The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (5 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

 

[First Time Poster]

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, against claims of privilege, making the courts weigh in, before he complies?

Anyone? (I added the bolded)

 

[insidejob]

Anyone? (I added the bolded)

From what I heard he's willing to testify. I just heard that on one of the cable talking head shows the other day but have nothing to back it up besides that person's saying so. They were discussing how long a president can even claim privilege after someone is no longer part of the administration. I wasn't able to really catch the whole discussion because it was on while I was working.

 

[EmBeeFiveOhFour]

Trump's impeachment defense team consists of (1) the lady who accepted an illegal $25,000 campaign contribution from Trump's "charity" in exchange for dropping Florida's investigation into his fake university which settled a fraud lawsuit against other states for $25 million, (2) the guy who led the impeachment of a different president for abuse of power (and now argues that a president can't abuse his power) and was later fired by a Christian university for ignoring rape charges against athletes, and (3) Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer and co-conspirator who (like Trump) was accused by Epstein's victims of raping young girls.

 

[Maxp]

Trump's impeachment defense team consists of (1) the lady who accepted an illegal $25,000 campaign contribution from Trump's "charity" in exchange for dropping Florida's investigation into his fake university which settled a fraud lawsuit against other states for $25 million, (2) the guy who led the impeachment of a different president for abuse of power (and now argues that a president can't abuse his power) and was later fired by a Christian university for ignoring rape charges against athletes, and (3) Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer and co-conspirator who (like Trump) was accused by Epstein's victims of raping young girls.

As usual, only the best people. I certainly never want to hear the phrase flip flop from a Republican in my lifetime.

 

[insidejob]

Trump's impeachment defense team consists of (1) the lady who accepted an illegal $25,000 campaign contribution from Trump's "charity" in exchange for dropping Florida's investigation into his fake university which settled a fraud lawsuit against other states for $25 million, (2) the guy who led the impeachment of a different president for abuse of power (and now argues that a president can't abuse his power) and was later fired by a Christian university for ignoring rape charges against athletes, and (3) Jeffrey Epstein's lawyer and co-conspirator who (like Trump) was accused by Epstein's victims of raping young girls.

When you're Trump, those aren't things that are considered bad. They're actually badges of honor (loyalty).

 

[Beach Friends]

Chuck, I know how this case would be tried if you, me and Jim E were trying it in front of a good federal judge.

A good judge would hold a pre-trial and help the attorneys agree upon matters not in dispute and enter what we call "stipulations" to shorten the trail and save everyone money and time. By way of example, suppose a McDonalds supply truck rear ended my client and she had a surgery for a back problem, but McDonald's claims the back injury pre-existed the accident.

We could save a lot of time and money by stipulating that the driver was a McDonald's employee, that he had insurance with xyz company and that he rear ended my client. The trial would focus on the narrow issue as to whether the accident was the cause of my client needing a surgery or whether her surgery was due to back problems she had before the accident.

In the impeachment case, the Republicans should have stipulated, or agreed, that Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine to force them to investigate Biden. It has been an enormous waste of taxpayer time and money, and an insult to the intelligence of anyone reasonably considering the facts, to argue Trump did not direct aid be withheld.

The narrow issue of the trial should only be if that action rises to the level of an impeachable offense.

I have lost a great measure of respect for every Republican senator who will not acknowledge Trump withheld aid to investigate the Bidens. I could at least accept the argument if a Senator argued what Trump did was wrong, but not impeachable. I disagree, but that argument does not insult my intelligence.

Now if a Trump supporter on here were to argue that Democrats might act the same way as Republicans are now if it was Obama being impeached for leveraging aid, I think a lot of Democrats would obstruct impeachment of Obama.

But then they would be wrong too. The fact that both sides do do bad things doesn't make it right.

The defense by the Trump team he didn't do it should insult all of our intelligence. The only issue that should be before the Senate is whether what Trump did was so wrong that he should be impeached. No good American should argue its okay for either side to withhold military aid to an ally to get them to investigate a political rival. duh.

I am sure that if you were trying the case it would look a lot different than the case Schiff has put on. At least O hope so. The WH lawyers have had a field day exposing weaknesses in the case Schiff presented. For example, his parody presentation in the House was of no benefit to him but has been a groan worthy liability. Just because you have 24 hours does not mean you have to use 24 hours. Insulting the people you are trying to persuade is obviously not a good idea. Nor is presenting your case in a way that sets up the other side to expose the weakness in your case in a manner that makes you look like you are trying to hide those weaknesses rather than address them head on. I realize I am biased, but it really looks like he has overlooked some fundamentals in trying a case.

 

[JimEverett]

Anyone? (I added the bolded)

If Bolton agrees to testify then it would be up to the WH to file an action seeking a Court to stop him from testifying.

 

[TaylorB]

Anyone? (I added the bolded)

Here's the most responsive article I can find on what you asked about ruling on privilege:

Executive Privilege Cannot Block Bolton’s Testimony

All relevant judicial precedents make clear that Bolton should not be able to invoke executive privilege to avoid testifying in the Senate impeachment trial.

www.justsecurity.org

Apparently it's not 100% certain how the privilege issue would be decided. The fourth section of the article argues why Justice Roberts should rule on privilege claims as an evidentiary matter during trial, as opposed to addressing them in litigation. I'm no Constitutional scholar, but the arguments for Roberts being the final say-so look persuasive to me. I'm curious to know the legal counter-argument to that, if there is one.

As for Bolton's intentions, I don't recall seeing reporting claiming that he plans to assert any privilege, but I'm not sure. It's a safe bet Trump's lawyers will be screaming about privilege from the moment Bolton is asked / subpoenaed to testify.

The former chief national security advisor to the president testifying live in an impeachment trial with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court making real time evidentiary rulings on the president's claims of executive and national security privilege would be a once-in-a-democracy type of historical event.

 

[Dadsdream]

Insulting the people you are trying to persuade is obviously not a good idea. Nor is presenting your case in a way that sets up the other side to expose the weakness in your case in a manner that makes you look like you are trying to hide those weaknesses rather than address them head on.

Buffoonery.

 

[Eeyore]

Just watched a long speech that can be summed up as

Article 2 allows the President to do anything that he wants.

Ridiculous

 

[Lazybones]

So one of the most important political moves in the history of our country is the use of impeachment. Yet the House, according to the left, didn’t want to take the chance is having to fight court battles over witnesses.
If DJT is so horrible for this country, why wouldn’t the House be willing to fight the battle if they really wanted to win this impeachment.

Seems like a lazy approach to me. DJT is so bad, yet they were not willing to stand up for what they think is right? Isn’t this what we elect them to do? I can imagine supporting politicians that do t have the backbone to win the fight they are picking.

So let’s buy the excuse that Bolton wasn’t called as a witness, because the House wasn’t willing to fight for what they believe in so strongly, why should the Senate?

Why should the senate fight the battles that the house wouldn’t?

 

[RegularChuck]

So one of the most important political moves in the history of our country is the use of impeachment. Yet the House, according to the left, didn’t want to take the chance is having to fight court battles over witnesses.
If DJT is so horrible for this country, why wouldn’t the House be willing to fight the battle if they really wanted to win this impeachment.

Seems like a lazy approach to me. DJT is so bad, yet they were not willing to stand up for what they think is right? Isn’t this what we elect them to do? I can imagine supporting politicians that do t have the backbone to win the fight they are picking.

So let’s buy the excuse that Bolton wasn’t called as a witness, because the House wasn’t willing to fight for what they believe in so strongly, why should the Senate?

Why should the senate fight the battles that the house wouldn’t?

If you want to view it from the perspective of the right thing to do in the process of impeachment then the senate should because they want the truth. Even if you feel the house didn’t do their job correctly, the expectation is the senate should be impartial and in search of the truth, not acting as the defense team.

Your questions seem to relevant if you view it from the perspective of Democrats versus Republicans.

 

[JimEverett]

If you want to view it from the perspective of the right thing to do in the process of impeachment then the senate should because they want the truth. Even if you feel the house didn’t do their job correctly, the expectation is the senate should be impartial and in search of the truth, not acting as the defense team.

Your questions seem to relevant if you view it from the perspective of Democrats versus Republicans.

So the impeachment was an invalid impeachment given that the argument is that we need witnesses who were never subpoenaed in the Impeachment to prove that impeachment was valid?

 

[JimEverett]

And it is an interesting point I saw raised - if Bolton testifies in the SEnate should that mean the Second Impeachment Article is dismissed? Should it be?

 

[st dude]

I am sure that if you were trying the case it would look a lot different than the case Schiff has put on. At least O hope so. The WH lawyers have had a field day exposing weaknesses in the case Schiff presented. For example, his parody presentation in the House was of no benefit to him but has been a groan worthy liability. Just because you have 24 hours does not mean you have to use 24 hours. Insulting the people you are trying to persuade is obviously not a good idea. Nor is presenting your case in a way that sets up the other side to expose the weakness in your case in a manner that makes you look like you are trying to hide those weaknesses rather than address them head on. I realize I am biased, but it really looks like he has overlooked some fundamentals in trying a case.

Beach, I have a proposal for you and Archie and DD and Saintforlife and for any others on here who support Trump. It would really help me understand where you guys are coming from and I see so many dance around the issue. I am hoping Jim E will play along too as I am confused where Jim stands on this.

My proposal comes with a quid pro quo. Here it is. I ask three questions related to the impeachment and you guys give me simple straight forward answers. Here is the quid pro quo. Ask me three impeachment related questions and I will give straight answers back.


Here goes:

1) Do you think more probably than not Trump intentionally caused aid to Ukraine to be delayed?

2) Do you think he did that to force Ukraine to investigate Biden?

3) Assuming answers to 1 and 2 are yes, do you think this is wrong to do (which is a different question as to if its impeachable)?


The reason I ask these questions is because I find most Trump supporters tend to dance around these fundamental questions. As stated in my previous post, I can understand the point of view some might have that squeezing the Ukrainians is politics as usual and not impeachable. I don't agree, but I get it. I do not see how anyone believes Trump was not withholding aid.

Please answer these questions. I promise quid pro quo in answering questions you guys have.

 

[samiam5211]

So the impeachment was an invalid impeachment given that the argument is that we need witnesses who were never subpoenaed in the Impeachment to prove that impeachment was valid?

Do you believe that the Senators should cast their vote without knowing what Bolton has to say, given we all know he has a book coming out soon and everyone will know what he has to say?

 

[JimEverett]

Do you believe that the Senators should cast their vote without knowing what Bolton has to say, given we all know he has a book coming out soon and everyone will know what he has to say?

I think the Senate should vote on the evidence the House used to impeach the President.

 

[samiam5211]

I think the Senate should vote on the evidence the House used to impeach the President.

So your concern is more about procedural preservation than having the senators make a decision based on all available information.