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

 

[wardorican]

The Kupperman case was fast tracked due to it being part of an impeachment inquiry - it proves my point.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/us-judge-fast-tracks-hearing-over-house-impeachment-subpoena-to-ex-trump-deputy-national-security-adviser-charles-kupperman/2019/11/04/5606e5bc-ff3e-11e9-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html

The problem with that suit is that the Democratic-controlled House told the Judge that it would not call Kupperman as a witness - and thus made the case moot. Hence the article you posted. The Democrats do not think it is worthwhile to interrogate Kupperman.

The McGahn case is one that deals with a subpoena issued in April - long before the impeachment inquiry. It is not part of the impeachment inquiry and thus would not be fast tracked. It is similar to the Obama Administration's ignoring of subpoenas in the "Fast and Furious" inquiry. Had Republicans instituted impeachment proceedings at that time - due to ignoring subpoenas - then those issues may have been fast-tracked - same with had Democrats believed there was Obstruction of Justice issue resulting from the Mueller investigation.
[/QUOTE]

Yes, it proves it to a point. I was conceding, that, but the second point that the first cases were about absolute immunity. So, 2 months got us to an easy appeal (mooted), let's say 3 months to SCOTUS. Then, he person actually has to testify. Then, they bring up specific Executive privilege claims that "over do it" and also have to get resolved in court. Another 3 months? I think the Democrats saw this as a two step lawsuit, minimum.

So, you're talking 4-6 months just to get questions answered. And multiply that by a few individuals / department documents. It's mostly in parallel, but especially as you filter up to appeals circuits and the SCOTUS, it would slow things down, unless they were able to combine cases.

That's why I ended with this..

so, 3 plus 3, at best by your math? and they probably wouldn't have pushed until nov 20th or so, when rulings first started coming in. So, March, then June for actual testimony compelled? At the "fast pace". Then you want impeachment proceedings to finalize in June/July? So, the Senate can do a trial in July/August? It's that cutting it a bit close?

Don't you think a possible July/August impeachment trial, with a November Election, and for the Republicans, an August 24 Convention, so all primary's are over, would be too late or too close to the election? Especially when the point of the impeachment charges relate to trying to put a hand on the scale for the election (i.e. election manipulation).?

 

[samiam5211]

If Trump is guilty, he should have been impeached directly on the issue and evidence.

That is exactly what is happening. You aren't paying attention.

 

[dtc]

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.

The Russia investigation was started by and run by Republicans and did not exhonerate Trump under any stretch. He's repeatedly shown as an unindicted co-conspirator and the only reason he wasn't indicted is due to Mueller's insistence on honoring the policy of not indicting a sitting president.

The democrats didn't switch gears from one to the next.

Your characterization is silly.

More importantly, the Senate is the trial phase. Evidence is to be presented, argued and considered. Your argument seems to be based on a need to defend the POTUS rather than a need to understand the truth.

 

[JimEverett]

The Kupperman case was fast tracked due to it being part of an impeachment inquiry - it proves my point.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/us-judge-fast-tracks-hearing-over-house-impeachment-subpoena-to-ex-trump-deputy-national-security-adviser-charles-kupperman/2019/11/04/5606e5bc-ff3e-11e9-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html

The problem with that suit is that the Democratic-controlled House told the Judge that it would not call Kupperman as a witness - and thus made the case moot. Hence the article you posted. The Democrats do not think it is worthwhile to interrogate Kupperman.

The McGahn case is one that deals with a subpoena issued in April - long before the impeachment inquiry. It is not part of the impeachment inquiry and thus would not be fast tracked. It is similar to the Obama Administration's ignoring of subpoenas in the "Fast and Furious" inquiry. Had Republicans instituted impeachment proceedings at that time - due to ignoring subpoenas - then those issues may have been fast-tracked - same with had Democrats believed there was Obstruction of Justice issue resulting from the Mueller investigation.

Yes, it proves it to a point. I was conceding, that, but the second point that the first cases were about absolute immunity. So, 2 months got us to an easy appeal (mooted), let's say 3 months to SCOTUS. Then, he person actually has to testify. Then, they bring up specific Executive privilege claims that "over do it" and also have to get resolved in court. Another 3 months? I think the Democrats saw this as a two step lawsuit, minimum.

So, you're talking 4-6 months just to get questions answered. And multiply that by a few individuals / department documents. It's mostly in parallel, but especially as you filter up to appeals circuits and the SCOTUS, it would slow things down, unless they were able to combine cases.

That's why I ended with this..



Don't you think a possible July/August impeachment trial, with a November Election, and for the Republicans, an August 24 Convention, so all primary's are over, would be too late or too close to the election? Especially when the point of the impeachment charges relate to trying to put a hand on the scale for the election (i.e. election manipulation).?
[/QUOTE]
I don't think it would take 2 separate 3 month periods. If there were more challenges after the suit had worked its way to the top - in a 3 month period, there would be no going back to a district court. SCOTUS (or whatever highest court) would make a ruling on the question.

Not only that - but the House did not even try. And in the Kupperman case (a case brought by Kupperman himself, right? - not the House Committee) the House told the COurt that even if they (the House) got a favorable ruling they did not intend to call Kuperman to testify. Why? What sort of "strategy" is that?
That is why I think the whole impeachment is nothing more than a political ploy and the House is being very manipulative.

 

[JimEverett]

The Russia investigation was started by and run by Republicans and did not exhonerate Trump under any stretch. He's repeatedly shown as an unindicted co-conspirator and the only reason he wasn't indicted is due to Mueller's insistence on honoring the policy of not indicting a sitting president.

Not really true. Mueller said there was not enough PROOF to indict Trump or anyone else on any conspiracy wth Russia.
He then laid out arguments for and against Obstruction and said that on that matter alone (not conspiracy) he would leave it up to others to decide. Those others would be, say, a Democratic-controlled House having an impeachment inquiry against Trump, perhaps? A House that did not charge Trump with Obstruction of Justice relating to the Mueller investigation.

 

[dtc]

Not really true. Mueller said there was not enough PROOF to indict Trump or anyone else on any conspiracy wth Russia.
He then laid out arguments for and against Obstruction and said that on that matter alone (not conspiracy) he would leave it up to others to decide. Those others would be, say, a Democratic-controlled House having an impeachment inquiry against Trump, perhaps? A House that did not charge Trump with Obstruction of Justice relating to the Mueller investigation.

Isn't that exactly what I said?

Conspiracy was one facet and there wasn't enough to indict, but he reserved judgment on anything yet repeatedly referred to Trump as individual #1 who was involved in all manner of things the other participants were indeed indicted for, correct?

ICBW.

 

[JimEverett]

An

Isn't that exactly what I said?

Conspiracy was one facet and there wasn't enough to indict, but he reserved judgment on anything yet repeatedly referred to Trump as individual #1 who was involved in all manner of things the other participants were indeed indicted for, correct?

ICBW.

An unindicted co-conspirator in the Mueller investigation? I am not sure where you are getting that. I think there was some rumor he was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Michael Cohen case, but nothing to do with conspiracy with Russia.

He wouldn't be a co-conspirator in the Russia case because Mueller never found proof of a conspiracy at all.

 

[dtc]

An

An unindicted co-conspirator in the Mueller investigation? I am not sure where you are getting that. I think there was some rumor he was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Michael Cohen case, but nothing to do with conspiracy with Russia.

He wouldn't be a co-conspirator in the Russia case because Mueller never found proof of a conspiracy at all.

You're right. It was the Cohen case.

I wonder why that never came up in the house impeachment proceedings?

 

[JimEverett]

You're right. It was the Cohen case.

I wonder why that never came up in the house impeachment proceedings?

It is a good question. You wouldn't need to have hearings on it, as Mueller had already done the work.

Personally, I think it would have been a hard case to prove. But, if you are going to impeach it seems like you would throw that in there.

 

[dtc]

It is a good question. You wouldn't need to have hearings on it, as Mueller had already done the work.

Personally, I think it would have been a hard case to prove. But, if you are going to impeach it seems like you would throw that in there.

I have wondered a great deal why the articles and hearings were so close to the vest. There are literally dozens - maybe hundreds of things Trump has done that are impeachable.

Why didn't they throw the emoluments issue at him or the incitement to violence? What about the blatant lies on official statements? I'm no constitutional lawyer, but if his Twitter feed is an official statement of the POTUS and there are repeated and demonstrable falsehoods, is that not a breach of his oath?

 

[Archies Ghost]

That is exactly what is happening. You aren't paying attention.

You are correct.

I am paying no attention to the Democrat fever dream.

Stretching the weak articles of impeachment into an impeachment on the alleged QQP/Bribe/Extortion this was supposed to be is far fetched.

There is a reason the Democrats settled on two very nebulous articles. We are seeing that in the opening statement. Schiff is channeling "the Russians are coming" in a desperate hope to swing public opinion.

He knows the Ukraine/Burisma/Biden angle is DOA.

 

[FullMonte]

I am fully cognizant of the "facts". Trump was not impeached for his alleged misdeeds.

The articles of impeachment prove that.

The articles submitted could be submitted against any president.

Its obvious this is an election strategy, a very desperate one.

If Trump is guilty, he should have been impeached directly on the issue and evidence.

He wasn't.

He wasn't impeached for his alleged misdeeds, and the articles of impeachment prove that? The articles could be submitted against any president? I'm not sure where you get that from.

From the articles of impeachment:

Section: "Article I: Abuse of Power"

"Using the power of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States President election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigation..."

Section: "Article II: Obstruction of Congress"

"In response, without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas....."

That sounds like it specifically states the president's misdeeds as the reasons for his impeachment, and I'm fairly certain that no other president could face articles of impeachment for trying to trying to pressure Ukraine into announcing an investigation into their opponent, and for trying to cover up those efforts.

 

[Nebaghead]

It took 3 months for the Supreme Court to rule on Nixon's impeachment.

I said in the constitution or Law, previous prescedent doesn't mean it will happen again. Clinton Impeachment had witnesses, Trumps doesn't. Presecedent would dictate otherwise. You can't base an investigation on "they did it that way last time" and be made the fool when they don't. If it was law, then yes there would be no excuse not to ask for all the witnesses before voting on impeachment articles.

 

[coldseat]

You are correct.

I am paying no attention to the Democrat fever dream.

Stretching the weak articles of impeachment into an impeachment on the alleged QQP/Bribe/Extortion this was supposed to be is far fetched.

There is a reason the Democrats settled on two very nebulous articles. We are seeing that in the opening statement. Schiff is channeling "the Russians are coming" in a desperate hope to swing public opinion.

He knows the Ukraine/Burisma/Biden angle is DOA.

This right in this country is unhinged in it's defense of Trump. Anything to save Dear Leader. I've never seen so many people collectively stick their head in the sand and argue so much nonsense.

Your last line is just silly, the Dems keep coming back to that very point in their arguments because it's central to the whole impeachment.

The articles of impeachment are very clear as to why he was impeached for abuse of power, there's nothing nebulous about it. And it's justified.

 

[JimEverett]

I said in the constitution or Law, previous prescedent doesn't mean it will happen again. Clinton Impeachment had witnesses, Trumps doesn't. Presecedent would dictate otherwise. You can't base an investigation on "they did it that way last time" and be made the fool when they don't. If it was law, then yes there would be no excuse not to ask for all the witnesses before voting on impeachment articles.

I don't think the SEnate has determined if there will be witnesses yet.
And if we are going on precedent - weren't the 3 witnesses in the Clinton impeachment trial part of the Impeachment record? I know LEwinsky and Jordan were interviewed and/or part of the Grand Jury that the House used in voting on Impeachment. Not sure about Blumenthal.

 

[Archies Ghost]

This right in this country is unhinged in it's defense of Trump. Anything to save Dear Leader. I've never seen so many people collectively stick their head in the sand and argue so much nonsense.

Your last line is just silly, the Dems keep coming back to that very point in their arguments because it's central to the whole impeachment.

The articles of impeachment are very clear as to why he was impeached for abuse of power, there's nothing nebulous about it. And it's justified.

Not just the right.

 

[Nebaghead]

I don't think the SEnate has determined if there will be witnesses yet.
And if we are going on precedent - weren't the 3 witnesses in the Clinton impeachment trial part of the Impeachment record? I know LEwinsky and Jordan were interviewed and/or part of the Grand Jury that the House used in voting on Impeachment. Not sure about Blumenthal.

My whole comment is that you can't depend on what should happen versus what can happen. This was part of the consideration. My guess is that laws will get changed to protect the US in the future from this. Just like after the Nixon impeachment, they passed the impoundment act so their was a way to determine an action by the president as being illegal.

 

[JimEverett]

My whole comment is that you can't depend on what should happen versus what can happen. This was part of the consideration. My guess is that laws will get changed to protect the US in the future from this. Just like after the Nixon impeachment, they passed the impoundment act so their was a way to determine an action by the president as being illegal.

I was thinking about this a few days ago - but it merely highlights the problem I have been harping on, in my opinion.

How could you craft a law that stops what Trump did without necessarily implicating other foreign policy actions that most of us think are valid?
I understand you can specify the intent, as in something like: "with the intent to harm an American citizen"
But that doesn't really solve the problem - it simply invites more constitutional crises like the one we are having now. Although I guess at this point that cat is already out of the bag.