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

 

[TaylorB]

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?

The American Bar Association’s Model Rules for Professional Conduct are a good starting point for ethical standards for lawyers because many states base their individual ethical rules on the model rules. The most applicable rule for your question is Rule 3.3, Candor Toward the Tribunal:

Rule 3.3: Candor Toward the Tribunal

Advocate | (a) A lawyer shall not knowingly: (1) make a false statement of fact or law to a tribunal or fail to correct a false statement of material fact or law previously made to the tribunal by the lawyer...

www.americanbar.org

So having a “duty of candor toward the tribunal” means they aren’t supposed to fabricate things. As a practical matter, judges are very, very hesitant to suggest attorneys are deliberately being dishonest, and the ethical rules don’t tend to come up in ordinary litigation. I’ve seen some comments from Trump’s lawyers that strike me as dishonest and arguably violative of 3.3, but the impeachment arguments seem within the normal bounds of advocacy to me (my mind could be changed by something I haven’t seen). The ethical rules are typically more problematic for guys like Cohen, Giuliani, and Dowd. In my mind it’s usually best to leave it to competing lawyers to point out factually incorrect positions of their opponents.

Hope that was helpful

 

[JimEverett]

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

I sort of jumped in this discussion so maybe I am missing the point - but I thought the issue was whether to have witnesses that did not appear in the impeachment proceedings and were not even subpoenaed in the impeachment proceedings testify in the Senate.

My point is simply that if we are trying the impeachment then the witnesses and evidence used to impeach is what should be used in the Senate.

 

[not2rich]

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 overwhelming evidence.

Confessions aren't required to convict in criminal trials with the burden of proof required there, so I'm curious what an "overwhelming" evidence standard requires.

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.

But the question is whether Trump did it for the sole purpose of damaging a political rival. If Trump did it at least partially to advance the interests of the United States, then why haven't his lawyers and defenders made that case? Tell me how Trump was advancing U.S. interests in addition to his own.

 

[JimEverett]

I have a question - if Bolton testifies and the President does not try to stop him does that constitute evidence against Obstruction of Congress in your mind?

If I were McConnell and I saw that I did not have the votes for stopping Bolton's testimony (or anyone else that the House did not fight to get testimony from - which is everyone that did not actually testify before in the Impeachment proceedings) then I would at least try to get my caucus to support tying that testimony to dropping the Obstruction charge.

 

[JimEverett]

Confessions aren't required to convict in criminal trials with the burden of proof required there, so I'm curious what an "overwhelming" evidence standard requires.

My only response to that is that impeachment is not a criminal trial. Not trying to be vague - just being honest - because I am not exactly sure what would constitute overwhelming proof.

But the question is whether Trump did it for the sole purpose of damaging a political rival. If Trump did it at least partially to advance the interests of the United States, then why haven't his lawyers and defenders made that case? Tell me how Trump was advancing U.S. interests in addition to his own.

Its a good question - and it may end up biting them in the butt. Defenses should always be multifaceted, imo.

 

[Beach Friends]

Confessions aren't required to convict in criminal trials with the burden of proof required there, so I'm curious what an "overwhelming" evidence standard requires.



But the question is whether Trump did it for the sole purpose of damaging a political rival. If Trump did it at least partially to advance the interests of the United States, then why haven't his lawyers and defenders made that case? Tell me how Trump was advancing U.S. interests in addition to his own.

It doesn't sound like you had the opportunity to listen to the WH presentation. They did, in fact, point to the transcript which showed that during the call the POTUS expressed concern that Europe was not contributing enough to the defense of the Ukraine. Also, Trump was concerned about corruption in the Ukraine generally. You may not agree with them, but they certainly made those arguments.

 

[JimEverett]

It doesn't sound like you had the opportunity to listen to the WH presentation. They did, in fact, point to the transcript which showed that during the call the POTUS expressed concern that Europe was not contributing enough to the defense of the Ukraine. Also, Trump was concerned about corruption in the Ukraine generally. You may not agree with them, but they certainly made those arguments.

You got me too - confession: I did not watch the Trump lawyers.

 

[not2rich]

My only response to that is that impeachment is not a criminal trial. Not trying to be vague - just being honest - because I am not exactly sure what would constitute overwhelming proof.




Its a good question - and it may end up biting them in the butt. Defenses should always be multifaceted, imo.

Defenses should be multi-faceted, but they also need to be credible - and if they were any good, they would be obvious fairly quickly to any competent defense attorney. Trump's defenders have had months to answer that question. You think they're going to come up with a good answer at some time in the foreseeable future?

 

[Lapaz]

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?

Because going through the courts would've probably pushed impeachment beyond the election. Had this occurred a year sooner, then in all likelihood the Democrats would've pursued witnesses through the courts, because there would've been time to do so. There is now a chance that the Chief Justice may be able to rule immediately on subpeonas and priveledge claims.

 

[Beach Friends]

You got me too - confession: I did not watch the Trump lawyers.

If you can find the time you should. I thought Purpura did a really good job.

They were all civil, professional and efficient. A nice contrast to Nadler especially, and Schiff.

 

[RegularChuck]

I have a question - if Bolton testifies and the President does not try to stop him does that constitute evidence against Obstruction of Congress in your mind?

If I were McConnell and I saw that I did not have the votes for stopping Bolton's testimony (or anyone else that the House did not fight to get testimony from - which is everyone that did not actually testify before in the Impeachment proceedings) then I would at least try to get my caucus to support tying that testimony to dropping the Obstruction charge.

Does cooperating now negate obstruction of congress in the past?

Is McConnell part of the defense team or is he supposed to be impartial?

 

[not2rich]

It doesn't sound like you had the opportunity to listen to the WH presentation. They did, in fact, point to the transcript which showed that during the call the POTUS expressed concern that Europe was not contributing enough to the defense of the Ukraine. Also, Trump was concerned about corruption in the Ukraine generally. You may not agree with them, but they certainly made those arguments.

Trump was so concerned about corruption in Ukraine generally that the only specific action he wanted from them was an announcement of an investigation into the Bidens?

Did the WH presentation square that circle?

 

[Lazybones]

Because going through the courts would've probably pushed impeachment beyond the election. Had this occurred a year sooner, then in all likelihood the Democrats would've pursued witnesses through the courts, because there would've been time to do so. There is now a chance that the Chief Justice may be able to rule immediately on subpeonas and priveledge claims.

Why does it matter if it was extended beyond the election? Didnt the House Democrats have a duty to do their jobs appropriately?

it seems many of you are ok with the idea Schiff and company did not do their duty in the impeachment process.

it’s kind of like the 2016 election and Russiagate. The democrats think that everyone hates trump so much that as soon as they waive their wand, he will disappear. Yet they keep trying to win with shortcuts.

Unfortunately their break away slam dunks keep falling short. Now they want all of their incompetence ignored and want everyone to focus on “someone else” to do their job for them.

The Senate republicans will be vilified by the media and the left because they will not impeach trump. Yet schiff and Pelosi will continually be supported by the smartest voters and “news reporters” in the world, even through they didn’t have the skill to pull off the task of getting rid of the biggest buffoon in American politics.

“Outsmarted them again Josie.”

 

[Taurus]

Why does it matter if it was extended beyond the election? Didnt the House Democrats have a duty to do their jobs appropriately?

it seems many of you are ok with the idea Schiff and company did not do their duty in the impeachment process.

it’s kind of like the 2016 election and Russiagate. The democrats think that everyone hates trump so much that as soon as they waive their wand, he will disappear. Yet they keep trying to win with shortcuts.

Unfortunately their break away slam dunks keep falling short. Now they want all of their incompetence ignored and want everyone to focus on “someone else” to do their job for them.

The Senate republicans will be vilified by the media and the left because they will not impeach trump. Yet schiff and Pelosi will continually be supported by the smartest voters and “news reporters” in the world, even through they didn’t have the skill to pull off the task of getting rid of the biggest buffoon in American politics.

“Outsmarted them again Josie.”

I think by "many of you", you're referring to people offline in your real life. I don't recall many of us being thrilled that they didn't issue the subpoenas and didn't include bribery and at least one other actual criminal offense with the impeachment charges. Maybe split the charges if the court battles would extend too long.
If your worry is that the President is trying to rig the election, letting the impeachment process extend beyond that election is just stupid, so I can see why they expedited things. I just think there ought to be subpoenas working their way through court right now so the Obstruction of Congress charge can be a complete slam-dunk when Don ignores the court rulings.

 

[Lazybones]

I think by "many of you", you're referring to people offline in your real life. I don't recall many of us being thrilled that they didn't issue the subpoenas

I hadn’t visited this site in months. I read this thread and it was filled with posters accepting schiff and co excuse of not wanting to fight the court battles. If I missed the lefts repudiation of Schiff on this board particular, please point me to it.

 

[bdb13]

I hadn’t visited this site in months. I read this thread and it was filled with posters accepting schiff and co excuse of not wanting to fight the court battles. If I missed the lefts repudiation of Schiff on this board particular, please point me to it.

I definitely think they screwed up by not pushing for testimony from the other players in the courts.

if I had a vote I'd probably do what Doug Jones is likely to end up doing and voting to convict on abuse-of-power and not guilty on obstruction.

 

[FullMonte]

What a LOAD OF PURE CRAP. Please show your proof.

Really? You're going to pretend that there isn't an abundance of readily available information showing that foreign governments and the US government.

--during one of their phone calls, Zelenskyy pointed out that he had stayed at a Trump hotel on a recent visit to the US.
--In December 2016, January 2017, and February 2017, Qorvis/MSL a Saudi lobbying group, funded by the Saudi Arabian government booked almost 500 nights at Trump International Hotel in Washington, totallying more than $270,000.
--According to this NBC News article, at least 22 foreign governments have spent money at Trump's properties

Reps of 22 foreign governments have spent money at Trump properties

The number of foreign governments hints at a significant foreign cash flow to the U.S. president that critics say violates the Constitution.

www.nbcnews.com

--According to this article, as of November 2019, the Secret Service spent more than $250k at Trump properties over just 5 months in 2017.

Secret Service spent more than $250K at Trump properties

Newly released credit card records detail the agency’s spending at the president’s businesses in the first half of 2017.

www.politico.com

This list is by no means comprehensive..it's what a thirty second google search uncovered.

 

[samiam5211]

Any chance they will let Avenatti out on work release?

Why? Does Trump need another upstanding citizen to add to his legal team?