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

 

[superchuck500]

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?

It’s a grey area. Lawyers don’t argue under oath so it isn’t perjury if they lie or grossly distort the facts in the name of advocacy. But a lawyer in court still has a duty of candor to the court that can result in the possibility of both the ire of the court (including contempt) and ethical/bar jeopardy. I don’t think it’s terribly common because either the lawyer knows not to cross certain lines (such as arguing a precedent says something that it doesn’t or has been overruled) - or it’s a context where it’s impossible to demonstrate falsehood. Some fine advocates play comfortably in those grey areas.

In Congress it’s even less governed - a duty of candor to Congress is probably implied but its own members lie on the floor every day. So it’s pretty much open to substantial distortion. I have seen, however, some commentary from legal observers that it reflects poorly on the bar and a professional code should be adopted to make a duty of candor to Congress more like that to the court. You can make an argument that’s reasonable for impeachment trials (but they’re rare). Beyond that, unless it applies to everyone in the chamber, I’m not sure counsel needs to be bound by it.

 

[Beach Friends]

The Republicans are in the drivers seat now, if the vote is delayed, it will be due to Republicans.

it’s pretty comical that you still continue to blame the democrats though.

Naddler said today they might call John Kelly, a man who has not been at the WH in a year.

 

[MT15]

You do realize that with the Parnas tape, the funny business with Ukraine now seems to stretch back into early 2018?

I dont think they need to call Kelly, but it’s not as ridiculous as you make it sound. Pompeo, Mulvaney, Bolton and Barr would do. Most importantly, we need to see their contemporaneous notes.

 

[superchuck500]

Naddler said today they might call John Kelly, a man who has not been at the WH in a year.

Why are some Senate Republicans concerned about Bolton’s commentary? He isn’t saying anything new, factually right? Only offering his view at the time as NSA, right?

I don’t get why they would even want to entertain it - it’s no different than the case the House has already put on. What makes it the thing that causes them to step back from summarily acquitting? Seems to me either they’re being dishonest (to either the public or themselves and I really don’t know which) or there‘s some element of it that they think potentially moves the needle but I can’t figure out what that might be.

 

[MT15]

I have a couple of ideas.

1. A lot of them said early on that if the President did withhold the aid, it would be a serious issue. Trump keeps ridiculously denying it, and that allows them to cling to the paper thin straw that he didn’t do it. It will make them look very shady when they then vote to acquit.

2. They think there are worse things that could still come out. Bolton said, IIRC, that he believes Trump is conducting a lot of foreign policy based on his own financial holdings. Another leak from the book today says Bolton had a conversation with Barr about Trump giving favors to autocratic regimes.

 

[TaylorB]

despite your rude response, lol, here is a pretty good summation of Trump’s problems with the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution.

Trump Still Faces 3 Lawsuits Over His Business Empire

The suits allege that Trump is violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution — and demand that the president divest from his private dealings.

www.npr.org

It’s very well understood by anyone operating in Trump’s sphere that he’s established means around the world by which a person or country can line his pockets. The Russians have known this since at least the early 00s:

Russian elite invested nearly $100 million in Trump buildings

President Trump has downplayed his business ties with Russia. But @reuters found that buyers from Russia have invested at least $98 million in Trump buildings.

www.reuters.com

The national Republican Party understands this now:

Republicans used to ignore Trump’s resorts. Now they’re spending millions.

After Trump launched his presidential campaign, GOP spending at his businesses has soared.

www.politico.com

Here’s an example in which the administration hid from Congress the fact that foreign countries were leasing luxury units in Trump World Tower:

Exclusive: Foreign government leases at Trump World Tower stir more emoluments concerns

The U.S. State Department allowed seven foreign governments to rent luxury condominiums in New York's Trump World Tower in 2017 without approval from Congress, according to documents and people familiar with the leases, in what some experts say could be a potential violation...

www.reuters.com

The Saudis got the memo in 2016:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/saudi-funded-lobbyist-paid-for-500-rooms-at-trumps-hotel-after-2016-election/2018/12/05/29603a64-f417-11e8-bc79-68604ed88993_story.html

Who can forget Pence’s bootlicking adventures to Doonbeg, over 180 miles from Dublin:

Pence's Doonbeg detour cost nearly $600K in ground transportation fees

Pence's stay at Trump's Irish golf resort has reinvigorated the debate about whether the president is using his position to enrich himself.

www.nbcnews.com

It’s all so blatant, it makes me do a double-take when I re-read the articles.

 

[not2rich]

Would it matter to you if Trump specifically said the aid was being held because he wanted dirt on Biden?

Have you seen that "jury selection" skit from the old Chappelle show?

Trump owns hotels. Foreign governments use those hotels for state visits. Foreign governments are helping Trump's profit margins.

Welp... That was easy.

 

[Beach Friends]

Why are some Senate Republicans concerned about Bolton’s commentary? He isn’t saying anything new, factually right? Only offering his view at the time as NSA, right?

I don’t get why they would even want to entertain it - it’s no different than the case the House has already put on. What makes it the thing that causes them to step back from summarily acquitting? Seems to me either they’re being dishonest (to either the public or themselves and I really don’t know which) or there‘s some element of it that they think potentially moves the needle but I can’t figure out what that might be.

I think you have some that are just jittery about backlash for voting "no" on witnesses for political reasons. Of course Romney is in a different category - he just hates Trump.

In the end, I don't think they will vote for witnesses. That would just delay the inevitable - and not just for a couple of weeks either. If you vote for "witnesses" then you have to vote on each witness as I understand it. It's gonna get real messy and for no real reason.

 

[not2rich]

I am serious, the Democrats always want to have another witness to delay a vote. We all know how this is going to end.

We all know how this is going to end because Republicans decided before the House proceedings began what they need the end result to be. The actual facts of the matter don't matter to them - they'll deflect, criticize the "process," cry about due process, make snide comments about the witnesses, etc.

And I'm not even defending the Democrat's motives... but more witnesses are more witnesses, and more evidence is more evidence, regardless of the motive of the person offering the evidence. The evidence is not going away regardless of how Republicans - or Democrats - want this to go.

And the fact Republicans can't abide more evidence coming in to show what the rest of us have already seen is quite telling.

 

[not2rich]

I think you have some that are just jittery about backlash for voting "no" on witnesses for political reasons. Of course Romney is in a different category - he just hates Trump.

In the end, I don't think they will vote for witnesses. That would just delay the inevitable - and not just for a couple of weeks either. If you vote for "witnesses" then you have to vote on each witness as I understand it. It's gonna get real messy and for no real reason.

The reason is to keep building the case for impeachment. If it gets "messy" or complicates the Republican agenda to acquit Trump regardless of the evidence, I'm sorry.

 

[Beach Friends]

We all know how this is going to end because Republicans decided before the House proceedings began what they need the end result to be. The actual facts of the matter don't matter to them - they'll deflect, criticize the "process," cry about due process, make snide comments about the witnesses, etc.

And I'm not even defending the Democrat's motives... but more witnesses are more witnesses, and more evidence is more evidence, regardless of the motive of the person offering the evidence. The evidence is not going away regardless of how Republicans - or Democrats - want this to go.

And the fact Republicans can't abide more evidence coming in to show what the rest of us have already seen is quite telling.

What it will tell me is that the Senate is doing the right thing. That should not allow the House to hijack the entire Senate to do what they could have done in committee.

 

[not2rich]

What it will tell me is that the Senate is doing the right thing. That should not allow the House to hijack the entire Senate to do what they could have done in committee.

And the right thing is to REFUSE to hear relevant evidence?

 

[Beach Friends]

And the right thing is to REFUSE to hear relevant evidence?

Sometimes, yes. You try to game the system at your own peril.

 

[not2rich]

Sometimes, yes. You try to game the system at your own peril.

Exactly the type of response I would expect from someone who wants to avoid the actual evidence of the impeachment case.

Attack the Democrats' motives.
Attack the credibility of the witnesses.
Avoid discussing the substance of the testimony.

 

[JimEverett]

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?

II am not trying to cop out of the question, but I really couldn't list anything and everything that I think might constitute proof. Obviously a "confession" would do it. Absent that, I think I would need overwheling evidence.

As far as the second question, I think we briefly touched on that earlier. I think it is an interesting question. But I think you have to tread lightly. I am not against an Administration asking foreign governments for help in investigating things that directly, indirectly, or might implicate potential political rivals. But I do agree with you that I do not want an Administration asking for investigations with the sole purpose of embarassing Americans, mush more so - political rivals.

 

[JimEverett]

And the right thing is to REFUSE to hear relevant evidence?

I don't see it as refusing to hear "relevant" evidence - the relevance of information is in question - as in the President was impeached without the evidence, so why - in a trial on the impeachment would the evidence be relevant?

 

[not2rich]

I don't see it as refusing to hear "relevant" evidence - the relevance of information is in question - as in the President was impeached without the evidence, so why - in a trial on the impeachment would the evidence be relevant?

How was the President impeached without evidence? Didn't the House call several witnesses to present the evidence? Wasn't that testimony evidence?

 

[Beach Friends]

I don't see it as refusing to hear "relevant" evidence - the relevance of information is in question - as in the President was impeached without the evidence, so why - in a trial on the impeachment would the evidence be relevant?

And relevant to what? Personally I think the articles, in effect, failed to state a cause of action and it would have been proper for the Senate to have dismissed them as soon as they arrived.