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

 

[coldseat]

This is as relevant as AG's from blue states saying the opposite. I can say the AG in Nebraska needs to look at the governor who has stymied the medicare expansion and delayed it from being implemented in Nebraska after the citizens overwhelmingly voted for it in 2018. They don't expect it to be enacted till October of 2020. It took other states with the same legislation 3-6 months to implement. This AG is also the same guy that claims medical marijuana bill being proposed for Nebraska is unconstitutional.

The AG from Texas, Ken Paxton, has been under indictment for years with securities fraud with multiple delays in the case. He's also one of the most extreme conservatives in the state and a staunch Trumper. The guy really sucks. I imagine many of them that signed that letter do. All they care about is their side winning in every instance.

 

[dtc]

It is not new evidence. It is old evidence available to the House if they had engaged in a proper investigation and impeachment proceeding. They did not - they wanted to rush through it (only to then delay it) and now want the SEnate to cure their deficiencies. They are playing a political game and using impeachment as their tool.

Counselor, are you suggesting that the Democrats should have subpoenaed the witnesses and documents they wanted and then engaged in a prolonged cat and mouse game with Trump delaying and appealing until a year or two from now when the election was over?

In your professional opinion, you are arguing that the Democrats would have allowed themselves to be roeapdoed by Trump for as long as it took, correct?

Is that your legal advice to Democrats or is that the strategy you wish they would have taken to allow Trump to skate on the clear obstruction?

 

[JimEverett]

Counselor, are you suggesting that the Democrats should have subpoenaed the witnesses and documents they wanted and then engaged in a prolonged cat and mouse game with Trump delaying and appealing until a year or two from now when the election was over?

In your professional opinion, you are arguing that the Democrats would have allowed themselves to be roeapdoed by Trump for as long as it took, correct?

Is that your legal advice to Democrats or is that the strategy you wish they would have taken to allow Trump to skate on the clear obstruction?

There is no way it would have taken a year or two. It would have been relatively fast - as in complete before the end of winter at the latest. And if you got a court order that Administration officials would not comply then that is clear grounds for an Obstruction of Justice charge.

Furthermore - if you get a court order to testify and/or turn over documents there is a good chance you begin to see REpublicans peel away. Much more so if there is a court order and people still refuse to comply.
So, no - it would not be a strategy to let Trump skate through, it would be the strategy to take if you genuinely believed there was a serious problem in the WH.

 

[dtc]

State AGs urge Senate to reject impeachment in stinging letter: 'A dangerous historical precedent'

EXCLUSIVE: The attorneys general of 21 states have come forward with a blistering rebuke of the impeachment of President Trump, asserting that it "establishes a dangerous historical precedent."

www.foxnews.com

That is a joke and for what it's worth, Pam Bondi is a mentally deficient and corrupt individual.

 

[dtc]

There is no way it would have taken a year or two. It would have been relatively fast - as in complete before the end of winter at the latest. And if you got a court order that Administration officials would not comply then that is clear grounds for an Obstruction of Justice charge.

Furthermore - if you get a court order to testify and/or turn over documents there is a good chance you begin to see REpublicans peel away. Much more so if there is a court order and people still refuse to comply.
So, no - it would not be a strategy to let Trump skate through, it would be the strategy to take if you genuinely believed there was a serious problem in the WH.

I will certainly defer to your legal expertise, but explain why those subpoenas that were ordered require a court to affirm. Does the House not have the legal right in and of itself? Why are the ones that were fought still in court from the Mueller investigation? And, how do you know they would have been resolved so quickly when others haven't? There are many layers of appeal, correct?

 

[JimEverett]

I will certainly defer to your legal expertise, but explain why those subpoenas that were ordered require a court to affirm. Does the House not have the legal right in and of itself? Why are the ones that were fought still in court from the Mueller investigation? And, how do you know they would have been resolved so quickly when others haven't? There are many layers of appeal, correct?

The courts will speed up the process when there is an active impeachment inquiry. They did it in the Nixon case, where unanswered subpoenas were challenged in court and worked their way to a SCOTUS decision in 3 months. Not sure about anything in the Clinton case.
Subpoenas are regularly ignored, at least in part in regular litigation. In the case of Congress subpoenaing the Executive branch I think it gets more complicated. For one, you have the issue of separation of powers and you also have executive privilege, and perhaps other stuff. Subpoenas are and/or could be ignored just to ensure proper guidance from Courts in navigating what is and what is no acceptable to turn over and/or the scope of questioning.

And ignoring subpoenas are not uncommon when issued by Congress to the Executive.

 

[V Chip]

State AGs urge Senate to reject impeachment in stinging letter: 'A dangerous historical precedent'

EXCLUSIVE: The attorneys general of 21 states have come forward with a blistering rebuke of the impeachment of President Trump, asserting that it "establishes a dangerous historical precedent."

www.foxnews.com

Color me shocked that they're all Republicans.

 

[SaintForLife]

What did Bolton, Trump, Pompeo, and/or Giuliani say/hear? That is all that matters.

They are so important that the Democrats in the House didn't get the courts to compel their testimonies, but now they are throwing a hissy fit about them needing to testify. It's pretty clear to most people the political charade that the Democrats are orchestrating.

 

[wardorican]

Sure, I think there could be an element of truth to that. But I think equally true, if not more so, was that they wanted to rush the impeachment through for political purposes. I just believe that if it is important enough you fight.

I cannot prove this, of course - but the whole thing just strikes me as being very manipulative. Democrats are not stupid - they understand what is happening and understood what is happening/will happen - like this whole fight with the SEnate was planned. As in, they relly don;t want or care to hear what Bolton or McGhan have to say - that it is the "fight" that matters. Otherwise, I cannot make sense of why they did not press the issue in court over such a grave matter as election integrity - which was their stated concern.

Again, Adam Schiff flat out said was that court cases were more prolonged than usual then going to appeals. The charges are in relation to the current election cycle. Waiting to let him continue to try to cheat wasn't a good idea, nor the right thing to do.

Imagine this scenario.

The House waited, took these final pieces to court, if/when/after subpoenas were ignored, and assume Democrats retain the House (may not... then Republicans just kill the investigation). What if it proves, beyond all reasonable doubt that this was a quid pro quo, for personal gain, everyone knew what they were doing was wrong, but possibly hard to prove...

Do questions about the validity of the election come up? Now this is different than 2016... this is a charge of election tampering (by spreading falsehoods using govt authority) while being the sitting president. The only way you get a deal is if you do this shady stuff for me to help me get re elected...It may not be full blown dictator ballot stuffing, but I think it would be a whole new level of corruption. Especially if the house flips back to republicans. If the court orders documents released and they proved the impeachable offense.... what do you do now that presumably the Republican house and senate wouldnt act, since it is their guy. Do you think any would flip to do the right thing?

 

[wardorican]

Taking what i said in a discussion about the House proceedings and applying it to what I am saying about the Senate proceedings is incorrect.

Apples and oranges.

That's your opinion. Both are legislative bodies who can make their own rules within the law. Both often use legal definitions, and are intertwined with court law.

If a lawyer thinks your two opinions aren't apples and oranges, don't we defer to expertise?

 

[coldseat]

They are so important that the Democrats in the House didn't get the courts to compel their testimonies, but now they are throwing a hissy fit about them needing to testify. It's pretty clear to most people the political charade that the Democrats are orchestrating.

That's the only reason I've heard given for not calling those witnesses. It's a really, really weak reason.

The real reason Republicans (including Trump voters) don't want those witnesses and documents subpoenaed is because we all already know what will be found when that rock is turned over. What will be found is exactly what the Democrats already have evidence of through other means and witnesses that led to what they charged the president with. The only difference will be that it will be coming from the ring leaders who orchestrated this attempted bribery and who Trump has shielded from testimony to protect himself.

Since Republicans have made such a big deal of "first hand" accounts and can't be bothered to add up 2+2, then you'd think they would want all of those documents and witnesses subpoenaed. The only reason they're not is because they trying to play a shell game to keep it all hidden. I know this, you know this, everybody knows this!

 

[insidejob]

Do you think any would flip to do the right thing?

LOL. They've all made it abundantly clear there is nothing he can do that they won't obfuscate and cover for. We know none would flip and do the right thing - well at least not enough to do anything about it. The republicans who aren't Trumpeteers are leaving or have left the party.

 

[wardorican]

They are so important that the Democrats in the House didn't get the courts to compel their testimonies, but now they are throwing a hissy fit about them needing to testify. It's pretty clear to most people the political charade that the Democrats are orchestrating.

The point is more that the whistle blower's opinion doesn't really matter.

You could prove everything he thought, was all confusion... but many others have all had similar issues and put a similar story together.

Bolton threatened to sue. I think that makes it more complicated.

 

[insidejob]

Since Republicans have made such a big deal of "first hand" accounts and can't be bothered to add up 2+2, then you'd think they would want all of those documents and witnesses subpoenaed. The only reason they're not is because they trying to play a shell game to keep it all hidden. I know this, you know this, everybody knows this!

Yet they'll go to their grave pretending like their straight shooters who are just defending our democracy from unhinged democrats who don't really care about election interference/abuse of power and are just mad because Clinton lost the election almost 4 years ago.

 

[SaintForLife]

That's the only reason I've heard given for not calling those witnesses. It's a really, really weak reason.

The real reason Republicans (including Trump voters) don't want those witnesses and documents subpoenaed is because we all already know what will be found when that rock is turned over. What will be found is exactly what the Democrats already have evidence of through other means and witnesses that led to what they charged the president with. The only difference will be that it will be coming from the ring leaders who orchestrated this attempted bribery and who Trump has shielded from testimony to protect himself.

Since Republicans have made such a big deal of "first hand" accounts and can't be bothered to add up 2+2, then you'd think they would want all of those documents and witnesses subpoenaed. The only reason they're not is because they trying to play a shell game to keep it all hidden. I know this, you know this, everybody knows this!

It's the same playbook as Russiagate. The Democrats had their chance and they passed on getting the courts to compel their testimonies. That's why obstruction of Congress is a laughable charge.

What do you think will be found? We've already seen the call transcript. We know the Democrats had to move on to Ukraine because Russiagate fizzled out. The Russia investigation and the information that came from it was SO important that the Democrats didn't include ANYTHING at all from it in their impeachment articles.

 

[Dadsdream]

That's your opinion. Both are legislative bodies who can make their own rules within the law. Both often use legal definitions, and are intertwined with court law.

If a lawyer thinks your two opinions aren't apples and oranges, don't we defer to expertise?
[/QUOTE

That's your opinion. Both are legislative bodies who can make their own rules within the law. Both often use legal definitions, and are intertwined with court law.

If a lawyer thinks your two opinions aren't apples and oranges, don't we defer to expertise?

Depends on the lawyer. There's Perry Mason . . . Then there's Saul Goodman.

 

[TaylorB]

They are so important that the Democrats in the House didn't get the courts to compel their testimonies, but now they are throwing a hissy fit about them needing to testify. It's pretty clear to most people the political charade that the Democrats are orchestrating.

Whatever they think of the political charade, "most people" want new evidence and witnesses:

Majority of Americans want witnesses, new testimony in Senate impeachment trial: polls

As the Senate spars over the rules governing the impeachment trial of President Trump, fresh national polling suggests that a majority of Americans would like to see new witnesses and testimony presented at the trial.

www.foxnews.com

 

[SaintForLife]

The point is more that the whistle blower's opinion doesn't really matter.

You could prove everything he thought, was all confusion... but many others have all had similar issues and put a similar story together.

Bolton threatened to sue. I think that makes it more complicated.

The "whistleblower" started this whole process. Do you realize how crazy it sounds to claim that the person who started this whole process doesn't need to be heard from? It makes it seem like there is something dirty going on behind the scenes that Schiff and the Democrats don't want the public to know.