heed. And everyone else too, of course.

I think it's important to discuss the posts and topics, not posters and behaviors of people on this board. It's a tricky thing, because commentary one how people are acting or reacting - such as statements about the left being unhinged or the right putting their head in the sand about racist elements in the party - is what politics often is. Public reaction to a situation.

There is some level of fairness saying that Trump's actions may not be fully proven, even if there is a lot of smoke there. It doesn't automatically mean that they endorse corruption. That may be a bridge too far, even if possibly true for some.

I think calling people self-righteous, especially without any other commentary, is a bit too personal and maybe defensive. That isn't bringing out good dialogue either.

And it, of course, was met with a sarcastic reply.

There was a full day of Senate activity. Perhaps folks could discuss some of that vs telling others how they are acting?

 

[Dadsdream]

Other site? You holding out on me BobE? Seeing other sites?

Oh, dear, this is serious!

 

[BobE]

Can't get on.... d'oh!!!

Other site? You holding out on me BobE? Seeing other sites?

Oh, dear, this is serious!

Y'all think I'm joking bout this

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Y'all think I'm joking bout this

Nope, and we're here for you. Want to start a meme thread on the Everything Else section of this board to get you through?

 

[BobE]

Nope, and we're here for you. Want to start a meme thread on the Everything Else section of this board to get you through?

Hmmmmmm.

 

[Sledge Hammer]

Y'all think I'm joking bout this

I contacted Andrus, btw. He said the network where the SR servers are located in Texas is down. He hasn't received an ETA on when they'll be back up. He hopes soon. We should make a joke about Texas.. everything is bigger in Texas, even their network crashes.

MAP is on the cloud, luckily.

 

[BobE]

LSU trying to choke this game away

 

[BobE]

LSU trying to choke this game away

LSU survives. Now back to your regularly scheduled Impeachment.

 

[bdb13]

I think no one, including Trump, believed that there was enough evidence to pursue an investigation into Joe Biden.

Didn't even mean to post that lol.. incomplete thought.

But yeah, there are plenty of previous examples of the general type of "corruption" that benefitted Hunter Biden in his employment with Burisma. Obviously most didn't involve the VP and his son and it's certainly a bad look that Joe was in charge of the Ukrainian effort and Hunter was hired by Burisma. It is a screwed up way for things to work, I think. I'd argue that it's more or less legal corruption built into the system. But that's really the extent of the legitimate complaint against the Bidens, isn't it?

Are there historical equivalents for leveraging hundreds of millions in tax payer funds in an attempt to have a foreign government publicly announce an investigation into the opposing party's most likely candidate in the upcoming election?

And I think that's mostly what I have a difficult time wrapping my head around. What is it about this situation that I'm missing? If the allegation is true what am I missing in viewing this as egregious corruption?

 

[samiam5211]

Keep me straight here, did the Justice Department start an investigation? If they did, then Yes.
Is it appropriate for the president to create an extra governmental channel to conduct such an investigation? As president, he presides over the Justice Department and the State Department and can determine who is going to investigate what with regard to international arms treaties. Yes.
Is it an abuse of power? Again, the president has executive authority regarding international arms deals. No.
Do you believe that it is possible for an abuse of power that violates no law to be an impeachable offense? You can't move the goal posts. No.

Your turn, bro, same questions!

You didn’t say what you thought was appropriate, only what was legal. It is a skirting of responsibility I find most disappointing.

It may have been worth a justice department investigation, but nothing I am aware of would warrant it in this case.

No it is not appropriate for the president to create an extra governmental channel to conduct this investigation.

Is it an abuse of power? Absolutely.

Yes. Our failure to think it necessary to pass a law prohibiting so shouldn’t prevent us from repossessing the authority someone was loaned from us.

Again, you didn’t really answer my question. You abdicated your responsibility as a citizen to the law.

 

[wardorican]

Because it's the Senate. Literally.
Each year when it convenes, the Senate adopts its rules all over again, with changes, additions and deletions. They are not constrained by criminal case law.

I'd recommend looking at how and why the Senate was created, starting with the Senate's own website.

Looking back on more than two centuries of Senate history, the Constitution's framers would appreciate the Senate's passion for deliberation, its untidiness, its aloofness from the House of Representatives and its suspicion of the presidency. Neither they nor most of the more than 1,800 persons who served as senators during that time would be greatly surprised at the continuing calls for reform. Viewed over the broad sweep of its history, the Senate has balanced faithfulness to the Constitution's principles with requirements for measured change in response to the complex demands of a diverse society.

U.S. Senate: Origins and Development

Origins and Development

www.senate.gov

I never said they were constrained or had to follow a court of law. Just said it isn't silly to aim for that ballpark.