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

 

[Lazybones]

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.

has the executive branch tried to use the 5th amendment against incrimination? Seems weird knowing there was nothing incriminating actually done.

and not to speak for Jim, but he was giving an example of how important procedure is.

 

[FullMonte]

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.

There is a problem with this line of thinking. When you say "maybe new information, maybe there was other stuff to focus on, maybe the time was right in the executive's mind" doesn't really work here.

--Here is the timeline:
--May 2019, DOD certifies that Ukraine has met the congressional requirements to address corruption in order to receive the aid.
--May 2019-July 25, 2019 the White House, on approximately 50 occasions, approves the aid to Ukraine be released.
--July 25, 2019, Trump talks to Zelenskyy, the an hour later orders OMB to halt the aid, and to tell no one that it is being held up.
--July 25-Sep 11, 2019, numerous text messages show that the boots on the ground in Ukraine had no idea why the money was held up, and at least one of them thought that it was being held up for political reasons, and that it was conditioned on the announcement of the investigation.

So, there are only two real possibilities as I see it:

1) Trump was holding up the aid for corrupt purposes, so he wanted to keep it a secret.
2) Trump was holding up the aid for a legitimate reason, but his administration is so incompetent that they couldn't explain to anyone what that reason was.

 

[samiam5211]

has the executive branch tried to use the 5th amendment against incrimination? Seems weird knowing there was nothing incriminating actually done.

and not to speak for Jim, but he was giving an example of how important procedure is.

The president isn’t even entitled to due process.

There is no procedure to follow for impeachment. The congress can do whatever they want.

Procedure is important in legal proceedings to make sure our rights are respected. It’s no so important with regard to impeachment.

 

[V Chip]

I wonder...

If a new witness were to come forth who completely, 100% exonerated Trump of all charges, would the Senate allow such a witness to testify?

 

[Lazybones]

There is a problem with this line of thinking. When you say "maybe new information, maybe there was other stuff to focus on, maybe the time was right in the executive's mind" doesn't really work here.

--Here is the timeline:
--May 2019, DOD certifies that Ukraine has met the congressional requirements to address corruption in order to receive the aid.
--May 2019-July 25, 2019 the White House, on approximately 50 occasions, approves the aid to Ukraine be released.
--July 25, 2019, Trump talks to Zelenskyy, the an hour later orders OMB to halt the aid, and to tell no one that it is being held up.
--July 25-Sep 11, 2019, numerous text messages show that the boots on the ground in Ukraine had no idea why the money was held up, and at least one of them thought that it was being held up for political reasons, and that it was conditioned on the announcement of the investigation.

So, there are only two real possibilities as I see it:

1) Trump was holding up the aid for corrupt purposes, so he wanted to keep it a secret.
2) Trump was holding up the aid for a legitimate reason, but his administration is so incompetent that they couldn't explain to anyone what that reason was.

you nor anyone else can do anything but speculate the reasoning. I appreciate your timeline, but that had nothing to do with what made DJT delay the aid. If it was as easy as you laid out, you can only have one of two theories.

1. schiff, Pelosi and co are so incompetent that they could not prove such an obvious breech by the executive branch

2. The impeachment is purely political and they had no intent of winning.

 

[RegularChuck]

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.

For some reason I have the impression you have some familiarity with the courts, but you’re reasoning on this obstruction issue has me second guessing that now. You seem to bending over backwards trying to make the case that if a person obstructs in various different ways and then later gives in on one thing that somehow that invalidates all the other instances of obstruction. If that’s how it works then every accused person should obstruct as much as they can and if charged with obstruction, just give in on only one of the requests to get the obstruction charge dropped. I’m no lawyer but I imagine that would be a bad thing for justice if that’s how it worked.

 

[Lazybones]

The president isn’t even entitled to due process.

There is no procedure to follow for impeachment. The congress can do whatever they want.

Procedure is important in legal proceedings to make sure our rights are respected. It’s no so important with regard to impeachment.

nice opinion you have there. I would speculate that the house, senate and Supreme Court would disagree with your assessment.

 

[samiam5211]

There is a problem with this line of thinking. When you say "maybe new information, maybe there was other stuff to focus on, maybe the time was right in the executive's mind" doesn't really work here.

--Here is the timeline:
--May 2019, DOD certifies that Ukraine has met the congressional requirements to address corruption in order to receive the aid.
--May 2019-July 25, 2019 the White House, on approximately 50 occasions, approves the aid to Ukraine be released.
--July 25, 2019, Trump talks to Zelenskyy, the an hour later orders OMB to halt the aid, and to tell no one that it is being held up.
--July 25-Sep 11, 2019, numerous text messages show that the boots on the ground in Ukraine had no idea why the money was held up, and at least one of them thought that it was being held up for political reasons, and that it was conditioned on the announcement of the investigation.

So, there are only two real possibilities as I see it:

1) Trump was holding up the aid for corrupt purposes, so he wanted to keep it a secret.
2) Trump was holding up the aid for a legitimate reason, but his administration is so incompetent that they couldn't explain to anyone what that reason was.

We can cite mountains of evidence that should be more than enough to convince people that Trump's motives were not pure, but really at this point, anyone who doesn't assume Trump's motives are selfish and amoral, are never going to be convinced.

Their response is going to be something along the lines of, "Pics or it didn't happen." Every. Single. Time.

 

[Optimus Prime]

We can cite mountains of evidence that should be more than enough to convince people that Trump's motives were not pure, but really at this point, anyone who doesn't assume Trump's motives are selfish and amoral, are never going to be convinced.

Their response is going to be something along the lines of, "Pics or it didn't happen." Every. Single. Time.

Would it matter to them if there were pics?

 

[RegularChuck]

Would it matter to them if there were pics?

I’m guessing they would argue the pics are inadmissible.

 

[Lazybones]

We can cite mountains of evidence that should be more than enough to convince people that Trump's motives were not pure, but really at this point, anyone who doesn't assume Trump's motives are selfish and amoral, are never going to be convinced.

Their response is going to be something along the lines of, "Pics or it didn't happen." Every. Single. Time.

Let’s say I agree that DJT is selfish and immoral. Would you also apply the logic that schiff and Pelosi are incompetent and ideologue’s who are willing to politicize impeachment instead of rolling up their sleeves and actually fight the fight (not willing to call witnesses)?

 

[Lazybones]

I’m guessing they would argue the pics are inadmissible.

I think we are looking for any type of legitimate evidence. can you provide anything concrete other than speculation? Can you provide a witness that testified in the House that has first hand proof of anything?

 

[samiam5211]

Let’s say I agree that DJT is selfish and immoral. Would you also apply the logic that schiff and Pelosi are incompetent and ideologue’s who are willing to politicize impeachment instead of rolling up their sleeves and actually fight the fight (not willing to call witnesses)?

No. What would one thing have to do with the other?

You seem to be trying to bait me into saying something where you could accuse me of hypocrisy, but i just don't agree with your characterization of Pelosi and Schiff here. It is not even close to being based on reality.

It is not the same, no matter how many times people on your side try to imply it is.

Trump is a terrible human being, there isn't any room for an alternative opinion.

 

[samiam5211]

I think we are looking for any type of legitimate evidence. can you provide anything concrete other than speculation? Can you provide a witness that testified in the House that has first hand proof of anything?

No, all of the first hand proof is being held by the guy who claims it exonerates him. If not for that pesky executive privilege, the President could show us all how innocent he is.

 

[coldseat]

you nor anyone else can do anything but speculate the reasoning. I appreciate your timeline, but that had nothing to do with what made DJT delay the aid. If it was as easy as you laid out, you can only have one of two theories.

1. schiff, Pelosi and co are so incompetent that they could not prove such an obvious breech by the executive branch

2. The impeachment is purely political and they had no intent of winning.

It's funny to see Trump supporters still arguing a stance that even most Republican senators have admitted was proven by House managers in testimony and documents.

They've pretty much conceded that yeah, Trump held up the aid to pressure Ukraine. That that much has been proven by House managers in both testimony and documents. They just don't care and are going to vote to acquit him anyway. Therefore there's no point in calling Bolton or any other witnesses to testify. Or so goes the argument.

But keep on arguing that, lol.

 

[Archies Ghost]

User Clip: Simply incorrect

Simply incorrect

www.c-span.org

User Clip: Misrepresentation of the record

Misrepresentation of the record

www.c-span.org

User Clip: Partisan Impeachment

Election timing of the impeachment

www.c-span.org

 

[Lazybones]

No. What would one thing have to do with the other?

You seem to be trying to bait me into saying something where you could accuse me of hypocrisy, but i just don't agree with your characterization of Pelosi and Schiff here. It is not even close to being based on reality.

It is not the same, no matter how many times people on your side try to imply it is.

Trump is a terrible human being, there isn't any room for an alternative opinion.

I’m not trying to get you to say anything. I’m trying to figure out how the left categorizes the leadership of the house. All we keep hearing is that DJT is the most corrupt politician in history. Yet the house proved nothing? Why is that? If the rational is that trumps actions prevented them from achieving their goal, it gets really complicated.

how did a corrupt, egocentric idiot outsmart the party of academic wizards. The house relied upon professors to make their case.

why isn’t it a slam dunk?

1. Pelosi and schiff are incompetent
2. They never wanted to win, they only thought this would help win 2020.

 

[Lazybones]

No, all of the first hand proof is being held by the guy who claims it exonerates him. If not for that pesky executive privilege, the President could show us all how innocent he is.

So the only person who knows the truth is the president? if so, wasn’t it the Houses job to find the truth no matter what it took?