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

 

[insidejob]

Coincidence that you can pre-order a book on the number 1 book retailer in the world?

It's obviously a Deep State Conspiracy.

 

[Optimus Prime]

And you can pre-order the book on Amazon. Coincidence?

Doesn't mean it's not the truth

And if you're skeptical that it's the truth let's call him to testify under oath and ask him

 

[wardorican]

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.

See, and I'm not sure that last bit is really accurate. It feels like, based on the little I've been able to read, that the F&F was a much more narrow application, and formal EP was exerted, in a narrow case.

The judge only ruled against them, because the IG had a report that 'did the damage', otherwise the EP looks like it would have been upheld.

I think the reasoning the House and White House have always talked this stuff out, is that they don't want a court to rule that Congressional subpoenas can't be ignored. And I believe the early rulings have been something to that affect. I don't think the Admin has that broad of authority to ignore congressional subpoenas. Narrowly, sure.

It looks like this site is collecting everything, so it may be the place to do the real digging.

Public Document Clearinghouse: Ukraine Impeachment Trial

Curated all publicly available documents related to Congress’s impeachment inquiry concerning President Donald Trump and Ukraine.

www.justsecurity.org

 

[wardorican]

And you can pre-order the book on Amazon. Coincidence?

No. Actually, Schiff himself made a snarky remark about Bolton probably having a book coming out. It's why he's been stating he'd testify to the Senate, but threatened the hosue. I think it's to turn a profit on the truth he knows.

 

[wardorican]

Was the "transcript" subpoenaed or just released under pressure from McConnell?

 

[insidejob]

Was the "transcript" subpoenaed or just released under pressure from McConnell?

The original "transcript" that was of the "perfect phone call" that isn't really a transcript?

Or are they going to be releasing the actual transcript that's been on a secret server for super sensitive information?

If it's the former, he released that redacted "transcript" to get ahead of the whistleblower's story is how I remember it happening. If the latter, I hadn't heard it was being released. Just trying to catch up after paying 0 attention over the weekend.

 

[JimEverett]

See, and I'm not sure that last bit is really accurate. It feels like, based on the little I've been able to read, that the F&F was a much more narrow application, and formal EP was exerted, in a narrow case.

The judge only ruled against them, because the IG had a report that 'did the damage', otherwise the EP looks like it would have been upheld.

I think the reasoning the House and White House have always talked this stuff out, is that they don't want a court to rule that Congressional subpoenas can't be ignored. And I believe the early rulings have been something to that affect. I don't think the Admin has that broad of authority to ignore congressional subpoenas. Narrowly, sure.

It looks like this site is collecting everything, so it may be the place to do the real digging.

Public Document Clearinghouse: Ukraine Impeachment Trial

Curated all publicly available documents related to Congress’s impeachment inquiry concerning President Donald Trump and Ukraine.

www.justsecurity.org

When you say there was a narrow application of EP by the WH in F&F v. what is being exerted in this impeachment then I think we are back to the percentage or "some" problem. What percentage of compliance with a request passes the threshold for obstruction?
You also have to remember that it is the "opposing" side that is making the demand. So if you set any sort of "narrow" criteria for obstruction then it will turn obstruction into a silly game of drawing up demands that are clearly going to be challenged in an effort to get broad noncompliance.

Obstruction cannot equal "non-cooperation" or something like that.

 

[JimEverett]

Was the "transcript" subpoenaed or just released under pressure from McConnell?

I am curious to know why you think that matters?

 

[coldseat]

So, what reasoning/excuse will republicans pivot to now that there is first hand acknowledgement/reporting of Trump ordering the hold on aid money for Ukraine and tying it to the investigations from Bolton?

It's something we already knew, but will it change how they defend Trump? Or will they ignore it like they do some many other inconvenient facts? Can they ignore it?

 

[superchuck500]

Schiff making an important point - if Bolton has personal notes or a journal of his time in the White House, those will be contemporaneous and if consistent with his book, it would be impossible to argue that he made all of this up after being fired so that he can sell a book.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Doesn't mean it's not the truth

And if you're skeptical that it's the truth let's call him to testify under oath and ask him

I have no opinion on whether what was leaked is the truth or not.

I do find it a bit amusing that John Bolton is so obviously playing the masses who fervently wish it to be true in order to make some easy cash.

He has been largely vilified by the left for years and now he is going to suck them for all the money he can.

Amazon is helping all they can, offering the pre-order before any possible witness vote in the Senate.

It will be interesting how it plays from here. If there is a witness vote and it does not succeed, that benefits John Bolton book sales and he never has to go on record.

If there are witnesses, is it better for his book sales if he doesn't actually testify?

If he does testify and doesn't back up the claims in his book, that should obviously kill the book sales altogether.

If he does back them up, that might just as easily kill sales but he would then become a liberal superstar and get invited to Old Martha's Vineyard regularly.

I chuckle at the mental image of Obama, Bolton, and HRC in a smiling embrace.

 

[superchuck500]

I have no opinion on whether what was leaked is the truth or not.

I do find it a bit amusing that John Bolton is so obviously playing the masses who fervently wish it to be true in order to make some easy cash.

He has been largely vilified by the left for years and now he is going to suck them for all the money he can.

Amazon is helping all they can, offering the pre-order before any possible witness vote in the Senate.

It will be interesting how it plays from here. If there is a witness vote and it does not succeed, that benefits John Bolton book sales and he never has to go on record.

If there are witnesses, is it better for his book sales if he doesn't actually testify?

If he does testify and doesn't back up the claims in his book, that should obviously kill the book sales altogether.

If he does back them up, that might just as easily kill sales but he would then become a liberal superstar and get invited to Old Martha's Vineyard regularly.

I chuckle at the mental image of Obama, Bolton, and HRC in a smiling embrace.

Easy for you to frame it through the lens of book sales - because that avoids the question of how credible it is and what that means for the case. For the case against the president, it's largely duplicative as to the facts - but for the NSA to be objecting to the strategy is certainly not good.

I think the better position for Trump and his defenders is that it doesn't matter what Bolton says. He wasn't privy to all of what happened and what the president did was not an impeachable offense. By insisting that this is about book sales and a disgruntled former official only invites the need to have its credibility judged by either testimony or other documents such as his notes or journals that provide a contemporaneous account.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Easy for you to frame it through the lens of book sales - because that avoids the question of how credible it is and what that means for the case. For the case against the president, it's largely duplicative as to the facts - but for the NSA to be objecting to the strategy is certainly not good.

I think the better position for Trump and his defenders is that it doesn't matter what Bolton says. He wasn't privy to all of what happened and what the president did was not an impeachable offense. By insisting that this is about book sales and a disgruntled former official only invites the need to have its credibility judged by either testimony or other documents such as his notes or journals that provide a contemporaneous account.

We have all seen this routine before.

Until Bolton testifies under oath, it is all speculation and may very well be a simple ploy to make money.

If you feel it necessary to assume it is the absolute truth after three plus years of "truth" fading away into oblivion, go right ahead.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me a couple hundred times over a three year period, register me as a Democrat?

 

[samiam5211]

We have all seen this routine before.

Until Bolton testifies under oath, it is all speculation and may very well be a simple ploy to make money.

If you feel it necessary to assume it is the absolute truth after three plus years of "truth" fading away into oblivion, go right ahead.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me a couple hundred times over a three year period, register me as a Democrat?

So you think Bolton should testify?

 

[JRad]

I guess it’s just sheer coincidence every book published by someone who formerly worked under Trump outlines

Coincidence that you can pre-order a book on the number 1 book retailer in the world?

Or a coincidence yet another former staffer's book can't find anything good to say about this administration?

When someone shows you who they are, believe them the first time.

 

[insidejob]

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me a couple hundred times over a three year period, register me as a Democrat?

No, register you as a Trumpeteer. Who's the one that's lied a documented 10,000 times since taking office again only to be backed by people like you for every single one of them?

 

[superchuck500]

We have all seen this routine before.

Until Bolton testifies under oath, it is all speculation and may very well be a simple ploy to make money.

If you feel it necessary to assume it is the absolute truth after three plus years of "truth" fading away into oblivion, go right ahead.

Fool me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me, fool me a couple hundred times over a three year period, register me as a Democrat?

I don't presume it's the truth (though it's consistent with what we know). But I think that if anyone wants to challenge it as phony, then let him testify. Let him produce his notes.

 

[JimEverett]

[/QUOTE]
Too bad he didn't subpoena them when he could.

I don't presume it's the truth (though it's consistent with what we know). But I think that if anyone wants to challenge it as phony, then let him testify. Let him produce his notes.

I imagine he will testify - but I think tht sets a dangerous precedent. Allowing witnesses who not only did not testify in the impeachment inquiry but were not even subpoenaed. It further moved impeachment into a pure political weapon.