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]

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

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

You guys shouldn’t speculate on his intentions. Give him the benefit of the doubt and assume it’s a reading comprehension problem, at least until proven otherwise.

 

[superchuck500]

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.

Using the grand jury analogy, which isn't totally accurate but also fairly instructive, I don't see why it's 'dangerous'.

Also, during the context of the House proceedings, the White House had made it clear by letter from White House counsel and by other communication that it would not permit administration officials to testify.

 

[coldseat]

Using the grand jury analogy, which isn't totally accurate but also fairly instructive, I don't see why it's 'dangerous'.

Also, during the context of the House proceedings, the White House had made it clear by letter from White House counsel and by other communication that it would not permit administration officials to testify.

The much more dangerous precedent is in not calling him to testify.

 

[dtc]

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 understand.

Are you arguing that Trump is the truth teller and Democrats, in general, are liars?

I ask because I'm having a hard time finding an instance where a statement made by Trump is actually, verifiable truth.

They're few and far between and most of the time when his lips are moving it's not to tell the truth.

 

[dtc]

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]

can you explain the logic behind your argument?

How is calling a witness in the senior branch of legislature - an enemy controlled Senate at that, somehow a political strategy that makes impeachment a political weapon?

I mean it's easy to understand why they didn't call him in the House. He said he'd refuse and everyone else was being ordered not to. Still, I don't get why that's turning impeachment into a political weapon. And, in the context of Clinton's impeachment - which I supported - I really don't get it.

Maybe you can opine?

 

[dtc]

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.

Yes, and as much as I find Bolton's history as warmonger-in-cheif to be disagreeable, I've never questioned his honesty or integrity.

When held up to the light of scrutiny, who do we bet is going to be the more honest purveyor of truth - Trump or Bolton?

 

[Archies Ghost]

I don't understand.

Are you arguing that Trump is the truth teller and Democrats, in general, are liars?

I ask because I'm having a hard time finding an instance where a statement made by Trump is actually, verifiable truth.

They're few and far between and most of the time when his lips are moving it's not to tell the truth.

As I said earlier, I have no opinion on the accuracy of the Bolton leak.

Much earlier I also said it really doesn't matter because there was a national interest in the Biden/Burisma investigation so even if Trump is guilty of the QPQ, who cares? Its the way foreign policy has always worked.

If it does turn out that John Bolton is willing to tell this story under oath, it will make the Trump defense of no QPQ a serious tactical error but it not result in Trump's removal.

If Bolton never says these things under oath, then it all becomes another forgotten "bombshell" in a long series.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

As I said earlier, I have no opinion on the accuracy of the Bolton leak.

Much earlier I also said it really doesn't matter because there was a national interest in the Biden/Burisma investigation so even if Trump is guilty of the QPQ, who cares? Its the way foreign policy has always worked.

If it does turn out that John Bolton is willing to tell this story under oath, it will make the Trump defense of no QPQ a serious tactical error but it not result in Trump's removal.

If Bolton never says these things under oath, then it all becomes another forgotten "bombshell" in a long series.

What was the national interest in the Burisma/Biden investigation?

 

[SFIDC3]

Yes, and as much as I find Bolton's history as warmonger-in-cheif to be disagreeable, I've never questioned his honesty or integrity.

When held up to the light of scrutiny, who do we bet is going to be the more honest purveyor of truth - Trump or Bolton?

I believe that is what is happening here, we are about to find out if any other R's have integrity, I'm hoping but have my doubts....maybe Romney will come through and bring others....

What was the national interest in the Burisma/Biden investigation?

Oh, there was a national interest, you'll just have to trust him.....

 

[bdb13]

What was the national interest in the Burisma/Biden investigation?

Or what national interest was to be served by the public announcement of such an investigation?

 

[JimEverett]

Using the grand jury analogy, which isn't totally accurate but also fairly instructive, I don't see why it's 'dangerous'.

Also, during the context of the House proceedings, the White House had made it clear by letter from White House counsel and by other communication that it would not permit administration officials to testify.

I do not think the Grand Jury analogy is at all instructive. An impeachment is really nothing like a Grand Jury at all. Given that the proceeding is public, has the possibility for both sides to present arguments, and carries with it a weight far higher than a mere indictment.

You know that people refuse to tetify or turn over requests all the time. That is, in part, what courts are for. If a lawyer says no one is testifying, it doesn't necessarily mean no one is testifying.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Oh, there was a national interest, you'll just have to trust him.....

Or what national interest was to be served by the public announcement of such an investigation?

Obviously that's where I'm going with this, but I am trying to figure out Trump's position (or at least those defending him).

I think the national interest angle is the line Trump should be taking, b/c it's the only one left. Well, that or saying, yes everything you accuse him of doing is true, but it isn't impeachable. Which is good for keeping him in office, but terrible for reelection purposes. Can you imagine having to defend over and over again, "Yes, we abused our power, but we promise we won't do it again?"

But going back to the national interest angle -- I think it's fair to say investigating corruption in the executive branch from a former VP is in the national interest. And you can make an argument that getting to the bottom of such corruption is more important than bolstering Ukraine against Russian aggression (and Trump doesn't really need to defend that in this context either).

So, then it comes down to intent. Unless people want to claim that the President can order investigations to harm political opponents whenever they wish. And at this point no one believes that there was enough evidence to actually open an investigation into Biden, which pretty much leaves the intent to harm a political opponent. Or a President that does not care about due process. Or a President that is susceptible to manipulation. None of which is very comforting, right?

 

[TaylorB]

As I said earlier, I have no opinion on the accuracy of the Bolton leak.

Much earlier I also said it really doesn't matter because there was a national interest in the Biden/Burisma investigation so even if Trump is guilty of the QPQ, who cares? Its the way foreign policy has always worked.

If it does turn out that John Bolton is willing to tell this story under oath, it will make the Trump defense of no QPQ a serious tactical error but it not result in Trump's removal.

If Bolton never says these things under oath, then it all becomes another forgotten "bombshell" in a long series.

Trump saying "muslim ban" on twitter during a legal fight over the constitutionality of the travel ban was a "serious tactical error." Trump holding military aid over the head of an ally for political gain, then lying to the public about it for four months, was corrupt and fraudulent.

If it's true Trump knew all along he was guilty of a QPQ, then for four months he's watched his allies in Congress set forth defenses he knows are factually bogus, and instead of correcting the record and admitting it, he's publicly berated everyone involved in getting to the bottom of the scheme and taken bogus legal positions to justify obstructing those efforts. He's publicly intimidated a whistleblower whose information he knew was accurate, and he's defamed career public servants to discredit them while he knew their testimony to be accurate. He's stood by while his defenders -- some of whom he knows were involved in the scheme -- talk about how outrageous it is for Democrats to investigate whether there was wrongdoing.

Trump went to great lengths to preserve his flimsy factual defenses because he thought if he obstructed the investigation enough, they might hold up enough for people to buy them. That's because the fall-back position of "who cares if he did it" is really, really weak and so very far beneath the office and what we should expect of those who hold it. It's really ironic to consider how many times it's been suggested that those of us digging into the narrative and tending to believe the Dems' factual assertions are somehow naive or disingenuous, when it turns out the facts never mattered to many Trump defenders anyway.

 

[samiam5211]

Trump saying "muslim ban" on twitter during a legal fight over the constitutionality of the travel ban was a "serious tactical error." Trump holding military aid over the head of an ally for political gain, then lying to the public about it for four months, was corrupt and fraudulent.

If it's true Trump knew all along he was guilty of a QPQ, then for four months he's watched his allies in Congress set forth defenses he knows are factually bogus, and instead of correcting the record and admitting it, he's publicly berated everyone involved in getting to the bottom of the scheme and taken bogus legal positions to justify obstructing those efforts. He's publicly intimidated a whistleblower whose information he knew was accurate, and he's defamed career public servants to discredit them while he knew their testimony to be accurate. He's stood by while his defenders -- some of whom he knows were involved in the scheme -- talk about how outrageous it is for Democrats to investigate whether there was wrongdoing.

Trump went to great lengths to preserve his flimsy factual defenses because he thought if he obstructed the investigation enough, they might hold up enough for people to buy them. That's because the fall-back position of "who cares if he did it" is really, really weak and so very far beneath the office and what we should expect of those who hold it. It's really ironic to consider how many times it's been suggested that those of us digging into the narrative and tending to believe the Dems' factual assertions are somehow naive or disingenuous, when it turns out the facts never mattered to many Trump defenders anyway.

And none of that should be a surprise to anyone because it is the way Trump has handlers himself his entire life.

This generation of Republican politicians should not be relevant going forward.

If they claim they are shocked, then they are either liars or too stupid to be trusted with any power.

 

[dtc]

And none of that should be a surprise to anyone because it is the way Trump has handlers himself his entire life.

This generation of Republican politicians should not be relevant going forward.

If they claim they are shocked, then they are either liars or too stupid to be trusted with any power.

That's the thing.

It's not conservatism.

It's Aynd Randism. Or Neitzscheism or some sort of gobbledygoop philosophy from the movie "Wall Street" where greed is good and the ends always justify the means as long as it doesn't make liberals happy.

They have and will continue to support policies that do not work in their own self interest in order to win tax cuts for the rich and liberal tears.

 

[FullMonte]

How many of politicians, media, etc. have written books for quick bucks? Don't these politicians have something like a NDR to prevent classified info from getting out?

That's why the White House (more specifically the NSA) has the manuscript. To scour the book for classified information.

 

[FullMonte]

How many of politicians, media, etc. have written books for quick bucks? Don't these politicians have something like a NDR to prevent classified info from getting out?

That's why the White House (more specifically the NSA) has the manuscript. To scour the book for classified information.

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.

While we can quibble about nuance, I think your last statement is incorrect. As I read this, it quite clearly says that the president told Bolton this.

I think that "replying to Mr. Bolton's question that he [Trump, I assume] preferred sending no assistance.." means that the president replied to Bolton's question by telling Bolton that he [Trump] did not want to send the assistance until Ukraine complied.

 

[FullMonte]

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 ??

Are you sure about that? I didn't think the president had claimed privilege. I thought he ordered the various depatments and staffers to ignore congressional subpoenas.