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

 

[JimEverett]

obviously, I don’t believe it is false at all. so, show me I’m wrong.

I have said it a few times. The transcript release. Unless the point is that the release was before an official inquiry so it doesn't "count" - which is ridiculous, imo. Releasing evidence is releasing evidence. And the witnesses that testified that work in the Executive Branch

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

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.

But neither of those thing really prove what you say they prove do they?

 

[dtc]

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.

They did not hand over a transcript and you of all people should stop saying they did.

 

[MT15]

I have said it a few times. The transcript release. Unless the point is that the release was before an official inquiry so it doesn't "count" - which is ridiculous, imo. Releasing evidence is releasing evidence. And the witnesses that testified that work in the Executive Branch

The release of the summary? The one that Vindman testified was incomplete and that when he went through regular channels to add in the omitted information, it wasn’t added? The one that was hidden in a secure server by the people who worked in the WH, because they knew it was incriminating?

No, I don’t think the WH should get credit for releasing that. They thought it was exculpatory (actually it was probably only Trump who thought it was exculpatory) which is the reason he released it. When it actually contained the words and phrases that some Republicans had said would be problematic, they then shut down completely. Not one other document was released.

I also think it’s ridiculous to give the WH credit for the witnesses who did testify, in defiance of direct orders in most cases. If they could have stopped them they would have.

 

[dtc]

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.

there is no a single person who any Trump defenders would believe if they spoke out against Trump. Not one.

Mother Theresa could appear in a vision of light and show photos of Trump eating a baby and Republicans would claim she was lying.

Still, instead of denying the allegations they denigrate the integrity of the other side.

 

[dtc]

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.

That's rich.

First, I thought Clinton should have been removed for lying under oath, but let's not pretend that a 5 year witch hunt into a real estate deal from years and years prior should ever have led to a sitting president being asked about an extramarital affair.

 

[dtc]

I have said it a few times. The transcript release. Unless the point is that the release was before an official inquiry so it doesn't "count" - which is ridiculous, imo. Releasing evidence is releasing evidence. And the witnesses that testified that work in the Executive Branch

Here's a picture of my cat agreeing with you that the document you refer to as a transcript was, indeed, a transcript. Of course, cats are pretty dumb. They don't speak english. They don't read. They don't fetch or do tricks on command, but they do believe that a partially paraphrased, redacted and incomplete summary revised by a president's political operatives and illegally and improperly hidden away on a code word protected server is a transcript.

But it's not.

 

[Beach Friends]

there is no a single person who any Trump defenders would believe if they spoke out against Trump. Not one.

Mother Theresa could appear in a vision of light and show photos of Trump eating a baby and Republicans would claim she was lying.

Still, instead of denying the allegations they denigrate the integrity of the other side.

Yeah well, Schiff sure makes it easy.

The fact is that any sensible person would know that it was going to be an uphill battle where the prosecution needs a 2/3 vot in a GOP controlled Senate. The answer is not to make it easy for them to dismiss you.

He has a hostile jury no doubt. But you don't overcome that by making a mockery of your own case, which is what he has done.

Especially when you have the burden of proof before a hostile jury you tighten up your case. You acknowledge your weaknesses before the other side can point them up. You don't pretend that your weaknesses are strengths.

Unless of course you are just going through the motions and you aren't even trying to persuade people over to your side, which is exactly what Schiff appears to be doing.

The question is why are the Democrats taking that approach? The only answer I can come up with is that this is the equivalent to a hail Mary. Maybe they think this will produce something for them to run on in key Senate races so they can block judicial nominations in Trump's second term.

 

[samiam5211]

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.

Obstruction of Congress is not the same as obstruction of justice.

Obstruction of Congress doesn’t require ignoring a court order. Ignoring a congressional subpoena has led to many people being held in contempt of congress for obstruction.

I am not aware if anything more Trump could have done to prevent testimony.

Obstruction of Congress is essentially whatever congress decides it is.

 

[Saintamaniac]

The fact is that any sensible person would know that it was going to be an uphill battle where the prosecution needs a 2/3 vot in a GOP controlled Senate.

I think is this is the closest thing to reality that you have stated here in a while. I completely agree with you. Given that several republicans senators basically covered their ears so they couldn't hear what was being said by the prosecutors it is all but guaranteed that republicans were going to go along with the biggest cover-up in American history.

The answer is not to make it easy for them to dismiss you.

He didn't and the only way for them to dismiss what he said is to do exactly what you are doing here right now.

 

[dtc]

Yeah well, Schiff sure makes it easy.

The fact is that any sensible person would know that it was going to be an uphill battle where the prosecution needs a 2/3 vot in a GOP controlled Senate. The answer is not to make it easy for them to dismiss you.

He has a hostile jury no doubt. But you don't overcome that by making a mockery of your own case, which is what he has done.

Especially when you have the burden of proof before a hostile jury you tighten up your case. You acknowledge your weaknesses before the other side can point them up. You don't pretend that your weaknesses are strengths.

Unless of course you are just going through the motions and you aren't even trying to persuade people over to your side, which is exactly what Schiff appears to be doing.

The question is why are the Democrats taking that approach? The only answer I can come up with is that this is the equivalent to a hail Mary. Maybe they think this will produce something for them to run on in key Senate races so they can block judicial nominations in Trump's second term.

You honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

The case is proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to anyone who has chosen to listen.

That's the problem. Trump's supporters and the Republicans have kowtowed and ignored it.

 

[Devildog]

I thought the "partisan hack" claim was rich, considering who it was from.

 

[Eeyore]

Trump on Yovanovitch

"Get rid of her. Take her out."

About the 42 minute mark

 

[Beach Friends]

You honestly have no idea what you're talking about.

The case is proven beyond any shadow of a doubt to anyone who has chosen to listen.

That's the problem. Trump's supporters and the Republicans have kowtowed and ignored it.

Let's see how all of this plays out. I don't think you are going to be too happy.

Trump on Yovanovitch

"Get rid of her. Take her out."

About the 42 minute mark

That's horrible! When did he say that exactly?

 

[Taurus]

Let's see how all of this plays out. I don't think you are going to be too happy.



That's horrible! When did he say that exactly?

I agree, but I'm curious as to why you think this.

 

[BobE]

“The biggest problem there, I think, where we, where you, need to start is we got to get rid of the ambassador,” he said. “She’s basically walking around telling everybody, ‘Wait, he’s going to get impeached, just wait.’”

The remark prompted laughter in the room.

Mr. Trump asked for the ambassador’s name. Mr. Fruman said, “I don’t remember.” Mr. Trump, sounding stern, then said: “Get rid of her. Get her out tomorrow. I don’t care. Get her out tomorrow. Take her out. O.K.? Do it.”

Tape Made Public of Trump Discussing Ukraine With Donors (Published 2020)

The recording from a dinner in 2018 showed that the president spent an hour with two key players in the Ukraine pressure campaign. He has repeatedly said he does not know them.

www.nytimes.com

 

[RegularChuck]

Trump on Yovanovitch

"Get rid of her. Take her out."

About the 42 minute mark

There are a lot of goodies in there.

I like the part where people Trump claims to not know manipulate him into wanting to get rid of an ambassador by spreading gossip. It’s like teenage girls.

 

[Beach Friends]

There are a lot of goodies in there.

I like the part where people who claims to not know manipulate him into wanting to get rid of an ambassador by spreading gossip. It’s like teenage girls.

I like the part where this happened a year before Biden announced his candidacy.