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

 

[JimEverett]

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.

I may be getting confused as to who/what I am responding to, sorry.

There was no subpoena to Bolton. I do realize there were subpoenas issued by the House in the impeachment inquiry. Even given those, I still don;t think anything rises to the level of obstruction - it appears to be simply non-cooperation. Look at Archies post above where he posts the attorney detailing the response of the Trump team.

 

[Archies Ghost]

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

Several reports earlier indicated the GOP believes they have the votes to move ahead without further witnesses and to call a vote on Friday after Questions are completed tomorrow.

I will believe it after they vote on it.

 

[Beach Friends]

I wonder if the House managers will have to ceremoniously walk backwards from the Senate to the House.

 

[SaintForLife]

Trump is accused of using his office to violate a US citizens due process rights. He’s being accused of pressuring a foreign government using tax payer dollars too do something that would only benefit him and not the country and to damage a US citizen he perceives as a personal enemy.

If you can prove that Obama only wanted to renegotiate missile defense for his personal benefit, then yeah open the impeachment trial.

Is that similar to how Obama's FBI violated Carter Page's due process rights? What about how the Obama administration used tax payer dollars to spy on his party's opponent for President?

 

[MT15]

So did the Trump lawyers argue that a president can do everything and anything to get re-elected, because he thinks that’s what is best for the country?

In other words, the president is the state. That’s not our system of government, that’s a monarchy.

Also, did the WH say to Bolton that he cannot publish his book, like at all? I’m hearing that was part of a letter sent to Bolton, but haven’t seen the letter, maybe it’s not public.

Also, heard that the House Intelligence Committee has requested a set of documents from the NSA that have to do with intelligence on Ukraine and was told that the NSA has been instructed not to turn the material over to the House.

Trump isn’t the king, but he sure acts like he thinks he is.

 

[SaintForLife]

That would then be about 15-20 investigations for corrupt foreign governments we aid... and again, why specifically Biden?

Not in the least. That's a serious mental leap to imply he's asking a political favor -- what's the favor being asked? And is it specifically for personal gain, or US gain?

I know you already saw this tweet, but I think it answers your question.


Obama knew that if he agreed to that before the election it could harm his chances for reelection. If he wasn't asking for a favor, how would you describe it? Why didn't Obama agree to that before the election if it was in our national interest?

 

[SaintForLife]

Okay? Have you really not seen the exact same sorts of clips from the other side? Even the WH lawyers, Dershowitz and Starr specifically, are saying the exact opposite stuff now compared to what they said during the Clinton impeachment. There’s no shortage of hypocrisy in Washington.

Edited to add: I forgot to mention that Dershowitz’s interpretation that violation of a federal statute is required in order to impeach and remove is disputed by nearly every Constitutional scholar. Turley, who the Republicans called as their constitutional expert, said today that Dershowitz is wrong in his interpretation.

I've always said both Democrats and Republicans are hypocrites, but the Republicans aren't the ones pushing a flimsy impeachment process. It was a stupid choice to have Starr on Trump's impeachment team for obvious reasons.

 

[wardorican]

I got to catch some of this again on NPR. NPR has been great to just play the proceedings and only really talk during breaks. Nice coverage.

Overall, I find that the Senate does an overall better job at these things. Sure, there is some partisan stuff, but there are also intelligent questions.

I think both the House Managers and Trump's Defense team have made some really good points, and both have also made a few dumb comments.

I get more annoyed when a group doesn't answer a question clearly. I get it when they take offense to the framing and flat out say that. That's ok. But when they just dance around it, nah.. Nadler had one such 'answer' that bugged me.

 

[SaintForLife]

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?

I wonder why Schiff won't release the testimony of the 18th witness from the House impeachment hearings. Why did Schiff classify and seal the ICIG Atkinson's testimony transcript? Every other witness transcript testimony has been released. What is Schiff hiding?

 

[SaintForLife]

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.

Not true. When Sondland was pressed on the issue specifically, he said he assumed it was the case. That's hardly definitive like you are claiming.

 

[SaintForLife]

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.

Trump's legal team said they told the House they weren't complying due to there not being a formal House impeachment vote.

 

[SaintForLife]

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.

The House didn't use the Courts to enforce those subpoenas.

 

[SaintForLife]

So did the Trump lawyers argue that a president can do everything and anything to get re-elected, because he thinks that’s what is best for the country?

In other words, the president is the state. That’s not our system of government, that’s a monarchy.

I don't think his lawyers argued that he could do everything and anything to get re-elected. I might have missed something because I mainly just saw clips. I think that was just the Democrat's and media's spin to claim that was the case.

 

[SaintForLife]

If Bolton testifies then we should hear from the whistleblower too right? I still want to see Atkinson's testimony that Schiff is still hiding.

 

[SaintForLife]

Schiff on Bolton in 2005:




It's the same playbook from the Kavanaugh hearing when Feinstein held that letter until the 11th hour.

 

[Beach Friends]

Schiff on Bolton in 2005:




It's the same playbook from the Kavanaugh hearing when Feinstein held that letter until the 11th hour.

I hope Graham is true to his word that the Senate will investigate the Bidens once the impeachment is disposed with.

I really want to see Eric C.'s real motivations brought to light. Remember the date January 19, 2016, which is when Eric hosted a White House meeting with Ukrainian prosecutors who were concerned that Hunter's involvement in the Ukraine might bring complications into an investigation into that lil gas company he was helping out.

 

[V Chip]

I wonder why Schiff won't release the testimony of the 18th witness from the House impeachment hearings. Why did Schiff classify and seal the ICIG Atkinson's testimony transcript? Every other witness transcript testimony has been released. What is Schiff hiding?

Are you being sertious with that question? I would think you know exactly why, given that his testimony was reportedly almost exclusively around corroborating the whistleblower's complaint. Asking that question is basically saying why didn't Schiff just out the whistleblower and anyone he/she may have talked to.

 

[V Chip]

If Bolton testifies then we should hear from the whistleblower too right? I still want to see Atkinson's testimony that Schiff is still hiding.

Ahh I see. Your previous question was simply rhetorical, and was exactly as I supposed.