The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (2 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

 

[SaintForLife]

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?

Both Trump and Obama wanted a favor from a foreign government that would help them with their elections. By using tax payer dollars are you talking about the aid that Ukraine received before the deadline?

 

[Archies Ghost]

So we are now trying to figure

Both Trump and Obama wanted a favor from a foreign government that would help them with their elections. By using tax payer dollars are you talking about the aid that Ukraine received before the deadline?

Obama's ask was much more directly about his re-election.

Biden is still only a theoretical opponent.

As Dershowitz laid out yesterday, the impeachment standard being pursued here would have endangered many presidents in the past starting with George Washington.

A president is supposed to pursue the things that favor him politically in order to remain in office and enact his agenda. We use our elections to determine if what a president does aligns with our interests as a country.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So we are now trying to figure

Both Trump and Obama wanted a favor from a foreign government that would help them with their elections. By using tax payer dollars are you talking about the aid that Ukraine received before the deadline?

Trump is accused of using his office to violate a US citizens due process rights. He’s being accused of pressuring a foreign government using tax payer dollars too do something that would only benefit him and not the country and to damage a US citizen he perceives as a personal enemy.

If you can prove that Obama only wanted to renegotiate missile defense for his personal benefit, then yeah open the impeachment trial.

 

[samiam5211]

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

Or maybe it was because the prosecutor was widely known to be corrupt and the entire western world wanted him fired.

This was only 5 years ago. All of this stuff was in the news five years ago. It was not a secret.

If we can’t remember five years ago well enough to avoid being fooled by an entirely manipulated context for events that we all lived through, I don’t think there is any point in anything.

 

[Saintamaniac]

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.

Thank you for answering. I appreciate it I can see your point with respect to the legitimate use of EP. IMO, I think sworn testimony from Bolton that trump told him he was holding the aid to force an investigation into Biden would constitute strong proof. I tend to believe that you wouldn't agree. In any case, I genuinely do appreciate your response.

 

[TaylorB]

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.

I am acutely aware of the fact that you and the other Trump defenders do not find Schiff credible; the whole crux of my Schiff posts was getting at that by addressing the implications of including someone on the team that the right might find more credible than Schiff, perhaps like Amash. You scoffed at the part where I touted Schiff's talent as a lawyer; but instead of addressing my main argument, you are simply proving my point about Schiff by trying to use him to ridicule me.

I get being skeptical about what Bolton would testify to until we see the manuscript, but I'm still not sure I understand the significance of some of the discrepancies you're talking about in the NYT article (I'm not being snarky here; I want to understand what I'm missing). I see that Par. 32 references materials Trump was asking for in addition to the ones discussed in Par. 1, but I don't see how the former discredits the latter. It's not a secret that Trump wanted Russia / Hillary materials from Ukraine in addition to Biden materials because he continued through August 2019 to believe silly Kremlin conspiracy theories about Ukraine being responsible for the 2016 election hack and Ukraine having dirt on Hillary. The fact that he wanted all those other things doesn't undercut the allegation that he wanted a Burisma / military aid quid pro quo.

If I'm being objective, I tend to agree with you that the word "preferred" stands out as odd in that paragraph. It's not particularly strong wording, and doesn't quite line up with the other evidence that the withholding was more of a mandate by Trump than a preference. I'd love for Bolton to clear that up.

I also agree with you that the timing of the leak raises questions, and I think it would be a stronger article with direct quotes from the manuscript or with named sources. But I don't agree with you that any of this somehow obligates Bolton to give a public statement before we can consider subpoenaing him to testify. Bolton's testimony is relevant notwithstanding the manuscript or the NYT article. It's not a fishing expedition -- he's the president's national security advisor who called the Ukraine scheme a "drug deal," who appears to have quit over it, and there are texts from people involved complaining that he f**** the whole thing up.

I'd wager that the manuscript says what the NYT article says it does. I don't think the NYT or any other media outlet is perfect, but I can't imagine this story would've been printed without very intense scrutiny and vetting, particularly given the fact that the book's inevitable publication would disprove any inaccuracies so easily.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

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.

So, I totally get this. What do you think constitutes strong proof? Does it require an admission by Trump either directly or to someone who testifies against him who heard him say so in a private moment?

Barring direct proof, I assume you think it's not a good idea for a President to direct foreign governments to investigate US citizens that are also political opponents without some sort of stringent process to ensure that it isn't arbitrary. Based on statements that you've made on this thread, it seems you don't think from what is in the public sphere that such a process wasn't followed by Trump. Short of impeachment, what sort of legal methods do you think can be used to ensure a President does not arbitrarily use his office to damage political enemies?

 

[V Chip]

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 would then be about 15-20 investigations for corrupt foreign governments we aid... and again, why specifically Biden?

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.

Not in the least. That's a serious mental leap to imply he's asking a political favor -- what's the favor being asked? And is it specifically for personal gain, or US gain?

 

[samiam5211]

I think that we need to start thinking about a constitutional amendment clarifying the rights of the individual occupying the executive branch.

When this is all over we need to address things like “can the president be criminally indicted”, and bring the emoluments clause up to date and maybe using more precise language or even include a limit or prohibition on revenue from government expenditures going toward a private business owned by the individual in office or their immediate relatives.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

Being widely reported that McConnell admitted he doesn’t have the votes to stop the process - so it looks like we might get witnesses
Honestly did not think this would happen

 

[RegularChuck]

Being widely reported that McConnell admitted he doesn’t have the votes to stop the process - so it looks like we might get witnesses
Honestly did not think this would happen

It ain’t happen yet.

 

[FullMonte]

I think that we need to start thinking about a constitutional amendment clarifying the rights of the individual occupying the executive branch.

When this is all over we need to address things like “can the president be criminally indicted”, and bring the emoluments clause up to date and maybe using more precise language or even include a limit or prohibition on revenue from government expenditures going toward a private business owned by the individual in office or their immediate relatives.

I’m not sure how much clearer the Emoluments clauses can be:
—One says the president cannot receive things of value from foreign governments.
—One says the president receives a salary, and he is not allowed to receive any other money from the federal government or any state government.

Trump has, quite clearly, violated both of these.

 

[samiam5211]

I’m not sure how much clearer the Emoluments clauses can be:
—One says the president cannot receive things of value from foreign governments.
—One says the president receives a salary, and he is not allowed to receive any other money from the federal government or any state government.

Trump has, quite clearly, violated both of these.

I agree. But clearly something if off.

Maybe all we need to do is change the name to something like a picture of Kate Upton so people notice it.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

It ain’t happen yet.

FULLY aware this could all be a CollinsRomney
Or is it a RomneyCollins?

 

[MT15]

are you insinuating that the house didn’t want the truth? What if McConnell says, “we are not calling witnesses, because the Executive branch will block them and drag it out in the courts.”

Would that be acceptable to you?

I think Lindsey Graham just said that exact thing, lol. They’re desperate to keep Bolton from telling the truth about what Trump has been up to.

 

[MT15]

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.

But that’s not the House’s fault. They asked, he refused, the WH refused, Bolton said if they subpoenaed him he would go to court. They felt a time crunch. Much like the Senate is arguing that they feel right now to try to keep Bolton from testifying.

Is it a sleazy tactic from Bolton? Absolutely, I don’t like him for his politics, but he’s not a liar, or at least not known to be one in the past. We need to hear from him.

 

[MT15]

I do have a legal question, if any of our counselors could reply, that’d be great.

Are lawyers allowed to outright fabricate things? Isn’t there some sort of deal where they can argue their side, but they don’t get to make up alternate realities?

 

[brandon]

So CNN reporting that McConnell doesn’t have the votes to block witnesses.

I had zero expectation that would occur. I’m actually shocked.