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

 

[RegularChuck]

So you think Bolton should testify?

My interpretation is we don’t know it’s truth until he testifies, but he’s convinced it’s just a ploy to make money so no need to testify.

 

[SaintForLife]

Schiff and the Democrats: The evidence is overwhelming. Also we need more evidence.

I'm skeptical of the article about Bolton that's based on unnamed sources who haven't seen his book and it comes out at the 11th hour when the Democrats are losing any leverage they had left.

According to the NYTIMES article, Bolton isn't saying Trump connected the Ukraine aide to opening a probe on Burisma/Biden. Bolton said Trump wanted Ukraine to turn over "all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine." The article also says that Trump preferred and not that Trump told Bolton.

 

[samiam5211]

Schiff and the Democrats: The evidence is overwhelming. Also we need more evidence.

I'm skeptical of the article about Bolton that's based on unnamed sources who haven't seen his book and it comes out at the 11th hour when the Democrats are losing any leverage they had left.

According to the NYTIMES article, Bolton isn't saying Trump connected the Ukraine aide to opening a probe on Burisma/Biden. Bolton said Trump wanted Ukraine to turn over "all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine." The article also says that Trump preferred and not that Trump told Bolton.

Would it matter to you if Trump specifically said the aid was being held because he wanted dirt on Biden?

 

[wardorican]

I am curious to know why you think that matters?

You were stating it was an act of compliance with a congressional Subpoena. At least that's how I read it.

If it was, then ok. If it wasn't, then it doesn't show or not show obstruction. I felt it was released due to public pressure, not political. I could be wrong.

 

[wardorican]

Too bad he didn't subpoena them when he could.

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.
[/QUOTE]
But couldn't it also be an opportunity for the Senate, the Statesmen, to get to the real truth, and if true, properly defend the president. It's an opportunity to prevent that political weapon from the house causing too much damage, no?

 

[TaylorB]

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?

Given your proclivity for believing defenses set forth exclusively by people who have been unwilling to testify under oath over those who have already testified under oath, Bolton's testimony wouldn't likely change your mind anyway.

But let's be honest about this: Democrats aren't praising Bolton for his "patriotism," or saying he's a great guy, or suddenly cozying up to him; and I don't think one could credibly argue -- based on what we know at this point -- that Bolton's book sales weren't a motivating factor in his decisions to testify / not testify. It's likely he did it this way to sell more books. It's also possible that he could have been both (1) an Iran hawk with which Dems fundamentally disagree over foreign policy, and (2) appalled at Trump's conduct toward Ukraine. He's a first-hand witness which Dems have been accused of not having. To suggest that Dems wanting his testimony means they're now cozy with Bolton is objectively absurd.

I have no idea whether Bolton would tell "the absolute truth," but Bolton's claim that Trump specifically linked withholding Ukraine aid for a Biden investigation announcement is much more consistent with the established facts than Trump's subsequent denial of that claim. Remember the text from Parnas on the day the aid was released about how Bolton f**** everything up?

You're saying that Democrats are naive for being inclined to believe the people willing to testify under oath, but you're not naive for believing Trump -- the accused person, who publicly claims he didn't do it, but who is not willing to testify under oath or let anyone close to him testify?

You keep hammering the "book deal" defense because it's the only card you're able to play against Bolton in terms of credibility. To be clear: it's a fair point, and one I would certainly raise on cross-examination if I were defending Trump. But as facts continue to trickle out, I will be curious to know whether you actually dispute the specific claims Bolton makes, including that he personally heard Trump link Ukraine aid to the Bidens, or whether the book deal is the only credibility defense you assert. Remember as you summarily discredit anyone who disputes Trump that Dems had no control over who was "in the know" about the Ukraine plot and who wasn't.

My prediction if Bolton testifies is that it ultimately leads to the fall-back of all fall-back defenses: "who cares if Trump did it?" If that's where you ultimately land (or have already landed), that's certainly up to you, but that is a much different argument than saying how naive it is to think Bolton might actually be telling the truth about this. If Trump's credibility were so much greater than Bolton's, you can be sure we'd already have sworn testimony from both of them. If the GOP continues to try to block Bolton, yet you conclude he wouldn't have hurt their case, who is really being naive?

 

[JimEverett]

You were stating it was an act of compliance with a congressional Subpoena. At least that's how I read it.

If it was, then ok. If it wasn't, then it doesn't show or not show obstruction. I felt it was released due to public pressure, not political. I could be wrong.

No, I wasn't.

The point about the transcript and about the witnesses was just to couteract this false idea that no evidence had been released. It has nothing to do, in my mind, with obstruction. It was just a point counteracting a statement that seems widely circulated.

As far as the point about public pressure or whatnot and its relation to obstruction - just imagine that there is a high profile murder of someone you know. Further suppose that the police come to your house and ask to search it. A refusal does not equal obstruction. Neither does telling your wife, friends, family members, etc. not to talk to police.

It is a different matter if the police go and get a court order, obviously.

And specifically on the issue of public pressure - that may be a political point - but as it relates to obstruction it really doesn;t matter, right?

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

Testimony under oath doesn't matter when everyone is lying except Honest Don.

 

[TaylorB]

According to the NYTIMES article, Bolton isn't saying Trump connected the Ukraine aide to opening a probe on Burisma/Biden. Bolton said Trump wanted Ukraine to turn over "all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine." The article also says that Trump preferred and not that Trump told Bolton.

The first sentence of the article says that Bolton said Trump connected Ukraine aid to an investigation:

 

[Dragon]

Too bad he didn't subpoena them when he could.

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.
[/QUOTE]

How ? Isn't the most important thing to get to the bottom of this and find the out what happened and if rules/laws were broken?

Or don't you really care as long as your man walk free? Is truth and the rule of law less important than "winning" ?

 

[JimEverett]

How ? Isn't the most important thing to get to the bottom of this and find the out what happened and if rules/laws were broken?

Or don't you really care as long as your man walk free? Is truth and the rule of law less important than "winning" ?

By impeaching a President and then continuing to drag the process out by claiming wintesses/evidence are out there and we need them to testify or be made into the record.

 

[MT15]

It sounds like JimE doesn’t care whether we find out what really happened or not as long as no witnesses are called. I don’t mean it to sound bad, but that’s my takeaway from his persistent arguments in this thread.

These witnesses were requested and refused the House request. They knew it would take a year to work it’s way up to and through the Supreme Court. made the decision to go with what they could get, in spite of WH efforts to give them nothing. To say that gives the Admin a “get out of jail free” card for the impeachment is a curious stance.

So here we are arguing process rather than what Trump actually did and how dangerous a precedent that sets. IMO, that’s the precedent we should be worrying about. That and the R inability to do their constitutional duty.

It’s all very Trumpian. Argue the process, throw out wild speculation (that would be Archie, lol) and deflect, deflect, deflect from what actually happened.

This set of Rs would have never allowed Nixon to be forced to resign. I’ve always looked at that example as a party doing its duty to the Republic over party loyalty. There appears to be nobody left in the R party from that mold.

 

[brandon]

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.

It is dangerous to have more information than less?

Orwell couldn't write a more chilling narrative.

 

[JimEverett]

It is dangerous to have more information than less?

Orwell couldn't write a more chilling narrative.

Do you apply the same standard to information coming from Russian troll farms - or in that case is less information better?

On to the real point - it is not about prohibiting information. John Bolton can talk to anyone he wants, he can write a book if he wants - and he obviously did. So the Orwellian comparison is beyond stupid.

These things have a strong precedential nature to them - you can see it in this impeachment trial where there is a strong argument being made to do it like the Clinton impeachment.
There have been reasons to believe that this impeachment was being used as a political tool long before questions of Bolton's testimony were at issue. But if (really it is now when) Bolton testifies the precedential nature of that will be basically - impeach the President and then worry about getting the facts in. And/or drag impeachment proceedings out as you prodeuc or "find" evidence that might prove why you impeached the President in the firt place.

 

[Dragon]

Do you apply the same standard to information coming from Russian troll farms - or in that case is less information better?

On to the real point - it is not about prohibiting information. John Bolton can talk to anyone he wants, he can write a book if he wants - and he obviously did. So the Orwellian comparison is beyond stupid.

These things have a strong precedential nature to them - you can see it in this impeachment trial where there is a strong argument being made to do it like the Clinton impeachment.
There have been reasons to believe that this impeachment was being used as a political tool long before questions of Bolton's testimony were at issue. But if (really it is now when) Bolton testifies the precedential nature of that will be basically - impeach the President and then worry about getting the facts in. And/or drag impeachment proceedings out as you prodeuc or "find" evidence that might prove why you impeached the President in the firt place.

The problem is the president claimed executive privilegde over everything including those thing that might exonerate him. The President is the one who was stalling the process. NOT the house. Imagine if this was a regular court case and the defendant could exclude every piece of evidence that might convict him and order every witness not to testify and then claim it was a witchhunt afterwards because there was no evidence that he commited a crime ??

 

[efil4]

Do you apply the same standard to information coming from Russian troll farms - or in that case is less information better?

On to the real point - it is not about prohibiting information. John Bolton can talk to anyone he wants, he can write a book if he wants - and he obviously did. So the Orwellian comparison is beyond stupid.

These things have a strong precedential nature to them - you can see it in this impeachment trial where there is a strong argument being made to do it like the Clinton impeachment.
There have been reasons to believe that this impeachment was being used as a political tool long before questions of Bolton's testimony were at issue. But if (really it is now when) Bolton testifies the precedential nature of that will be basically - impeach the President and then worry about getting the facts in. And/or drag impeachment proceedings out as you prodeuc or "find" evidence that might prove why you impeached the President in the firt place.

.

Asking a foreign government to launch an investigation into the person you perceive as your most competent rival is also "precedential". Dismantling the Federal government also precedential. Making sure you have every member of every branch of government to pledge their support is precedential. Targeting and labeling media as buffoons and "fake" is precedential. Not divesting yourself of business interests yet continue to enrich those same business interests with tax payer funds is precedential.

I think the precedent you are rallying against is the wrong one. They had enough information without Bolton testifying. The Republicans are the ones crying "fake" - Boltons testimony will only provide more support for the ORIGINAL sin- he held up Ukraine aid in exchange for an announced investigation into the Bidens.

Republicans need the "out" card. Bolton testifies, makes it that much harder for them to say nothing to see here.

 

[insidejob]

Trump's legal team is putting me to sleep. Is that their trial strategy?

 

[SFIDC3]

The first sentence of the article says that Bolton said Trump connected Ukraine aid to an investigation:

Wow, it's almost like he skipped over that part on purpose?

Naw, that can't be it....