The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (3 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

 

[CoolBrees]

Lt Col Vindman, Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador Yovanovitch all provided testimony that states the president did what he is accused of.

Two of these three have impeccable credentials and have been serving our country proudly for decades. The third have a million dollars to Trump’s campaign.

The filing of the impeachment articles is like a grand jury handing down an indictment. Then there is the trial. New and additional evidence is always added to the indictment to fortify the State’s case to the grand jury- in this case the Senate.

 

[SFIDC3]

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.

This is a really a nonsensical response, I'm not sure what else there is to say...

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, (because I have no other choice, ie: we didn't get enough votes in the Senate to block witnesses) I'll give you one of the witnesses (who already has been reported publicly of making a statement), that means I didn't obstruct you, right?

Exactly....corrected...

 

[Archies Ghost]

House pursuit of testimony or litigation during delay of delivery of the articles to the Senate.

User Clip: Did the House seek litigation during the delay?

Did the House bother to seek testimony or litigation during the month delay delivering the articles to the Senate?

www.c-span.org

 

[dtc]

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.

You're not McConnell and McConnell isn't supposed to be defending Trump. I imagine if you were McConnell you would not be defending him either because I trust that having sworn an oath you would honor it.

 

[bdb13]

User Clip: QPQ Question

QPQ Question

www.c-span.org

User Clip: QPQ Answer

QPQ Answer

www.c-span.org

So, I truly have no desire to get Trump at all costs. I don't believe I would vote for the obstruction charge because the Democrats didn't do enough on their end to justify a conviction on that charge.

but I just don't find the argument made in that video against the abuse of power charge to be compelling when applied to this situation. You can correct me if you believe I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but isn't he essentially arguing that a corrupt act is not impeachable under circumstances where the President argues that he wasn't acting purely corruptly based on x,y,z and if it's done with the President's belief that it will help him with his own re-election?

 

[Lazybones]

Saw this on Facebook. It seems about right...

you should have just posted a meme

 

[Lazybones]

Lt Col Vindman, Ambassador Sondland, Ambassador Yovanovitch all provided testimony that states the president did what he is accused of.

Two of these three have impeccable credentials and have been serving our country proudly for decades. The third have a million dollars to Trump’s campaign.

The filing of the impeachment articles is like a grand jury handing down an indictment. Then there is the trial. New and additional evidence is always added to the indictment to fortify the State’s case to the grand jury- in this case the Senate.

Funny, when DD or Jim, make a comparison to a regular court, the left mocks them.

 

[Lazybones]

You're not McConnell and McConnell isn't supposed to be defending Trump. I imagine if you were McConnell you would not be defending him either because I trust that having sworn an oath you would honor it.

So it’s Schiffi’s job to prosecute but not McConnell’s job to defend?????!??!

Oh I get it. Schiff is not being partisan, he is being led by unbiased secondhand witnesses and his motives are just. McConnell doesn’t believe that trump is innocent, he is just being a partisan.

this line of thinking from the left is so amusing.

 

[FullMonte]

So it’s Schiffi’s job to prosecute but not McConnell’s job to defend?????!??!

Oh I get it. Schiff is not being partisan, he is being led by unbiased secondhand witnesses and his motives are just. McConnell doesn’t believe that trump is innocent, he is just being a partisan.

this line of thinking from the left is so amusing.

Yes...that's exactly right. Schiff (or more specifically, the House of Representatives) is charged with prosecuting the president. And no, McConnell is not charged with defending the president. McConnell literally took an oath to be impartial in this matter. The president's team of lawyers is charged with defending the president. McConnell's job is to listen to all of the evidence impartially, and render a verdict based on the impartial view of that evidence.

While party affiliation clearly plays in to everyone's actions, it's not at all a case where the republicans defend the president and the democrats prosecute him. The House prosecutes, and the Senate acts as the jury.

 

[samiam5211]

So it’s Schiffi’s job to prosecute but not McConnell’s job to defend?????!??!

Oh I get it. Schiff is not being partisan, he is being led by unbiased secondhand witnesses and his motives are just. McConnell doesn’t believe that trump is innocent, he is just being a partisan.

this line of thinking from the left is so amusing.

Read the oath the senators take.

 

[Archies Ghost]

So, I truly have no desire to get Trump at all costs. I don't believe I would vote for the obstruction charge because the Democrats didn't do enough on their end to justify a conviction on that charge.

but I just don't find the argument made in that video against the abuse of power charge to be compelling when applied to this situation. You can correct me if you believe I'm interpreting this incorrectly, but isn't he essentially arguing that a corrupt act is not impeachable under circumstances where the President argues that he wasn't acting purely corruptly based on x,y,z and if it's done with the President's belief that it will help him with his own re-election?

His argument is the same as mine from the beginning.

All politicians calibrate everything they do based upon its personal political consequence.

All presidents must believe that their political interests align with the interests of the country. They must pursue political interests in order to get elected and re-elected in order to enact their vision for the country.

This basic principle is why we get upset when they lie to get elected and do not follow through on what they promised.

The idea that a president could be impeached for desiring something in the national interest that is also in his own perceived political interest means all presidents, past present and future should be impeached.

If you believe in impeachment for this reason then you must support the future impeachment of every president which is why this is so dangerous for our future.

 

[Saintamaniac]

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.

The witnesses that testified under oath more than prove that DJT is the most corrupt politician to ever sit in the white house. You and your ilk simply chose to excuse it because he's on your "team". There's no doubt that if trump were replaced with Obama, you and your ilk's defenses would be no where to be found.

how did a corrupt, egocentric idiot outsmart the party of academic wizards.

He didn't but you believe he has because the Russians helped him and the republicans have been helping him cover it up.

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

1. That's your opinion that you are entitled to. it's completely based on your feelings toward them, but you are entitled to it.
2. Winning would mean removing the threat from the White house and protecting the legitimacy of the next election. This is why trump was impeached - to protect the country from an internal threat to our free and fair election process.

 

[Saintamaniac]

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?

In all fairness, I think that you would see a complete reversal in roles. However, there would be more democrats in favor of allowing that witness than there would be fighting to deny that witness.

 

[JimEverett]

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.

If that is what you think then you aren't understanding the argument.
First, I do not think the charges of Obstruction are appropriate. Part of the reason I say that is that various PResidents have withheld things from Congress when Congressasked for them and when Congress subpoenaed them. Never, am I aware, has Congress impeached a President for refusing ot turn over something or for refusing witness testimony without first going to the Courts to get clarification.
When that argument is made the response is often: but this is unprecedented, Trump has refused EVERYTHING (which isn;t accurate, but we will go along with it). So if Trump's former national security advisor testifies in the impeachment trial as to things that are very clearly privileged (although admittedly not unqualified, which is why it would have been proper to subpoena and go through the courts) and Trump does not attempt to stop then on what basis does Obstruction still stand. Or do the rules of impeachment only work in favor of allowing defects in impeachment to be cured at trial to favor the Hoouse's position?

 

[V Chip]

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?

Weren't Alexander Vindman and Jennifer Williams on the call that Trump was on that discussed the requirements (publicly announcing the Biden investigation) for a meeting? Isn't that a first-hand account? Didn't David Holmes also overhear a conversation between Trump and Sondland about the investigation (and other matters)? Isn't that a first-hand account?

 

[FullMonte]

So, I truly have no desire to get Trump at all costs. I don't believe I would vote for the obstruction charge because the Democrats didn't do enough on their end to justify a conviction on that charge.

I think its quite clear that the president obstructed congress, and it takes very little effort by anyone to justify a conviction on that charge. Here is what 18USC1505 Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees says:

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavours to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress shall be fined under this title, imprisoned for more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.

It's undeniable that the Intelligence Committee of the House of Representatives was exercising the power of inquiry, and they requested documents and witnesses from the White House. The White House stated that they would not provide any documents or allow any witnesses. That is a clear endeavour to obstruct or impede the committee's inquiry. That leaves us with one question, was the president's motivation in this endeavour corrupt? How much effort does it take to convince someone that the president refused to turn over documents and allow witnesses to testify because he knew that would be evidence of an improper or illegal act?

 

[V Chip]

Funny, when DD or Jim, make a comparison to a regular court, the left mocks them.

No "the left" doesn't.

 

[FullMonte]

His argument is the same as mine from the beginning.

All politicians calibrate everything they do based upon its personal political consequence.

All presidents must believe that their political interests align with the interests of the country. They must pursue political interests in order to get elected and re-elected in order to enact their vision for the country.

My problem with this line of thinking is that I can't see any way that the Ukraine announcing an investigation into the Bidens while the DOJ/FBI is not investigating the Bidens is in any way in the interest of the Country. I can quite clearly see how it is in Trump's political interest for that happen.