The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (4 Viewers)

[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

 

[FullMonte]

I love this one. McConnell stated early on that he was in total coordination with the White House on the impeachment trial. Now he finds out that it wasn't actually coordination, they were simply telling him what to do. Not that I think it will change anything.

Mitch McConnell is angry at White House over John Bolton manuscript, report says

Hours before the trial resumed, Mitch McConnell and Lindsey Graham pressed Trump's advisers to explain National Security Adviser John Bolton's account

www.courier-journal.com

 

[SaintForLife]

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

That's what the writers allege, but I didn't see a quote from Bolton in the article that states that Trump connected the aid to an investigation. The article goes into detail on a couple of topics from the book, but no detail on the main allegation. Also the fact that the anonymous source for the article hasn't even seen the book and it comes out right when the Democrats were desperate for leverage is more reason to be skeptical.

 

[SaintForLife]

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

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

Can you point out the quote in the article of Bolton saying what the article alleges?

 

[SaintForLife]

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

Doesn't the US have interest in corruption for countries that are receiving US aid?

 

[samiam5211]

That's the thing.

It's not conservatism.

It's ... 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.

It is a bit like the Republican Party is on a coke binge.

 

[FullMonte]

Can you point out the quote in the article of Bolton saying what the article alleges?

I did that in a previous post. The part you highlighted says that Trump replied that he preferred to not send the aid to Ukraine. It said that Trump was focused on the theories that Giuliani shared, "replying to Mr. Bolton's question that he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over....."

 

[MT15]

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.

I also think the president hasn’t claimed Executive Privilege, mostly because that’s a real thing and would have to be justified. What he is claiming is either “total” or “absolute” immunity. Which I don’t think is a thing, and appears to be made up.

 

[MT15]

Doesn't the US have interest in corruption for countries that are receiving US aid?

Yes, can you point out how investigating Burisma during the time Hunter Biden was on the board has any bearing on the aid that was currently scheduled.

 

[SaintForLife]

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.

They said that because the House hadn't held a formal impeachment vote right? Is that argument based on sound legal ground? Hadn't all the previous impeachments held a formal vote on impeachment?

 

[SaintForLife]

Yes, can you point out how investigating Burisma during the time Hunter Biden was on the board has any bearing on the aid that was currently scheduled.

If Trump actually was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, how would Hunter Biden getting paid because his dad was Vice President not fall under investigating corruption? Does someone being a possible political opponent give that person immunity from any investigations?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Doesn't the US have interest in corruption for countries that are receiving US aid?

Read my next post.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

If Trump actually was concerned about corruption in Ukraine, how would Hunter Biden getting paid because his dad was Vice President not fall under investigating corruption? Does someone being a possible political opponent give that person immunity from any investigations?

Except neither you, nor Trump, believes there was enough evidence to start an investigation into Biden.

 

[SaintForLife]

I did that in a previous post. The part you highlighted says that Trump replied that he preferred to not send the aid to Ukraine. It said that Trump was focused on the theories that Giuliani shared, "replying to Mr. Bolton's question that he preferred sending no assistance to Ukraine until officials had turned over....."

Why did you cut that sentence off? Probably because it said "all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine." You saw the part about the Russia investigation right?

 

[FullMonte]

Why did you cut that sentence off? Probably because it said "all materials they had about the Russia investigation that related Mr. Biden and supporters of Mrs. Clinton in Ukraine." You saw the part about the Russia investigation right?

Because it sounded like (especially considering the post in which you posted the image) that you were saying that Trump never told Bolton that he didn't want to send the aid to Ukraine unless they complied with his request.

From your previous post:
"The article says that Trump preferred and not that Trump told Bolton."

From the recent post:
"Can you point out the quote in the article of Bolton saying what the article alleges? " (The post you replied to included an image from the article stating "President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton)

So, if I was not correct in my reading of your posts (that you were saying that the article never showed that Trump told Bolton that he wanted the aid withheld until Ukraine complied, rather it was someone's assumption/interpretation) then I apologize.

 

[First Time Poster]

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.

Yeah, that talking point by the White House and his supporters is just hollow.

Redirect Notice

House investigators did ask Bolton to testify during the impeachment inquiry last fall, but he declined to testify on instructions from the White House and said he would only testify pursuant to a subpoena if a court weighed in on the issue. The House never subpoenaed Bolton, likely to avoid a drawn-out court battle.

The White House successfully blocked a handful of high-level current and former officials from testifying, many of whom were issued subpoenas, on the grounds that they are immune from compelled congressional testimony as top aides to Trump.

I do have a question, though. If the Senate secures the 51 votes to subpoena Bolton, has Bolton signaled he will simply comply with the subpoena, show up and testify? Or, if the subpoena is issued, will that be litigated, making the courts weigh in, before he complies?

 

[Lapaz]

I don't even understand why the transcript alone isn't enough proof. Zelinski said they were ready to buy the Javelins, and in the next sentence Trump said that he needs a favor to find information on crowdstrike. Then later he specifically asked for investigations of Biden's son and Biden, but never asked to investigate corruption. Anything Bolten and anyone else adds just confirms what the transcript already states. Democrats have practically stopped talking about the transcript, but that should be the main focus.

Also the Whitehouse visit isn't a significant issue, because Zelensky himself suggested meeting elsewhere. The significant issue is all about the plot to withhold the aid until the political favors were granted. Democrats are giving Republicans fodder by making the meeting an issue. That is minor. The withholding of weapons for personal favors to help you destroy your political opponents is all that matters to our democracy.

 

[V Chip]

Doesn't the US have interest in corruption for countries that are receiving US aid?

On what grounds should the US or anyone investigate the Bidens? Hearing that would go a long way towards improving the argument that it was just an investigation of corruption involving the Bidens, instead of just blanket "corruption!" allegations.

 

[TaylorB]

That's what the writers allege, but I didn't see a quote from Bolton in the article that states that Trump connected the aid to an investigation. The article goes into detail on a couple of topics from the book, but no detail on the main allegation. Also the fact that the anonymous source for the article hasn't even seen the book and it comes out right when the Democrats were desperate for leverage is more reason to be skeptical.

Can you point out the quote in the article of Bolton saying what the article alleges?

You incorrectly claimed that the NYT article didn’t say what it definitely did say (I probably would have ignored it altogether if you hadn’t scoffed at my Schiff post the other day; had to get my friendly payback ). The part of the article you quoted for your original premise didn’t contain direct quotes from Bolton either. The article didn’t quote Bolton’s manuscript at all, unless I missed something.

If your point now is that there were no direct quotes, and therefore that the entire article can’t be trusted, that’s fine. But it’s confusing in light of you seeming to attribute credit to certain allegations you like, and refuting certain allegations you don’t like, based on a distinction that doesn’t exist in the article.

More importantly, we ought to find out soon enough if the article is legit. For one, Trump’s people have the manuscript and could refute the article on the spot. Or Rs could call Bolton as a witness if they think he helps them. Sure, the timing leads one to wonder whether some of this constant drip is a bit choreographed. Either way, lucky for Dems to have so much drip to work with.