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

 

[samiam5211]

I wish they could go to the bullpen and replace Nadler.

He always sounds like someone reading a book report he got from a review written by a random Amazon customer.

 

[Archies Ghost]

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.

I don't think this thread is the place for that discussion and from the content of the posts above this one, probably not this board.

 

[MT15]

Trump's defense team made this point numerous times. The problem we are having in this thread is that Trump's defense is an unknown to the folks discussing it.

I realize nearly every news organization cut away from Trump's defense in order to expose the fewest voters to both sides of the story but I would expect participants in this thread to be able to google the CSPAN links.

The only discussion here of Trump's defense is to smear the lawyers on his team, which is an old school tactic when you can't refute the substance.

You going to get around to retracting your false statement about nearly every news organization?

 

[MT15]

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.

Ive concluded that Dershowitz has a lot in common with women who sell their virtue. Whoever pays gets what they want.

 

[JimEverett]

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.

Right.
Non-cooperation cannot equal obstruction. If the police pull you over and start asking you questions and you refuse to answer - is that obsturction? OF course not.

Telling your family or friends - "don't talk to the police" or "don't testify" is not obstruction. That is merely non-cooperation. Same with documentary evidence. Its why the police and prosecutors get warrants, they go to a Judge and get judicial approval to search and seize. Interfering with that process could be obstruction - but refusing to cooperate is not, and never should be, a crime.

 

[Saintamaniac]

I don't think this thread is the place for that discussion and from the content of the posts above this one, probably not this board.

Unfortunately, there is no board here for posting and discussing unsubstantiated bull crap such as what you posted.

 

[MT15]

Ok, this clip is clearly from a partisan source, however, if you can get past the first few moments when he is disparaging the Trump legal team, certainly no worse than what the conservatives on here are saying about the opposition, he makes some very excellent points about the Hunter Biden situation. If you don’t want to listen I will summarize below:



1. Hunter Biden is an adult. Taking that position with Burisma was not a good idea. But it had nothing do with Joe Biden. You cannot control the actions of your adult children. Joe is not responsible for Hunter Biden.

2. Hunter Biden is a US citizen. If Hunter was guilty of a crime, he could and should be investigated by the US Justice System. As Americans, we do not sic foreign governments on US citizens. There’s a proper way to handle an investigation of Hunter Biden and what Trump did isn’t that.

3. The Republicans had control of Congress while this situation was happening, and were not shy about launching investigations into the Obama administration. They never even held one single hearing about Hunter and/or Joe Biden. This whole argument that Trump cares about corruption is just being reverse engineered to give Trump cover for his corrupt actions.

 

[Saintamaniac]

Right.
Non-cooperation cannot equal obstruction. If the police pull you over and start asking you questions and you refuse to answer - is that obsturction? OF course not.

Telling your family or friends - "don't talk to the police" or "don't testify" is not obstruction. That is merely non-cooperation. Same with documentary evidence. Its why the police and prosecutors get warrants, they go to a Judge and get judicial approval to search and seize. Interfering with that process could be obstruction - but refusing to cooperate is not, and never should be, a crime.

Yes, but if you resist arrest and they arrest you for it. You can't decide to cooperate and have the resisting charge dropped.

 

[JimEverett]

Yes, but if you resist arrest and they arrest you for it. You can't decide to cooperate and have the resisting charge dropped.

Not a good analogy.

The better analogy would be if I told my friend not to testify and the Court never subpoenaed my friend but then charged me with obstruction along with something else and my friend testified.
Of course, it is not a perfect analogy given the nature of impeachment, but more in line with the idea of ever having resisted arrest.

 

[MT15]

Right.
Non-cooperation cannot equal obstruction. If the police pull you over and start asking you questions and you refuse to answer - is that obsturction? OF course not.

Telling your family or friends - "don't talk to the police" or "don't testify" is not obstruction. That is merely non-cooperation. Same with documentary evidence. Its why the police and prosecutors get warrants, they go to a Judge and get judicial approval to search and seize. Interfering with that process could be obstruction - but refusing to cooperate is not, and never should be, a crime.

I get your point, but I don’t think your analogy is entirely accurate. In your scenario “don’t talk the police” is exercising a granted right. Does the president have the right to just ignore a lawful subpoena? Remember, he hasn’t claimed Executive Privilege even once in this case.

I think ignoring a lawful subpoena, and not claiming executive privilege because he didn’t do that, just simply ignoring lawful subpoenas raises it to obstruction level. I cannot be the only one who thinks that way, otherwise the entire legal community would be in agreement with you, and I just havent seen many who agree with your take. I could certainly be wrong, so maybe you can tell me who else says what you say (don’t say Dershowitz, don’t say Dershowitz, lol).

 

[JimEverett]

I get your point, but I don’t think your analogy is entirely accurate. In your scenario “don’t talk the police” is exercising a granted right. Does the president have the right to just ignore a lawful subpoena? Remember, he hasn’t claimed Executive Privilege even once in this case.

I think ignoring a lawful subpoena, and not claiming executive privilege because he didn’t do that, just simply ignoring lawful subpoenas raises it to obstruction level. I cannot be the only one who thinks that way, otherwise the entire legal community would be in agreement with you, and I just havent seen many who agree with your take. I could certainly be wrong, so maybe you can tell me who else says what you say (don’t say Dershowitz, don’t say Dershowitz, lol).

Well, there was no subpoena.
But even assuming there was a subpoena - yes, the President and others have the right to challenge the subpoena, which in most cases is simply informing the person that issued the subpoena that they will not comply due to x, y, or z . . .
Now, in Trump's case I believe the argument is that he never gave a reason for denying testimony - I am not sure about that, but it doesn't really matter imo. Certainly not with respect to Bolton, given that he was never even subpoenaed.

 

[FullMonte]

Right.
Non-cooperation cannot equal obstruction. If the police pull you over and start asking you questions and you refuse to answer - is that obsturction? OF course not.

Telling your family or friends - "don't talk to the police" or "don't testify" is not obstruction. That is merely non-cooperation. Same with documentary evidence. Its why the police and prosecutors get warrants, they go to a Judge and get judicial approval to search and seize. Interfering with that process could be obstruction - but refusing to cooperate is not, and never should be, a crime.

That's true. But, you can't at the same time, tell your friends not to comply with any subpoenas....then when those friends are in court arguing those subpoenas have your lawyers argue that the court has no authority to enforce the subpoenas...while having your same lawyers arguing in your case that if they wanted to talk to your friends, they should have gone to court to enforce the subpoenas.

What is the House supposed to do if the court agrees with Trump's attorneys that since the House has sole power of impeachment, the court has no jurisdiction, and Trump refuses to comply with the House subpoenas? Because that is literally what Trump's lawyers are trying to do.

 

[Beach Friends]

Sounds like this foolishness will be wrapped up in the next 48 hours. No more witnesses are necessary.

 

[JimEverett]

That's true. But, you can't at the same time, tell your friends not to comply with any subpoenas....then when those friends are in court arguing those subpoenas have your lawyers argue that the court has no authority to enforce the subpoenas...while having your same lawyers arguing in your case that if they wanted to talk to your friends, they should have gone to court to enforce the subpoenas.

What is the House supposed to do if the court agrees with Trump's attorneys that since the House has sole power of impeachment, the court has no jurisdiction, and Trump refuses to comply with the House subpoenas? Because that is literally what Trump's lawyers are trying to do.

Why can't you tell your friends to ignore subpoenas? Of course you can.
Again - non-cooperation does not equal obstruction. Now, if you told your friend you would hurt them or their family or something like that if they complied with the requests or subpoena then that is a different matter. Of if you told your employee you would fire them if they complied, then again - it goes beyond merely not cooperating. Or, another example, you told them to lie. But I do not believe anything like that has been alleged.

 

[JimEverett]

Sounds like this foolishness will be wrapped up in the next 48 hours. No more witnesses are necessary.

I just turned it off - was working on a tractor listening on the radio. Did I miss something that suggests this will be over?

 

[Archies Ghost]

Well, there was no subpoena.
But even assuming there was a subpoena - yes, the President and others have the right to challenge the subpoena, which in most cases is simply informing the person that issued the subpoena that they will not comply due to x, y, or z . . .
Now, in Trump's case I believe the argument is that he never gave a reason for denying testimony - I am not sure about that, but it doesn't really matter imo. Certainly not with respect to Bolton, given that he was never even subpoenaed.

This is the relevant response from today.

User Clip: Philbin responds to "Blanket"

Philbin responds to "Blanket"

www.c-span.org

This is the presentation Philbin refers to in the above clip

User Clip: Philbin on Obstruction of Congress

Philbin on Obstruction of Congress

www.c-span.org

 

[MT15]

Well, there was no subpoena.
But even assuming there was a subpoena - yes, the President and others have the right to challenge the subpoena, which in most cases is simply informing the person that issued the subpoena that they will not comply due to x, y, or z . . .
Now, in Trump's case I believe the argument is that he never gave a reason for denying testimony - I am not sure about that, but it doesn't really matter imo. Certainly not with respect to Bolton, given that he was never even subpoenaed.

Here Are All the Trump Officials Who Face Subpoena Deadlines About Ukraine

Vice President Mike Pence, Defense Secretary Mark Esper and other top administration officials have been called on by Congress to turn over related material.

www.newsweek.com

im not sure what you mean by there was no subpoena.

 

[Beach Friends]

I just turned it off - was working on a tractor listening on the radio. Did I miss something that suggests this will be over?

That's the latest rumor on the vote count.