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

 

[FullMonte]

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.

What pressure is being put on what system that supports generally accepted corruption? President Trump asked Zelenskyy to look into the Bidens. The prosecutor general of Ukraine (until late last year) Yuri Lutsenko is on record as saying that he told Giuliani that they would not open an investigation into the Bidens because they had no evidence of any wrongdoing; but that if the DOJ/FBI opened an investigation, the Ukraine would assist in any way they can.

How are we, as a nation, better off with the president trying to get Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Bidens, when his own DOJ won't open one (even with the knowledge that doing so was the only way to get Ukraine to open one)?

 

[Archies Ghost]

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.

Personally, I think what Obama did was far worse yet not impeachable.

And both are rather routine examples of foreign policy interactions.

 

[Lazybones]

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?

great point in the last paragraph. The difference is that I am not trying to impeach a president. The Democrats in Congress are not on a political message board.
If what you say is true, this should be a slam dunk. We will know soon enough who is on the right side of history.
If trump wins, which he will, I can already see the narrative.

“we would have won if trump didn’t stop us. I mean everyone knows he is guilty. Pelosi did everything she could, but McConnell didn’t do his job. Republicans suck and trump is the most terrible president in history.”.......as the “rose from Alabama” plays in the background.

 

[Lazybones]

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.

ok, fantastic. A juror doesn’t call new witnesses.

 

[Lazybones]

Did you raise hell in 1998?

man I was a college hippie debater, who thought the ethic was the only way to save Mother Earth. I voted for Ralph Nader.

 

[bdb13]

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?

So I know that JimEverett brought this up, but what differentiates this and the Fast and the Furious situation with Obama? Is it the amount of information withheld? A corrupt intent? Both?

I could be misinformed, but I've been working under the assumption that a major differentiator would be the refusal to comply with court orders.

 

[insidejob]

No "the left" doesn't.

Yeah, it's consistently been the other way around.

 

[Saintamaniac]

ok, fantastic. A juror doesn’t call new witnesses.

It's pretty clear that either you are being willfully ignorant of the impeachment process and the roles of the members of the house and senate in the impeachment process or you have no clue of how the impeachment process works. I'm going to go with the no clue option. Therefore, I will explain it to you in the simplest terms.

1. Representatives are responsible for bringing forth articles of impeachment. Once impeachment articles are agreed on by a simple majority of the members of the house, the speaker selects a group of people to act as prosecutors to present the case in the senate.
2. The Senators are responsible for holding the impeachment trial. The Senators become the jurors for the impeachment trial. The Senate is responsible for setting the rules of the impeachment trial. These rules are voted on and passed by a simple majority.

So now you know and can see how Senators (who act as jurors in the trial) are also responsible for creating the rules (including the decision to call new witnesses who are pertinent to the impeachment charge).

So now you have been educated and any further attempts to obfuscate will be accepted as willful ignorance of the process.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

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?

It's not a trick question. If there was a witness who made the claim that they were in the room when the action happened, do you think it is prudent for them to be allowed to testify regardless of whether or not they testified previously?

 

[insidejob]

It's not a trick question. If there was a witness who made the claim that they were in the room when the action happened, do you think it is prudent for them to be allowed to testify regardless of whether or not they testified previously?

Pelosi and Schiff failed at their job and expect the Senate to fix it for them!!!

/sarcasm

 

[bdb13]

Personally, I think what Obama did was far worse yet not impeachable.

And both are rather routine examples of foreign policy interactions.

Genuinely don't remember it that well, but what made the Obama one much worse in your view? If you've already answered that somewhere I'll find the post, just curious.

 

[coldseat]

...

Freaking Allen Dershowitz can't be serious with this crap, lmao. And Trump supporters think House managers are making bad legal arguments. He needs to go sit down and retire.

Alan Dershowitz, a Harvard Law School professor emeritus and high-profile defense attorney, argued that Trump cannot be impeached for pressuring Ukraine for investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden because doing so would be aimed at helping his reelection chances. Dershowitz said Trump's motivations would ultimately be fueled by the public interest because he believes his reelection is what's best for the country.

"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest," Dershowitz said. "And mostly you're right. Your election is in the public interest."

"And if a president did something that he believes will help him get elected, in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

Alan Dershowitz argues presidential quid pro quos aimed at reelection are not impeachable | CNN Politics

A member of President Donald Trump’s legal team argued on the Senate floor Wednesday that a politician trying to win reelection is acting in the national interest, and therefore a quid pro quo aimed at boosting reelection chances cannot be impeachable.

www.cnn.com

 

[Saintamaniac]

...

Freaking Allen Dershowitz can't be serious with this crap, lmao. And Trump supporters think House managers are making bad legal arguments. He needs to go sit down and retire.

Alan Dershowitz argues presidential quid pro quos aimed at reelection are not impeachable | CNN Politics

A member of President Donald Trump’s legal team argued on the Senate floor Wednesday that a politician trying to win reelection is acting in the national interest, and therefore a quid pro quo aimed at boosting reelection chances cannot be impeachable.

www.cnn.com

Wow. The Onion couldn't have made that up any better.

 

[GrandAdmiral]

...

Freaking Allen Dershowitz can't be serious with this crap, lmao. And Trump supporters think House managers are making bad legal arguments. He needs to go sit down and retire.

Alan Dershowitz argues presidential quid pro quos aimed at reelection are not impeachable | CNN Politics

A member of President Donald Trump’s legal team argued on the Senate floor Wednesday that a politician trying to win reelection is acting in the national interest, and therefore a quid pro quo aimed at boosting reelection chances cannot be impeachable.

www.cnn.com

Wow. That's umm... wow.

 

[TaylorB]

great point in the last paragraph. The difference is that I am not trying to impeach a president. The Democrats in Congress are not on a political message board.
If what you say is true, this should be a slam dunk. We will know soon enough who is on the right side of history.
If trump wins, which he will, I can already see the narrative.

“we would have won if trump didn’t stop us. I mean everyone knows he is guilty. Pelosi did everything she could, but McConnell didn’t do his job. Republicans suck and trump is the most terrible president in history.”.......as the “rose from Alabama” plays in the background.

Of course I wasn't comparing your speculation about Pelosi's and Schiff's motives to the standard necessary to show the President's motives in an impeachment trial. I was just illustrating why it's absurd to suggest there's no way to prove the President's motive other than him or his associates confessing to it. There are studies demonstrating that jurors chronically undervalue circumstantial evidence, and that problem is hyper-magnified in this process by Trump defenders' intense devotion to the idea of absolving him of all wrongdoing. That's why the "first-hand knowledge" defense plays so well when that concept is completely contrary to how the legal system really works.

I think the case for removal is very strong, but I'd still wager much more on acquittal at this moment in time. But because impeachment is a political process by definition, whether this case is a "slam dunk" is more a function of political reality than the actual strength of the facts. If Democrats had a 2/3 majority in the Senate, they'd almost certainly convict and remove; I doubt you'd be touting that as proof they had a slam dunk case, right? For that same reason, an acquittal isn't going to "prove" it wasn't a good case.

Finally, winning a case is not the same as being on the right side of history. Dred Scott, Homer Plessy, and Fred Korematsu all lost their cases in the Supreme Court. Were their opponents who "beat" them or the judges who ruled against them on the right side of history? Unfortunately, I think we'll have to wait until well after impeachment is over to see whose side history is on.

 

[Optimus Prime]

...

Freaking Allen Dershowitz can't be serious with this crap, lmao. And Trump supporters think House managers are making bad legal arguments. He needs to go sit down and retire.

Alan Dershowitz argues presidential quid pro quos aimed at reelection are not impeachable | CNN Politics

A member of President Donald Trump’s legal team argued on the Senate floor Wednesday that a politician trying to win reelection is acting in the national interest, and therefore a quid pro quo aimed at boosting reelection chances cannot be impeachable.

www.cnn.com

Wow

But something tells me that this somehow only applies to republican politicians

 

[dtc]

Wow. The Onion couldn't have made that up any better.

Dershowitz made it totally clear he has lost his mind. He went on and on about how clearly the Constitution was with regard to his opinion only he, himself, the Harvard Professor Emeritus, was of the opposite opinion 20 years ago.

So clear it took him 20 years to figure out he was wrong before and every class he ever taught was flawed in that regard.

What a maroon.

 

[RegularChuck]

...

Freaking Allen Dershowitz can't be serious with this crap, lmao. And Trump supporters think House managers are making bad legal arguments. He needs to go sit down and retire.

Alan Dershowitz argues presidential quid pro quos aimed at reelection are not impeachable | CNN Politics

A member of President Donald Trump’s legal team argued on the Senate floor Wednesday that a politician trying to win reelection is acting in the national interest, and therefore a quid pro quo aimed at boosting reelection chances cannot be impeachable.

www.cnn.com

Doesn't seem like he's attempting to make a sound legal argument, he's just planting the seeds into Trump supporters' minds. That's the goal isn't it?