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

 

[bdb13]

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.

I understand the argument and your point, but I don't think it means that I have to be in favor of the impeachment of all past and future presidents if I support this one. I think it means that I would have to be in support of the impeachment of any President that has done something directly akin to what I believe Trump did here.

And haven't really thought about it in these terms I guess, but I think I would argue that I find it more dangerous moving forward for subjectivity in analyzing a situation like this one to be absent from the process in deciding if an act rises to the level of impeachment.

 

[Archies Ghost]

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.

You are free to have that opinion as I am free to believe there is a national interest in putting pressure on the system that supports this generally accepted corruption.

 

[RegularChuck]

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?

He’s been charged with obstructing the House’s impeachment inquiry. How would not blocking one of the witnesses from testifying in the Senate trial change that?

Seems like you should be arguing for ALL of the witnesses that were blocked from testifying to the House‘s impeachment inquiry to testify now.

To put it another way, the charge is for something he is accused of doing in the past. How would something he may or may not do in the future change that?

And since we're going back and forth down this rabbit hole, lets revisit this:

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

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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?

If a witness with first hand proof exists, but did not testify before the House, would you still want to hear from them?

 

[Archies Ghost]

I understand the argument and your point, but I don't think it means that I have to be in favor of the impeachment of all past and future presidents if I support this one. I think it means that I would have to be in support of the impeachment of any President that has done something directly akin to what I believe Trump did here.

And haven't really thought about it in these terms I guess, but I think I would argue that I find it more dangerous moving forward for subjectivity in analyzing a situation like this one to be absent from the process in deciding if an act rises to the level of impeachment.

It is quite clear that Obama was asking Medvedev/Putin to lay off until after his re-election.

Do you believe he should have been impeached in that instance?

 

[wardorican]

Chuck, I know how this case would be tried if you, me and Jim E were trying it in front of a good federal judge.

A good judge would hold a pre-trial and help the attorneys agree upon matters not in dispute and enter what we call "stipulations" to shorten the trail and save everyone money and time. By way of example, suppose a McDonalds supply truck rear ended my client and she had a surgery for a back problem, but McDonald's claims the back injury pre-existed the accident.

We could save a lot of time and money by stipulating that the driver was a McDonald's employee, that he had insurance with xyz company and that he rear ended my client. The trial would focus on the narrow issue as to whether the accident was the cause of my client needing a surgery or whether her surgery was due to back problems she had before the accident.

In the impeachment case, the Republicans should have stipulated, or agreed, that Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine to force them to investigate Biden. It has been an enormous waste of taxpayer time and money, and an insult to the intelligence of anyone reasonably considering the facts, to argue Trump did not direct aid be withheld.

The narrow issue of the trial should only be if that action rises to the level of an impeachable offense.

I have lost a great measure of respect for every Republican senator who will not acknowledge Trump withheld aid to investigate the Bidens. I could at least accept the argument if a Senator argued what Trump did was wrong, but not impeachable. I disagree, but that argument does not insult my intelligence.

Now if a Trump supporter on here were to argue that Democrats might act the same way as Republicans are now if it was Obama being impeached for leveraging aid, I think a lot of Democrats would obstruct impeachment of Obama.

But then they would be wrong too. The fact that both sides do do bad things doesn't make it right.

The defense by the Trump team he didn't do it should insult all of our intelligence. The only issue that should be before the Senate is whether what Trump did was so wrong that he should be impeached. No good American should argue its okay for either side to withhold military aid to an ally to get them to investigate a political rival. duh.

Actually, I think that's the only straw they can grasp. They're trying to delineate the difference between "Trump with held aid to Ukraine, to get specific investigations done that would be a personal favor" with "It seems like Trump with held aid to Ukraine, to get specific investigations done that would look like a personal favor".

Optics vs Criminal intent.

I think that's a 'UGE reason why McConnell doesn't have the votes to block witnesses. It's also why I don't think this argument about "curing a deficient Impeachment Investigation by the House" is a legitimate argument. If it was, the Senate would have the votes to block. Clearly some don't care about that question at all. They want to know if it's optics, or criminal intent. My guess.

McConnell acknowledges GOP doesn't yet have votes to block witnesses in Trump trial

Senators are expected to vote in the coming days on whether to call witnesses in the impeachment trial.

www.nbcnews.com

 

[TaylorB]

Any first hand evidence would have been something to provide in the initial proceedings. Instead we got speculation, he said/she said blah blah blah. Just no evidence of an impeachable offense.

you may disagree, but what is unfolding in front of our eyes indicates that the House is either incompetent or never intended on winning the impeachment.

I came here thinking one of the posters on this board would give me a reason that the above is false. Yet, we get the same rhetoric of how bad trump is and his supporters are mind numbing robots.

What did the house prove other than their incompetence? Proof means evidence, not speculation or made up stories from schiff to fit his narrative. If the house proved something substantial, this should be a slam dunk.

Even some of the staunchest of Trump's defenders on this board acknowledge that the House established a concealed scheme to withhold Ukraine aid for investigations; most have moved on to addressing the question of whether the conduct is impeachable. There's plenty of evidence this scheme happened, and little, if any, evidence this didn't happen. If your view really is that "nothing at all has been proven," I think you're pretty isolated in that viewpoint.

Sure, the House's case would be stronger if Trump went on the stand, said he did it for corrupt reasons, and admitted that what he did was impeachable. As you know, he didn't do that. In nearly every trial in which there isn't an explicit confession by the accused (which is nearly every trial), motive is proved through circumstantial evidence. You apparently consider circumstantial evidence to be the same thing as "speculation," but the law doesn't; rather, for the most part, the law applies equal weight to direct and circumstantial evidence. Nor does the law require associates of the accused to confess to the alleged conduct. If the law didn't allow for circumstantial evidence, or if it required first-hand confessions of the accused and/or their associates, the entire justice system -- civil and criminal -- would immediately crumble.

You're entitled to your opinion on the weight of the evidence and whether the conduct is impeachable. What you remember from the witness testimony was, in your words, "he said/she said blah blah blah." What I remember was specific testimony from multiple government officials who came to understand that Trump was withholding aid to an ally for investigations into a political opponent, including someone close to the scheme who acknowledged it was a quid pro quo. I remember documents and communications that supported this narrative, and none that contradicted it. There's plenty of evidence to establish what's been alleged, including the president's motive -- at least, enough to support a criminal and/or civil verdict against the President outside the context of impeachment. Whatever your opinion of the weight of the evidence, it's simply false to claim that the House has provided none.

You've claimed that Schiff and Pelosi "never wanted to win" the case, but you haven't heard them say that they didn't want to win, nor do you have first-hand proof that they didn't want to win -- is that belief just based on the circumstantial evidence, your own speculation, or is it a rhetorical point you know isn't true?

 

[wardorican]

And it is an interesting point I saw raised - if Bolton testifies in the SEnate should that mean the Second Impeachment Article is dismissed? Should it be?

Alone, no. It may go towards down playing that part. But, maybe they'd have to pencil in, Obstruction of the House.

 

[Lazybones]

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.

He is if he thinks he is innocent of the charges put forth along with the evidence provided by the prosecutors. Jury’s don’t call witnesses, they don’t make the case for the plaintiff, yet the do make a decision if a person is guilty or not.

The above is using your scenario. I fully understand that this is not a jury trial. Many on the left like to compare it to a trial when it is good and admonish those who compare it to a trial when it makes them look in a lesser light.

 

[wardorican]

If they don't know his/her identity, how can they call him/her?

 

[dtc]

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.

You're confused. Schiff is presenting the articles of impeachment as if he were a prosecutor on behalf of the house.

McConnell is the presiding officer over the Senate. His constitutional charge is to provide fair and impartial judgment of the facts as presented. The President has his defense team who is to defend him, but that's not McConnell's job.

 

[bdb13]

It is quite clear that Obama was asking Medvedev/Putin to lay off until after his re-election.

Do you believe he should have been impeached in that instance?

No, don't think so. I don't remember all the details, but I think that's fairly standard for how this stuff works and not imo in the category of egregious corruption. I'm very confident that I wouldn't support Trump's impeachment for a situation directly akin to that one, though I concede there are probably some Democrats who would want to go after Trump in that scenario which is to say I do get your point, but disagree with the absolute nature of it. I don't think it has to be all or nothing.

 

[Lazybones]

If a witness with first hand proof exists, but did not testify before the House, would you still want to hear from them?

trick question. I think this is and was a farce from the beginning. So no, I don’t think the senates job is to go on a fishing expedition.

I do however think that if the tables were turned, I would have been raising hell that the house used this as a political tool. They pushed through the articles like they pushed through ACA. Realizing that half the country hates Trump and will believe anything that sheds a bad light on him.

i am truly surprised that Bernie supporters are not throwing a fit over the houses actions. The good ole boys/girls are still running the democrat party.

If there is a silver bullet, it would have been fired. which goes back to the initial post that I made.

If Bolton’s et all testimony is so important, why didn’t the house subpoena them. This malarkey that they didn’t want to fight in the courts is poppycock. As much as the left wants to take trump out, are you telling me that the juice isn’t worth the squeeze for congressional lawyers to do what they are being paid to do and battle in court?

 

[dtc]

You are free to have that opinion as I am free to believe there is a national interest in putting pressure on the system that supports this generally accepted corruption.

It is acceptable to root out corruption in our allies to whom we pledge our support.

There's a right way and a wrong way.

The way Biden did it when going after the corrupt prosecutor is the right way. Hiring Giuliani to run an endaround with Parnas and a bunch of thugs is the wrong way. And, when that pressure is not intended to result int he elimination of corruption, but rather to benefit a president's personal interests it's corrupt. And impeachable.

 

[samiam5211]

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.

The truth is that anyone interested in a legitimate Investigation being conducted would be doing everything in their power to prevent the existence of the investigation from becoming public until absolutely necessary.

The fact that Trump wanted an announcement of an investigation is really all the evidence we need to show he didn’t really care about uncovering corruption.

 

[FullMonte]

He is if he thinks he is innocent of the charges put forth along with the evidence provided by the prosecutors. Jury’s don’t call witnesses, they don’t make the case for the plaintiff, yet the do make a decision if a person is guilty or not.

The above is using your scenario. I fully understand that this is not a jury trial. Many on the left like to compare it to a trial when it is good and admonish those who compare it to a trial when it makes them look in a lesser light.

No, he is not. A juror is not supposed to defend the accused. The jurors are supposed to listen to the evidence, and not take one side or the other. Now, once the evidence is presented, they can take their position on conviction or acquittal and defend it to the other jurors....but at no time during the trial should the jurors be defending the accused, or prosecuting the accused.

If McConnell believes the president is innocent, then he should listen to the evidence that is presented, and then make his case to the other members of he senate when they deliberate, or debate. But he shouldn't be actively working with the president, or making efforts to push the trial in a particular direction because it benefits the president.

 

[coldseat]

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?

On what grounds did Trump and the various federal departments deny providing all of the requested witnesses and documents to the House?

 

[V Chip]

I do however think that if the tables were turned, I would have been raising hell that the house used this as a political tool.

Did you raise hell in 1998?