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

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

A funny thing about taking a couple of days away from the board... pretty much the same arguments are being made.

This thread did briefly veer into some discussion about how to prevent the White House from arbitrarily ordering investigations into political opponents to either intimidate or otherwise harm them. But that didn't go anywhere.

 

[JimEverett]

And your percentage talk is sort of a distraction, no? Nobody is proposing any percentages, that would be silly.

The difference is between “some” with efforts to negotiate the rest, and “none” with “you have no right to make such a request” or your request is not valid.

By "some" what percentage do you mean?

 

[JimEverett]

If someone in the executive branch wants to testify and the executive branch does not want them to testify, how can the executive branch stop them from testifying? Genuine question, I'm not aware of the mechanism for stopping someone from testifying if they want to, as long as they are willing to risk losing their job. Vindman was likely relying on the Military's Whistleblower protection rules.

I was thinking of a suit to stop a person's testimony on the basis of something like Executive Privilege. Or some sort of retaliation.

 

[MT15]

I think, in the past, we have relied on the character of the President and the custom of the DOJ being independent of political winds. The record is a bit spotty, though, in the past with some scattered abuses of the system.

now, it seems to me, we are in peril of having that “norm” of an independent DOJ going away permanently.

By "some" what percentage do you mean?

I mean just that “some”. That the administration needs to make a good faith effort to go through the documents requested and determine which ones are legitimately covered by executive privilege and which are not. You cannot seriously think that every single document requested is completely and totally covered by executive privilege, right? So they should be able to separate what can be shared from what can’t.

Same with witnesses, witnesses could and should be allowed, with clear guidelines about what would be privileged information and what would not. Or a negotiation takes place, like it has every other time. The courts normally are only used when negotiating reaches an impasse.

I heard someone say that the Trump administration is arguing in court that these disputes, (I don’t know which of the suits they were talking about) are political in nature, and so the courts shouldn’t weigh in. And this is true, the judiciary, it was said, doesn’t like to get involved in political spats.

So on the one hand, they are saying “we’re not giving you anything unless you go to court” and when something gets to court they are arguing that the courts shouldn’t weigh in.

 

[Beach Friends]

I thought the WH lawyers were dreamy. (Sorry, but dazzling, masterful and amazing were already taken to describe Schiff).

I did like the way they pointed out how Schiff lied his way through the "evidence" going back to muh Russia collusion, through Adam's parody and his speculation story time before the United States Senate.

I kept expecting to hear someone channel a Rocky movie, "throw in the damn towel Adam!"

And they did all that in time for everyone to enjoy their Saturday afternoon. Well done.

Based on today's performance, I predict that this will all end with acquittal in the Senate.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Based on today's performance, I predict that this will all end with acquittal in the Senate.

Hopefully, soon.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I thought the WH lawyers were dreamy. (Sorry, but dazzling, masterful and amazing were already taken to describe Schiff).

I did like the way they pointed out how Schiff lied his way through the "evidence" going back to muh Russia collusion, through Adam's parody and his speculation story time before the United States Senate.

I kept expecting to hear someone channel a Rocky movie, "throw in the damn towel Adam!"

And they did all that in time for everyone to enjoy their Saturday afternoon. Well done.

Based on today's performance, I predict that this will all end with acquittal in the Senate.

So no examples about why the testimony was compelling?
I would hazard a guess that as long as they did not literally poop themselves on live tv, you would say ‘well done, see? There is no there there’

 

[samiam5211]

I am not sure where this idea that "everything" has been withheld. 12 witnesses testified. I believe most were and still are employed by the Executive branch. The WH turned over a transcript of the telephone conversation.

Further, and more importantly, none of the elements of obstruction are based on some level of withholding or ignoring requests/subpoenas. There is no calculus that says withholding 83% of requests is obstruction, but withholding 80% is not. To try to paint it as such is another example of manipulation by the Democrats in this impeachment.

The point about Obama ignoring requests/subpoenas is that Presidents have not infrequently ignored subpoenas.

My understanding is that most of those who testified were defying orders from the White House. It’s not evidence of cooperation.

 

[JimEverett]

My understanding is that most of those who testified were defying orders from the White House. It’s not evidence of cooperation.

I didn't say it was cooperating, and I am not sure what cooperation has to do with obstruction.
The point was a response to the notion that there was some sort of tight grip which did not allow any evidence out of the White House. That is just false.

 

[Beach Friends]

So no examples about why the testimony was compelling?
I would hazard a guess that as long as they did not literally poop themselves on live tv, you would say ‘well done, see? There is no there there’

I think they did what they should have done on day one, which was to point out how unfair the process in the lower chamber was and that Schiff is untrustworthy.

For all those who think that Schiff was brilliant, they are simply wrong. A really good attorney knows that when you introduce evidence that you KNOW is going to be easily impeached you do so at the risk of destroying your own credibility.

Schiff and company obviously have no clue as they played clips over and over when they KNEW the same witness later gave testimony that showed the testimony Schiff chose to play in his clips was based on speculation. Example - Sondland.

I still think that Schiff was damaged beyond redemption by his cute little paroday. You simply do not open a case by over promising what you will prove and Schiff gave perhaps the worst example of this possible when he grossly misstated the contents of the phone call. It was one of the strangest things imaginable for an attorney to do. He has never recovered from that and I don't think it's possible that he ever will.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Trump defense is a glowing example of what happens when you already know that the fix is in and no matter what you say, the people hanging on your every word will defend it with some ridiculous claim of how masterful your defense was. When you don't have to worry about losing, you can simply make it up as you go along. This is what we say today and this is what is playing out on this board from people defending trump. He is guilty of everything he's been charged with but trump supporters simply don't care. Do us all a favor and just say that rather than making yourself look like a jackass trying to defend trump. Just say you don't care about whether he's guilty or not.

 

[Beach Friends]

Trump defense is a glowing example of what happens when you already know that the fix is in and no matter what you say, the people hanging on your every word will defend it with some ridiculous claim of how masterful your defense was. When you don't have to worry about losing, you can simply make it up as you go along. This is what we say today and this is what is playing out on this board from people defending trump. He is guilty of everything he's been charged with but trump supporters simply don't care. Do us all a favor and just say that rather than making yourself look like a jackass trying to defend trump. Just say you don't care about whether he's guilty or not.

In all honesty I don't think the WH presentation was "masterful." I think that Schiff set himself up in such a way that any decent lawyer could have done what the WH attorneys did today, which is to show he is a highly partisan hack who can't be trusted.

 

[JimEverett]

Trump defense is a glowing example of what happens when you already know that the fix is in and no matter what you say, the people hanging on your every word will defend it with some ridiculous claim of how masterful your defense was. When you don't have to worry about losing, you can simply make it up as you go along. This is what we say today and this is what is playing out on this board from people defending trump. He is guilty of everything he's been charged with but trump supporters simply don't care. Do us all a favor and just say that rather than making yourself look like a jackass trying to defend trump. Just say you don't care about whether he's guilty or not.

"Guilty of everything charged with" is part of the problem. It seems really easy to say he is guilty of Abuse of Power because you can basically make it up as you go. There is a reason the Democrats did not charge him with bribery or some other actual crime - they cannot prove it.

 

[JimEverett]

In all honesty I don't think the WH presentation was "masterful." I think that Schiff set himself up in such a way that any decent lawyer could have done what the WH attorneys did today, which is to show he is a highly partisan hack who can't be trusted.

The anger some are feeling is misdirected. It should not be directed at people saying there should have been no impeachment and ad arguing against removal. It should be directed at the people who so utterly and spectacularly failed at proving anything that happened that should warrant impeachment or removal.
This will go down in history as the weakest impeachment in history - and the future will not look positively on the people who pushed it through.

 

[samiam5211]

I didn't say it was cooperating, and I am not sure what cooperation has to do with obstruction.
The point was a response to the notion that there was some sort of tight grip which did not allow any evidence out of the White House. That is just false.

The president did everything he could to prevent people from testifying. At least as far as I know.

I’m not sure why you point out that a few people testified despite being instructed not to, if not to suggest it is evidence that defends Trump on obstruction.

 

[JimEverett]

The president did everything he could to prevent people from testifying. At least as far as I know.

I’m not sure why you point out that a few people testified despite being instructed not to, if not to suggest it is evidence that defends Trump on obstruction.

I am not sure if you are just not understanding what I am saying or what. The point about the witnesses was to counteract some idea that the WH had barred all information/evidence/whatever - it is not true and the Executive branch witnesses are proof of that, as is the transcript the WH released.

That is one point, but that has little to nothing to do with the point about obstruction. - Had Trump done something to stop or delay those witnesses from testifying and never released a transcript he still would not be guilty of obstruction.
Now, had he ignored a court order, had he retaliated against Executive branch employees who did testify, had he altered documents, told potential witnesses to lie . . . then that is a completely different matter.

I am not sure what to say if you think non-cooperation equals obstruction. It does not and never will.

Past precedent is proof of that - see Fast & Furious, as are the elements of obstruction itself.

 

[MT15]

I didn't say it was cooperating, and I am not sure what cooperation has to do with obstruction.
The point was a response to the notion that there was some sort of tight grip which did not allow any evidence out of the White House. That is just false.

obviously, I don’t believe it is false at all. so, show me I’m wrong. Honestly, I’d feel better if I was wrong about this. I did a search, but nothing came up. What has the administration willingly turned over to the House’s impeachment inquiry?

According to the House report, not a single document that was requested was turned over, including requests to the following: State Dept., DOE, OMB, DOD, and of course the WH itself.

Here is a relevant legal discussion about the letter from WH counsel stating that they would not cooperate at all.

The Cipollone Letter: Trouble in the White House Counsel’s Office

The aggressive letter from the White House counsel to Congress, announcing that the president will not cooperate with the impeachment inquiry, is further evidence of the deterioration of norms in the conduct of senior government positions.

www.lawfareblog.com

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

The anger some are feeling is misdirected. It should not be directed at people saying there should have been no impeachment and ad arguing against removal. It should be directed at the people who so utterly and spectacularly failed at proving anything that happened that should warrant impeachment or removal.
This will go down in history as the weakest impeachment in history - and the future will not look positively on the people who pushed it through.

So you’re saying that Trump is guilty of everything he’s accused of- it just doesn’t rise to the level of impeachment

How would you sanction him if impeachment is too much?