The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (1 Viewer)

[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

 

[SFIDC3]

I would probably be ok with the obstruction charge being dropped if the president provided all of the documents that were requested, the full unredacted transcript of the call, and allowed any and all witnesses to testify.

But, no...I would not be ok with dropping the obstruction charge because the president allows a single witness who's been practically begging to testify.

Exactly how I feel....It's like now that the GOP senate is backed into a corner because a few of them decide to do the right thing...can we drop the obstruction charge? Its a ridiculous position really....

See we didn't obstruct this one time (out of like 100), so drop the charge...its laughable really...

 

[Beach Friends]

This completely ignores the fact that Bolton has been in disfavor with many, if not most, conservatives way before any of this. His appointment was a head scratcher for many of us as he is seen as someone who never met a war he did not like.

The final straw for me was when the man made the comment we should use the Lybia model on North Korea at a time when our President was trying to work with a very paranoid North Korea. Biden either purposefully or stupidly directly undermined his boss's efforts to reduce the chances of nuclear war. That sin was much greater than this nonsense he is engaged in now, which certainly looks like the actions of a disgruntled and disgraced employee getting a twofer, revenge on the man who gave him the boot and the opportunity to sell his book - available for pre order now on Amazon.

 

[JimEverett]

No, it isn't.

No, I wouldn't.

You're free to give such examples of procedure being "the most important aspect in terms of coming to the truth."

A person is allowed to have their "day in court" - or to put another way - a person is allowed to present their side. That is procedural, not substantive.

 

[JimEverett]

Exactly how I feel....It's like now that the GOP senate is backed into a corner because a few of them decide to do the right thing...can we drop the obstruction charge? Its a ridiculous position really....

See we didn't obstruct this one time (out of like 100), so drop the charge...its laughable really...

I am not sure what the position the SEnate is in would have to do with the Obstruction charge against Trump - talk about ridiculousness.

The problem highlights the idea that an impeachment trial should stick to the facts of the impeachment. At a minimum, the Obstruction charge should go if Bolton testifies.

 

[Beach Friends]

A person is allowed to have their "day in court" - or to put another way - a person is allowed to present their side. That is procedural, not substantive.

Hell, the first ten amendments are dedicated in large part to procedural safeguards to ensure that we are guaranteed fair trials. It was a pretty big deal to our founders, but we seem to take them for granted now.

 

[insidejob]

but we seem to take them for granted now.

Trump supporters sure do.

 

[CoolBrees]

Why didn’t the president ask the first 50 times aid was provided to Ukraine for an investigation into national corruption?

 

[JimEverett]

Why didn’t the president ask the first 50 times aid was provided to Ukraine for an investigation into national corruption?

Is your point that when a President alters policy and/or has a change of opinion, that should be used as evidence of a corrupt intent?

 

[CoolBrees]

No. Simply if that is the argument for why the aid was withheld, wouldn’t it stand to reason that concern would have been even mentioned during the prior 50 or so Congressionally approved appropriations to Ukraine. If it is such a concern, why wasn’t it earlier?

 

[Beach Friends]

Why didn’t the president ask the first 50 times aid was provided to Ukraine for an investigation into national corruption?

Well, there was a Ukrainian election held right before this where many legislators and the president ran on an anti corruption platform.

 

[CoolBrees]

Thanks for the Ukrainian election history lesson I already knew.

you didn’t answer the question

 

[Beach Friends]

Thanks for the Ukrainian election history lesson I already knew.

you didn’t answer the question

Seriously? You really need help connecting those dots?

 

[FullMonte]

Well, there was a Ukrainian election held right before this where many legislators and the president ran on an anti corruption platform.

Um...those 50 times the aid was approved were between May 2019 and July 25, 2019. Zelenskyy was elected in April 2019.

 

[Lazybones]

MSNBC carried both sides fully. Like was said, the only “news” organization I heardthat did not was Fox, which muted the House managers and then bad mouthed them while they were presenting their case.

Seriously, if you only get your news from Fox you are going to be much less informed than almost anyone else out there.

Hence the incredulous posts we sometimes get here when something major and negative comes out about Trump.

Archie, your statement was totally false. Should be withdrawn.

since you are the arbitrator of what is true and what is false. Can you provide something that says Archie’s statement is false, or is that your opinion?

 

[FullMonte]

I am not sure what the position the SEnate is in would have to do with the Obstruction charge against Trump - talk about ridiculousness.

The problem highlights the idea that an impeachment trial should stick to the facts of the impeachment. At a minimum, the Obstruction charge should go if Bolton testifies.

Seriously? Hey, you guys demanded 7 witnesses and requested thousands of documents. I refused to allow ANY of that. You charged me with obstruction. So, I'll give you one of the witnesses (who already has been reported pubicly of making a statement), that means I didn't obstruct you, right?

 

[samiam5211]

A person is allowed to have their "day in court" - or to put another way - a person is allowed to present their side. That is procedural, not substantive.

The president isn't a "person" in the way that the rest of us are.

None of us can claim executive privilege or control federal agencies.

It is disingenuous to suggest that the way a president is treated in an impeachment process has any bearing on the rights of any of the rest of us. There isn't going to be some precedent set in an impeachment that diminishes any of our rights protected by the fifth amendment, for example.

The office of the president has no 5th amendment rights. In his function as the executive branch, Donald Trump should not be protected by the fifth amendment. Especially if the policy is that he cannot be indicted. How can he ever be a person accused of a crime, if he is not subject to being officially accused of a crime.

All these arguments about how the President is entitled to due process just like the rest of us is nonsense. Maybe he should be entitled to due process, but that entitlement isn't protected by the same constitutional amendments that protect our individual rights.

 

[Lazybones]

No. Simply if that is the argument for why the aid was withheld, wouldn’t it stand to reason that concern would have been even mentioned during the prior 50 or so Congressionally approved appropriations to Ukraine. If it is such a concern, why wasn’t it earlier?

This is a crazy standard to apply. Who knows why it wasn’t done earlier. Maybe new information, maybe there was other stuff to focus on, maybe the time was right in the executives mind. There are a ton of reasons why, in everyday life, people decide to act upon something for the first time.

in all honesty, your argument is about as good as anything else that the house threw at the wall hoping it would stick.

 

[JimEverett]

Seriously? Hey, you guys demanded 7 witnesses and requested thousands of documents. I refused to allow ANY of that. You charged me with obstruction. So, I'll give you one of the witnesses (who already has been reported pubicly of making a statement), that means I didn't obstruct you, right?

Well, there was no obsturction period. But if the argument for obstruction hinges on "Trump refused any witnesses" (which is problematic in itself, given that 12 witnesses did testify) and then a witness testifies in the SEnate that was one of the ones, presumably, at issue in the Obstruction charge, then it makes sense to drop the Obstruction charge given that there is no argument left to be made.