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

 

[samiam5211]

If the country in question who is receiving the aid is reportedly one of the most corrupt countries in the world, why would the Biden's Ukraine corruption be immune from questions/information/investigation? Does one being a political opponent give them immunity from any possible investigations?

If Biden acted corruptly, why didn’t the Republican controlled congress investigate it at the time?

None of this is new information, it all happened out in the open.

Most of the Republican senators at the time also wanted the prosecutor fired.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes

that’s kind of where I thought you’d end up.

 

[samiam5211]

I think good procedure is how you arrive at truth in these situations. It is how you avoid having a National SEcurity Directo at the time in question who was not even subpoenaed in the impeachment suddenly turn into the hottest witness in a fiercely charged environment while he is promoting his book.

Except when it comes to impeachment there isn’t really any “procedure”.

There is barely any precedent when it comes to impeachment, and no one is even bound by that precedent the way one might be in an actual court.

 

[SaintForLife]

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.

If you want to continue to reference Schiff as someone who should considered credible then prepare for more scoffing. You would think all his lies from Russiagate would make it obvious that he can't be trusted.

So I made the mistake of referencing a quote and using the wrong quotation marks when i posted the part of the article in question. My mistake. But I still stand by what I said. The first paragraph of the article conveniently left out part of what Bolton said which seems to undercut the the claim.

Skip down to the 32nd paragraph where they buried the rest of the detail about the 1st paragraph

Two things stand out in the above paragraph. 1)The 1st paragraph left out the part about all material about the Russia investigation 2) they use the word preferred instead of saying Trump told Bolton

The NYT even tries to explain that inconsistency above while using the hardly definitive appeared.

Once again, considering the timing of the leak, the source is anonymous and hasn't even seen the manuscript, that the Democrats could have subpoenaed Bolton and had the courts compell him to testify but didn't leads me to remain skeptical. It's the same playbook from the Kavanaugh hearing. Hail mary at the end of the process when the Democrats lose all their leverage.

From what I read the White House hasn't received the manuscript and that the only the NSC is in possession of it while they do their vetting.

Bolton should make a public statement so we can see exactly what he is claiming specifically or his manuscript should be subpoenaed by the Senate. If he states what the article is claiming then let him testify. Otherwise it enables the Democrats to extend this fishing expedition further.

 

[JimEverett]

Except when it comes to impeachment there isn’t really any “procedure”.

There is barely any precedent when it comes to impeachment, and no one is even bound by that precedent the way one might be in an actual court.

Agreed. I am saying what I think it should be.

 

[SaintForLife]

But again, what would you investigate him for? What crime or corruption can he be accused of? The fact that his son has a job with a company there? Or is there something more that hasn't been brought forward?

I'm not saying there should be an investigation, but I only know what's public. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a President to inquire about a known corrupt state who is receiving US aid. Apparently Hill or someone else testified that reviewing foreign aid was an administration policy.

Once again, while I find it concerning what Trump did and how sloppily I see it as politcs as usual. The re can be disagreements about if Trump should have done that, but it seems to be a huge stetch to say it's an impeachable offense.

Was Obama asking for Russia to wait until after the election when he would have more flexibility an impeachable offense? He is asking for a political favor to help him with his election.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Agreed. I am saying what I think it should be.

So, I get what you're saying, but not in love with the way you phrase it. I don't think you can claim the House didn't feel that Bolton's testimony was important, b/c they did request it and it was blocked. I think you can say they proceeded without Bolton's testimony (and other requested testimony and documents) because they felt they had enough evidence as it was to proceed. So, from a way to phrase your argument that would resonate more with me, I would say "The House believed they had enough evidence to impeach and remove the President without that testimony, so they should feel comfortable with the evidence they did use if the Senate decides to not call for further testimony." Does that sound similar to your position?

If so, then I would only add, that the Senate is not obligated to call more witnesses on the House's behalf, but I also don't think they are limited to only using what the House presents. I don't think you'd object to say an eyewitness account that could exonerate the President right, and the Senate would be morally obligated to call that witness, correct? Basically, I think the Senate should be allowed to call witnesses that will help them determine the truth.

 

[SaintForLife]

The process of impeachment requires development of evidence. That process can either be done through a separate investigation (as we saw with Nixon and Clinton) or through the House's oversight power. The House was trying to do that when it noticed admin officials' depositions. White House counsel objected and said they wouldn't show. Bolton, for example, didn't show for his deposition.

Trump and his acolytes insisted that it was all a sham because the House hadn't formally opened an impeachment process. When the House did that, the administration continued to resist - and then after the articles are sent over, they're now saying the House missed its chance.

It can't be all of those things. At least not in the sense that it can be defended as a coherent, objective legal position.

So the House could have called their bluff and held a full house vote early in the process right? The House also could have used the courts to compel their testimonies right? Isn't that the normal way that disputes between President and Congress? It's almost like the Democrats didn't even care about hearing from the witnesses and were only looking to extend the impeachment as long as possible.

 

[RegularChuck]

So, I get what you're saying, but not in love with the way you phrase it. I don't think you can claim the House didn't feel that Bolton's testimony was important, b/c they did request it and it was blocked. I think you can say they proceeded without Bolton's testimony (and other requested testimony and documents) because they felt they had enough evidence as it was to proceed. So, from a way to phrase your argument that would resonate more with me, I would say "The House believed they had enough evidence to impeach and remove the President without that testimony, so they should feel comfortable with the evidence they did use if the Senate decides to not call for further testimony." Does that sound similar to your position?

If so, then I would only add, that the Senate is not obligated to call more witnesses on the House's behalf, but I also don't think they are limited to only using what the House presents. I don't think you'd object to say an eyewitness account that could exonerate the President right, and the Senate would be morally obligated to call that witness, correct? Basically, I think the Senate should be allowed to call witnesses that will help them determine the truth.

I’ll go the record to say that I’d welcome any witness going under oath that helps the defense.

 

[SaintForLife]

This is probably the best clip of the Senate trial that I've seen. It exposes the Democrats as hypocrites and shows some house managers and Democrats making the exact same arguments during the Clinton impeachment that the Republicans are now.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Buffoonery.

Wow. I actually agree with you DD. I wasn't going to stoop to name calling but rather just vote LOL on it but you pretty much summed up in one word my exact thoughts on that quoted portion. Nothing that he stated is even close to reality. In your word, the entire post was utter buffoonery.

 

[FullMonte]

I'm not saying there should be an investigation, but I only know what's public. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a President to inquire about a known corrupt state who is receiving US aid. Apparently Hill or someone else testified that reviewing foreign aid was an administration policy.

That's true. But, again, what is there to suggest that Trump cared at all about general corruption in Ukraine. Check out this document from the republican controlled senate. One of the relevant portions:

"Finally, before the July 2019 hold, the Trump administration had approved sending foreign assistance to Ukraine nearly 50 times [this is between May 23, 2019 and July 25, 2019] without ever holding it because of concerns that it would be diverted due to corruption."

Fact Sheet: DOD Certified that Ukraine Met Corruption Benchmarks | United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations

TRUMP-UKRAINE SCANDAL Fact Sheet: DOD Certified that Ukraine Met Corruption Benchmarks The Claims: President Trump and senior administration officials...

www.foreign.senate.gov

So, to clarify....between May 23, 2019 and July 25, 2019 (63 days if my math is correct), the White House approved the release of the aid almost 50 times. But, suddenly, on July 25, Trump was so worried about corruption that the aid needed to be stopped immediately, and he couldn't tell anyone that he was holding it up due to corruption, then suddenly on Sep 11 (a few days after the whistleblower complaint came out), there was no longer a worry about corruption in Ukraine, and the funding was released.

 

[samiam5211]

So the House could have called their bluff and held a full house vote early in the process right? The House also could have used the courts to compel their testimonies right? Isn't that the normal way that disputes between President and Congress? It's almost like the Democrats didn't even care about hearing from the witnesses and were only looking to extend the impeachment as long as possible.

I think people knew the timeline for Bolton’s book and knew a court case would be moot before it was decided.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I'm not saying there should be an investigation, but I only know what's public. I think it's perfectly reasonable for a President to inquire about a known corrupt state who is receiving US aid. Apparently Hill or someone else testified that reviewing foreign aid was an administration policy.

Once again, while I find it concerning what Trump did and how sloppily I see it as politcs as usual. The re can be disagreements about if Trump should have done that, but it seems to be a huge stetch to say it's an impeachable offense.

Was Obama asking for Russia to wait until after the election when he would have more flexibility an impeachable offense? He is asking for a political favor to help him with his election.

I hate typing on a phone, so, I’ll just ask this... is waiting until after an election to make potentially unpopular decisions the same thing as using tax payer dollars and the office of the presidency to attack and damage US citizens deemed to be political enemies with no due process?

 

[Saintamaniac]

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes

Wow, so would i be wrong to guess that you simply feel that what Trump did, though he lied about 1 & 2, is not something for which he should be removed from office? So if he stated publicly that the reason he did it was to hurt Biden's chances of beating him, would you still think it was not something that he should be removed from office for even though he would have admitted to a crime?

 

[SaintForLife]

If Biden acted corruptly, why didn’t the Republican controlled congress investigate it at the time?

None of this is new information, it all happened out in the open.

Most of the Republican senators at the time also wanted the prosecutor fired.

Probably because most of our politicians are corrupt to some degree.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Wow, so would i be wrong to guess that you simply feel that what Trump did, though he lied about 1 & 2, is not something for which he should be removed from office? So if he stated publicly that the reason he did it was to hurt Biden's chances of beating him, would you still think it was not something that he should be removed from office for even though he would have admitted to a crime?

I don’t think JimE has shared his opinion on what he thinks should be done. He’s mainly been focusing on process. And I don’t mean that as an insult.

 

[JimEverett]

Wow, so would i be wrong to guess that you simply feel that what Trump did, though he lied about 1 & 2, is not something for which he should be removed from office? So if he stated publicly that the reason he did it was to hurt Biden's chances of beating him, would you still think it was not something that he should be removed from office for even though he would have admitted to a crime?

I think if he admitted that his sole purpose in delaying the aid was to hurt Joe Biden and help his own re-election chances then I do think he should be removed. Absent strong proof of that I don't believe he should be removed because I think it impinges on the legitimate use of Executive power.