The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (4 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

 

[Beach Friends]

Nobody on this thread thinks there's enough publicly available evidence to suspect Biden of doing anything to be upset about.

Not even enough to suspect?

Kind of a bold statement, especially since you presume to speak for everyone here.

The Ukrainians are corrupt, but they are not stupid. They were paying Hunter for something and it certainly wasn't his talent in the oil and gas industry.

 

[samiam5211]

Nah, it's because I don't care spend any effort going back forth with you when quite frankly, I think this impeachment may be getting to you to the point that you're not in the mood to have a reasonable conversation.

Telling me what I MUST explain, and actually expecting that I am going to take you seriously is not reasonable.

You’re right.

If you are not prepared to explain yourself, it’s not worth the effort.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Not even enough to suspect?

Kind of a bold statement, especially since you presume to speak for everyone here.

The Ukrainians are corrupt, but they are not stupid. They were paying Hunter for something and it certainly wasn't his talent in the oil and gas industry.

I probably should have said support an investigation into Biden. Suspect, sure, but to actually order an investigation? Not based off of what I've seen on this and other threads on what constitutes a reasonable basis for investigating someone. Unless, I'm mistaken and you do think the investigations into Trump are justified and that more should be started.

I've tried several times to get support for people to back measures to prevent high level government officials and close family members from having business ventures in areas where the government official has some influence over, but no one else seems to back that up. So, I can only conclude that you don't really mind having government officials or their family members with business interests in areas they have some sort of influence over. And if you don't mind that, then there really isn't anything else to the Biden story.

 

[brandon]

Telling me what I MUST explain, and actually expecting that I am going to take you seriously is not reasonable.

[mod edit]mocking/calling out other forum members is not allowed.

 

[brandon]

[mod edit]mocking/calling out other forum members is not allowed.

Whatever you do, don’t go in the liberal forum.

 

[SaintForLife]

I did see one question/answer today that was actually some pretty smart work to damage the president's defense.

The question to the president's defense team (paraphrased): The Logan Act prohibits any US citizen from negotiating with any foreign state, without the permission of the US government, about any matters of US policy. Will the president ensure that he will not direct any private citizens to conduct foreign policy unless they have been formally designated by the president and state department to do so.

President's Defense team: Rudy Giuliani was not conducting foreign policy. Volker was clear that Giuliani was just a source of information for the president. Volker testified that it was not his understanding that Giuliani was carrying out policy directives of the president, he was simply carrying out his views of what he thought the Ukranians could do to convince the president of their anti-corruption efforts.

Adam Schiff: The president's lawyer just said was that no foreign policy was being conducted here. Rudy Giuliani was not conducting foreign policy. Their defense has been, to a great degree that this was a policy difference, that this was a policy issue. They are now saying that it was not policy. They just admitted that their own defense is false.

Fuller version:

Ah the defunct and most likely unconstitutional Logan Act.

The Logan Act makes it a federal crime for a private American citizen to engage in any communication or correspondence with a foreign government that intervenes in a dispute with the United States and that government in order to "defeat" any measures by the U.S.

The law has been around since 1799, yet nobody has ever been prosecuted for violating it (two people have been indicted but never prosecuted). Attempting to enforce the law would demonstrate just how thoroughly it violates the free speech rights of Americans.

The Logan Act Is Awful and No, It’s Not Going To Be Used Against John Kerry – Reason.com

reason-com.cdn.ampproject.org

 

[BobE]

Collins Yes
Romney Yes
Alexander No

 

[SaintForLife]

How so? Your question that I responded to was essentially: "The whistleblower, in his past had demonstrated a bias against Trump and while he was in the employ of the government, he worked with the vice president. Doesn't that mean his complaint is suspect?" I was simply pointing out that his supposed bias against Trump has exactly ZERO to do with whether or not Trump is guilty.



Another way to word it...The guy who alerted the authorities to potential wrongdoings that were confirmed through other sources, who have testified to support his claims, can't really add much to the discussion.

Let's look at it another way. Let's say that you get what you want, he testifies that he didn't like Trump and he conspired to try and get rid of him. How, in any way, does that make the other testimony and evidence false?

No need to look at it another way or use analogies. Nothing you list is going to be comparable to an impeachment. If you think the person responsible for starting the process of removing the most powerful person in the world doesn't need to be heard from if more witnesses are allowed I'm not sure what else I could say to you.

 

[JimEverett]

Collins Yes
Romney Yes
Alexander No

Murkowski?

 

[BobE]

Murkowski?

Will decide/announce tomorrow. But even if she is a yes it's 50-50

 

[bdb13]

Collins Yes
Romney Yes
Alexander No

"I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution's high bar for an impeachable offense," Alexander said in a statement.

Sen. Lamar Alexander to oppose new witnesses in trial, signaling vote likely to be defeated

Mitch McConnell and the GOP Senate could get Trump acquitted by Friday.

www.politico.com

 

[JimEverett]

Will decide/announce tomorrow. But even if she is a yes it's 50-50

She is interesting to me because she has hinted at accepting the argument that I have been making: that the SEnate should not cure defects in the House's impeachment. But that is a different question from witnesses.

But yeah, if it is tied then the only thing to see is if Roberts attempts to violate the Constitution and tries to be a part of the rulemaking.

 

[SaintForLife]

Trump is accused of trying to violate Biden's due process rights, but was thwarted because of a whistle blower. I'm pretty sure you know that. Are you saying if the whistle blower waited until after Ukraine announced an investigation, you would support removing Trump from office?



Again, you know that is what Trump is accused of attempting and why he's being impeached.



If there is an active US investigation being conducted by our justice department, it is routine to ask foreign governments to cooperate in those investigations. And it is not routine to ask foreign governments to make an announcement of that fact. There was no active US investigation into the Bidens. Trump is accused of using his office and tax payer money to pressure a foreign government to work with his personal attorney to circumvent the US judicial process in order to damage his political opponent.



Let's say Koch Industries was seeking some acquisition, and that an announcement of a corruption probe scuttles that deal. Can a President orchestrate that announcement and obfuscate their role in it to damage that company?



It's not coming from the President, it's coming from [name your country here]. Maybe they put a billboard with a bunch of suspected john's on a busy highway with your face on it. Can the President orchestrate that?

The things that Trump is accused of doing comes down to aid that Ukraine received by the deadline and an announcement or an investigation that never happened. Does that sound like a strong case to impeach/remove a President?

 

[BobE]

feel free to fact check

 

[cuddlemonkey]

She is interesting to me because she has hinted at accepting the argument that I have been making: that the SEnate should not cure defects in the House's impeachment. But that is a different question from witnesses.

But yeah, if it is tied then the only thing to see is if Roberts attempts to violate the Constitution and tries to be a part of the rulemaking.

But there's precedent for it. The process is important.

 

[Beach Friends]

Any idea whether Mitch is going to give out souvenir pens?

 

[JimEverett]

But there's precedent for it. The process is important.

Unconstitutional precedent is unconstitutional.

 

[SaintForLife]

Is this what CNN would call a bombshell?

“The Senate may dismiss articles of impeachment without holding a full trial or taking new evidence. Put another way, the Constitution does not impose on the Senate the duty to hold a trial,” Biden wrote at the time.

The Delaware Democrat added later: “In a number of previous impeachment trials, the Senate has reached the judgment that its constitutional role as a sole trier of impeachments does not require it to take new evidence or hear live witness testimony.”

Biden argued against witnesses in 1999 impeachment trial memo

The comments from the then-senator are at odds with current Democratic arguments.

www.politico.com