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

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

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?

Yes to the first question, no to the second.

Remember, I was and still remain in favor of both Horowitz's and Durham's investigations. Several people lost their jobs over their handling of the FBI's investigation, and at least one guy will probably face criminal prosecution. Do you agree that the same thing should happen for any investigation into an American citizen without proper process? Or are you only in favor of it when it goes against your guy?

Does the President have the right to arbitrarily use a foreign government to circumvent the US judicial process to damage someone they don't like?

Should the United States use foreign governments to investigate our own citizens when we are not willing to do the investigation ourselves?

Can a theoretical President Warren use a foreign government to damage Koch Industries in such a way that it hinders their ability to make business deals?

Are you comfortable with a President N.O Bronco pressuring a foreign government to announce an investigation into prostitution usage by SaintsForLife (or anything else that you'd find embarrassing or inconvenient)?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

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.

This is what he said:

"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest and, mostly, you're right — your election is in the public interest," Dershowitz said. "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

So, basically, he's saying as long as the President believes that he's the best person to lead the country, then he can make deals that only further his own reelection since that is, in his/her mind, in the country's best interest. It seems a pretty dangerous argument to make.

 

[SaintForLife]

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.

You don't think they could have redacted the whistleblower's name or any information that could have identified him while still releasing the testimony?

 

[MT15]

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?

I don’t know why you keep harping on this comparison. I will point out the difference, once again. Obama didn’t run a shadow State Department with his personal lawyer and two shady guys being bankrolled by a Russian mobster. Obama didn’t allow these goons to smear and ruin the career of a very good career diplomat. Obama didn’t believe every Russian propaganda theory thrown out there and act on those beliefs. Obama didn't try to make up a scandal that wasn’t there to weaken his political opponent.

What Obama did was in the “normal” realm of how presidents conduct foreign policy and there can be an element of acknowledgement of political considerations. But the overall policy was in the national interest and not for personal political gain.

It’s very difficult to point to any national interest reason for Trump to withhold that aid when he did. I haven’t seen one single credible reason yet. It’s beyond ludicrous to claim Trump cares about corruption in a foreign country. This is a man who wants to get rid of any restrictions on US companies bribing foreign governments. So anti-corruption is not in Trump’s makeup. It’s just not. To claim he cares about corruption in Ukraine, beyond how he can leverage it to damage a political rival, is just patently insulting to my intelligence.

If you cannot see the difference between these two men, and their actions, I don’t know what else to say. If you think that what Obama did excuses what Trump did and continues to do, if you think both are equally corrupt, you’re living in some sort of fantasy world. You’re not living in reality.

 

[samiam5211]

You don't think they could have redacted the whistleblower's name or any information that could have identified him while still releasing the testimony?

What do you think the whistle blower has to contribute to the impeachment hearings?

We've had about a dozen people testify publicly to corroborate the whistle blower complaint.

There isn't any substantive reason to have the whistle blower testify, nor either of the Bidens for that matter.

Hunter Biden and the Whistleblower could have attended a Burisma funded orgy with underage midgets in the basement of comet pizza, and it wouldn't have anything to do with the Impeachment hearings.

 

[Archies Ghost]

This is what he said:

"Every public official that I know believes that his election is in the public interest and, mostly, you're right — your election is in the public interest," Dershowitz said. "If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment."

So, basically, he's saying as long as the President believes that he's the best person to lead the country, then he can make deals that only further his own reelection since that is, in his/her mind, in the country's best interest. It seems a pretty dangerous argument to make.

Here is the complete argument from Dershowitz

User Clip: QPQ Answer

QPQ Answer

www.c-span.org

 

[JimEverett]

I don’t know why you keep harping on this comparison. I will point out the difference, once again. Obama didn’t run a shadow State Department with his personal lawyer and two shady guys being bankrolled by a Russian mobster. Obama didn’t allow these goons to smear and ruin the career of a very good career diplomat. Obama didn’t believe every Russian propaganda theory thrown out there and act on those beliefs. Obama didn't try to make up a scandal that wasn’t there to weaken his political opponent.

What Obama did was in the “normal” realm of how presidents conduct foreign policy and there can be an element of acknowledgement of political considerations. But the overall policy was in the national interest and not for personal political gain.

It’s very difficult to point to any national interest reason for Trump to withhold that aid when he did. I haven’t seen one single credible reason yet. It’s beyond ludicrous to claim Trump cares about corruption in a foreign country. This is a man who wants to get rid of any restrictions on US companies bribing foreign governments. So anti-corruption is not in Trump’s makeup. It’s just not. To claim he cares about corruption in Ukraine, beyond how he can leverage it to damage a political rival, is just patently insulting to my intelligence.

If you cannot see the difference between these two men, and their actions, I don’t know what else to say. If you think that what Obama did excuses what Trump did and continues to do, if you think both are equally corrupt, you’re living in some sort of fantasy world. You’re not living in reality.

Many people have said what the national interest is with respect to Trump's demand/request. The fact that you, and presumably Democrats in general, don't buy it should mean, what? Impeachment?
So, when Republicans don't buy the Democratic President's move, similar to Obama's, then its fair game to impeach as long as they control the House?

 

[samiam5211]

Many people have said what the national interest is with respect to Trump's demand/request. The fact that you, and presumably Democrats in general, don't buy it should mean, what? Impeachment?
So, when Republicans don't buy the Democratic President's move, similar to Obama's, then its fair game to impeach as long as they control the House?

Do we have to always take the president at his word?

The Biden/Burisma stuff all happened five years ago while the Republicans controlled both houses of the legislative branch. None of it was secret, it was in the news at the time it was happening. Many Republican senators supported the firing of the prosecutor.

It is not reasonable to think that the President was using an extragovernmental channel to conduct a legitimate investigation of a matter that has been public for five years that suddenly only became worthy of investigation as the election year approached.

I'm sorry, but the President is lying about his motives, and we shouldn't just pretend it is reasonable to assume he is telling the truth about his motivation.

 

[JimEverett]

Do we have to always take the president at his word?

The Biden/Burisma stuff all happened five years ago while the Republicans controlled both houses of the legislative branch. None of it was secret, it was in the news at the time it was happening. Many Republican senators supported the firing of the prosecutor.

It is not reasonable to think that the President was using an extragovernmental channel to conduct a legitimate investigation of a matter that has been public for five years that suddenly only became worthy of investigation as the election year approached.

I'm sorry, but the President is lying about his motives, and we shouldn't just pretend it is reasonable to assume he is telling the truth about his motivation.

The only people who think it is impeachable are the people, for the most part, that did not vote for him. Do you not think this is a problem? It is basically proof of the political motivation of the whole thing, but not the only poof.
It does not seem unreasonable for the President to ask a newly elected President of Ukraine to investigate a Ukranian company with a history of corruption who had put the completely unqualified son of the former VP of the US on its board.

 

[samiam5211]

The only people who think it is unreasonable are the people, for the most part, that did not vote for him. Do you not think this is a problem? It is basically proof of the political motivation of the whole thing, but not the only poof.
It does not seem unreasonable for the President to ask a newly elected President of Ukraine to investigate a Ukranian company with a history of corruption who had put the completely unqualified son of the former VP of the US on its board.

I've already stated why it is unreasonable to believe that.

Why didn't he ask the previous administration in Ukraine to investigate it? He released aid to them two years in a row without an investigation into Biden. Suddenly, it becomes an issue as the election year approaches.

We aren't stupid, and neither are you. You know that is a ridiculous set of facts to accept, but you are litigating for your client again.

 

[JimEverett]

I've already stated why it is unreasonable to believe that.

Why didn't he ask the previous administration in Ukraine to investigate it? He released aid to them two years in a row without an investigation into Biden. Suddenly, it becomes an issue as the election year approaches.

We aren't stupid, and neither are you. You know that is a ridiculous set of facts to accept, but you are litigating for your client again.

And I have stated - changing policy is not evidence of corrupt intent. Not only that, but the President of Ukraine was newly elected, correct? Often times there is a change in business with newly elected leaders.

To say I am "litigating" could just as easily be said to you. It is a ridiculous notion to think a President cannot alter course in foreign relations, particularly when it is a newly elected leader of a county. In fact, it defies plenty of historical evidence.

 

[Beach Friends]

Do we have to always take the president at his word?

The Biden/Burisma stuff all happened five years ago while the Republicans controlled both houses of the legislative branch. None of it was secret, it was in the news at the time it was happening. Many Republican senators supported the firing of the prosecutor.

It is not reasonable to think that the President was using an extragovernmental channel to conduct a legitimate investigation of a matter that has been public for five years that suddenly only became worthy of investigation as the election year approached.

I'm sorry, but the President is lying about his motives, and we shouldn't just pretend it is reasonable to assume he is telling the truth about his motivation.

When did Biden brag about threatening to withhold aid to the Ukraine if they did not fire the prosecutor?

 

[coldseat]

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.

You keep making this argument, as have other Republicans, but that doesn't seem to stand on really sound footing, especially as it concerns the office of the president and the executive, and not the individual Trump. There is a very clearly delineated difference, both historically and legally between the office of the president and the executive and the individual that holds the office. There are a number of things that Trump can do in his capacity of President, the office holder, that would not be legal for him to do as and individual citizens. Those rights are reserved for the president.

At the same time, there are clearly delineated responsibility in the constitution, especially as concerned with the disclosures and transparency that are required of the President (the office) and the executive. Primary among those is cooperation and transparency with Congress, the legislative and co-equal branch of government. Among those responsibility and requirements is to turn over information, documents and provide witness testimony to Congress when they are acting in there role of oversight of the executive. The requirement is even more stringent when we're talking about Impeachment.

This is so, because otherwise our system of government falls apart. If Congress can not compel testimony and documents from the executive with its request for information and subpoena power then there can be no effective oversight and the executive is left to its own devices, distorting the balance of power among the branches. If there is blanket denial of requested information and witnesses, Congress can not carry out its roll in government. To be sure, the executive has privilege and can assert it, but those declarations need to be narrow and defined. The executive can't assert a blanket privilege nor can it decide for itself when Congress is acting legally in requesting information for oversight and legislation. In that light, non-cooperation from the executive and the office of the President can very clearly be obstruction of Congress. Because that is exactly what is being attempted.

 

[RegularChuck]

The only people who think it is impeachable are the people, for the most part, that did not vote for him. Do you not think this is a problem? It is basically proof of the political motivation of the whole thing, but not the only poof.

Or you could flip it and say the only people who think he’s innocent are the people who voted for him. If you consider the context of other corrupt activities and everyone’s position on it, it appears much more likely that Trump supporters are the ones being swayed by politics. One example is Trump enriching himself through his golf courses and resorts.

 

[JimEverett]

Or you could flip it and say the only people who think he’s innocent are the people who voted for him. If you consider the context of other corrupt activities and everyone’s position on it, it appears much more likely that Trump supporters are the ones being swayed by politics. One example is Trump enriching himself through his golf courses and resorts.

Sure. The people who support him are not trying to remove him, obviously. So what if they are being political? Its the side wanting to remove a sitting, elected President that need to make sure the process and substance of removal is apolitical as possible. They have massively failed.

 

[samiam5211]

When did Biden brag about threatening to withhold aid to the Ukraine if they did not fire the prosecutor?

It doesn’t matter when he bragged about it.

That wasn’t we found out about it.

This all happened in public. It’s not my fault you weren’t paying attention at the time and are a victim of the context being reframed.

 

[JimEverett]

You keep making this argument, as have other Republicans, but that doesn't seem to stand on really sound footing, especially as it concerns the office of the president and the executive, and not the individual Trump. There is a very clearly delineated difference, both historically and legally between the office of the president and the executive and the individual that holds the office. There are a number of things that Trump can do in his capacity of President, the office holder, that would not be legal for him to do as and individual citizens. Those rights are reserved for the president.

At the same time, there are clearly delineated responsibility in the constitution, especially as concerned with the disclosures and transparency that are required of the President (the office) and the executive. Primary among those is cooperation and transparency with Congress, the legislative and co-equal branch of government. Among those responsibility and requirements is to turn over information, documents and provide witness testimony to Congress when they are acting in there role of oversight of the executive. The requirement is even more stringent when we're talking about Impeachment.

This is so, because otherwise our system of government falls apart. If Congress can not compel testimony and documents from the executive with its request for information and subpoena power then there can be no effective oversight and the executive is left to its own devices, distorting the balance of power among the branches. If there is blanket denial of requested information and witnesses, Congress can not carry out its roll in government. To be sure, the executive has privilege and can assert it, but those declarations need to be narrow and defined. The executive can't assert a blanket privilege nor can it decide for itself when Congress is acting legally in requesting information for oversight and legislation. In that light, non-cooperation from the executive and the office of the President can very clearly be obstruction of Congress. Because that is exactly what is being attempted.

Someone posted the video yesterday of the Impeachment trial where a WH lawyer details the letter sent to Congress outlining why the WH was refusing to comply with Congressional requests. That is part of the normal procedure of these things. I am sure the letter itself can be found somewhere. In essence, such a letter is part of the negotiation and interplay between the branches. You can continue to act as if there was some sort of unprecedented denial, but the facts are clearly otherwise. It is just that Congress didn't want to negotiate, didn't want the COurts to get involved, it wanted to act like it was the Supreme branch of government and have the Executive subservient - but that is not how our system is set up.

 

[Beach Friends]

It doesn’t matter when he bragged about it.

That wasn’t we found out about it.

This all happened in public. It’s not my fault you weren’t paying attention at the time and are a victim of the context being reframed.

LOL, it was just a question. If you are in the mood to throw rocks at someone go back to SystemShock's thread.