The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (7 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

 

[MT15]

Agreed, that's why it should actually be practiced instead of simply used as a platitude to justify a partisan opinion.

so explain something to me, in the post which you have attacked as being an opinion, I clearly stated I was giving, well, my opinion. So why the outrage?

 

[wardorican]

In the previous two impeachment processes, the investigation was done by a special counsels instead of Congressional committees. In both of those impeachment investigations, the special counsel did everything behind closed doors and without bipartisan involvement, just like Mueller's investigation.

If this investigation was done the the same way it has been previous times, it would be even more secretive and allow for less wiggle room to ignore subpoenas. If this is how the investigation was being conducted, would you then think it was fair and proper?

And when it finally got to the Senate for Bill Clinton, after the trial portion, the Senate voted to have their deliberations in private, not public.

 

[MT15]

I am trying to understand why these meetings are being held in secret. Doesn't an impeachment process have to be done in the public eye?

Intense, this is how I have heard it explained. They want to keep the subsequent witnesses from hearing exactly what the previous witnesses have testified to. It‘s pretty standard investigative procedure. And the reason they are conducting the investigative part is because the DOJ declined to do it, even though there was more than one legal referral over this matter.

At some point, they say within 2-3 weeks, they will conclude the investigative portion and then will present the findings to the entire House. I believe they intend to publish entire transcripts at that point and we don’t know, but it’s possible that witnesses could be asked back. That will be the actual impeachment process, culminating in a vote from the entire House.

 

[Intensesaint]

In the previous two impeachment processes, the investigation was done by a special counsels instead of Congressional committees. In both of those impeachment investigations, the special counsel did everything behind closed doors and without bipartisan involvement, just like Mueller's investigation.

If this investigation was done the the same way it has been previous times, it would be even more secretive and allow for less wiggle room to ignore subpoenas. If this is how the investigation was being conducted, would you then think it was fair and proper?

I wasn't pay attention to politics at this point in my life so I cannot just take your word for it. Do you have a link showing these sessions were in private? I would love to see so I can compare to today's process.

Same goes for Ward, can you show me links to how this happened. It would be helpful to see.

 

[MT15]

Oh, and this tweet also references how the very people protesting today in the SCIF mostly all voted for the rule that allows the democrats to now hold these hearings in private.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I wasn't pay attention to politics at this point in my life so I cannot just take your word for it. Do you have a link showing these sessions were in private? I would love to see so I can compare to today's process.

Same goes for Ward, can you show me links to how this happened. It would be helpful to see.

You don't have to take my word for it. Links were already provided earlier in this thread.

Before voting on opening a inquiry against Clinton, Kenneth Star was appointed as a Independent Counsel to investigate Clinton. The impeachment inquiry vote came after Star handed in his report.

Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Also, since this is true:

I wasn't pay attention to politics at this point in my life...

Then what was your basis for making this statement:

I am pretty sure this is the first time there have been secret meetings behind closed doors in the lead up to a possible impeachment.

 

[BobE]

If they're going to do it all behind closed doors fine, Plug all the damn leaks then,

 

[wardorican]

A little bit about the history of the previous two impeachments, and a bit with now.

Now, for @Intensesaint , if you want a quick hit of big items, I just run through the Wiki article for the Star Report and the Impeachment of Bill Clinton.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starr_Report

Impeachment of Bill Clinton - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Start with Independent Counsel Investigation to show that Starr was running the investigation, leaked some racy details to the public (inferring the rest was quiet), then provided a lengthy report to congress, who then voted to release the report to the public.

Here is a pretty good timeline from CNN. The Guardian has one too, but it's not as detailed.
Most of the action was through a Grand Jury and in federal court.

A Chronology: Key Moments In The Clinton-Lewinsky Saga

www.cnn.com

The court order where Starr asked to expand his investigation and Janet Reno OK'ed it.

Court Order Expanding Starr's Inquiry Released - 01-29-98

www.cnn.com

One portion from the CNN timeline (which also links to old articles of there, which is helpful).

The Starr report and the grand jury transcripts, videotaped testimony, affidavits and other materials gathered in the investigation were turned over to the House sergeant-at-arms.

They will be locked up until the House adopts a resolution authorizing Gingrich to turn them over to the House Judiciary Committee, the panel that would initiate any impeachment proceedings. Once the committee receives Starr's report, staffers hope to have a recommendation for the committee on how to proceed in the next two or three weeks.

House Rules Committee Chairman Gerald Solomon, R-N.Y., speaking to reporters at a Wednesday night news conference, said he expects the Judiciary Committee and the full House to decide by year's end whether Starr's report warrants a full-scale impeachment inquiry.

So, the investigation and evidence was quite secret, minus the leaks Starr put out there.

 

[wardorican]

This is a few weeks old, but the second interview (audio) seems to give a lot of the mechanics of what was going on. And, I think a lot of what she said has played out. Things moved so fast that Republicans didn't even know how to respond.. they didn't have cover. That after a couple weeks, they'd likely hit a brick wall from the White House (sort of true, since they still have gotten some to testify).

Quid Pro Quo My God | Politics with Amy Walter | WNYC Studios

Plus, a look at impeachments of the past.

www.wnycstudios.org

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Starr Report - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

I wasn't pay attention to politics at this point in my life so I cannot just take your word for it. Do you have a link showing these sessions were in private? I would love to see so I can compare to today's process.

Same goes for Ward, can you show me links to how this happened. It would be helpful to see.

Starr Report - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Clinton impeachment timeline

1992 The Whitewater Development Corp is dissolved, leaving Bill and Hillary Clinton with a loss of more than $40,000. January 1994 Attorney General Janet Reno appoints Robert Fiske Jr. as the independent counsel in charge of investigating financial irregularities in the dealings of the...

www.theguardian.com

The Clinton Impeachment, as Told by the People Who Lived It

Twenty years ago, Bill Clinton became the first president to be impeached since Andrew Johnson, in 1868. We offer a recounting by people who played a role.

www.theatlantic.com

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

If they're going to do it all behind closed doors fine, Plug all the damn leaks then,

I agree, the leaks are super annoying and don't help the pursuit of justice.

 

[BobE]

Ward and UTJ thanks for those links. Hopefully I'll get a chance to check them out tomorrow.

 

[wardorican]

Not from what I have seen, no. My guess is that they really don't have anything solid at this point and may not want to draft actual articles of impeachment at all, lest it be seen as another attempt to thwart the president outside of the election process.

The articles of impeachment do have to be filed for all to see and evidence brought forth as well.

I am pretty sure this is the first time there have been secret meetings behind closed doors in the lead up to a possible impeachment.

It just looks uncouth, if you have confidence in your case against the president, then let the sun shine on it.

Seems like a somewhat partisan source, but the "update" I'm quoting is the focus.

GOP Republicans Stage Brooks Brothers Riot 2.0 to Emasculate Their Own Power of the Purse - emptywheel

Over 20 Republican members of Congress are staging a riot so as to be able to trade away the most important authority of the House of Representatives, the power of the purse.

www.emptywheel.net

Update: According to a press release released yesterday, here’s who was part of the Brooks Brothers The Farce. Those marked with asterisks are on committees conducting the inquiry, so they’re basically complaining about a process they’re a part of. Those marked with checks were around in 2017 and voted for a rule holding that such protests on the House floor (to say nothing of inside HPSCI’s SCIF) were a violation of House Rules.

1. Matt Gaetz√
2. Steve Scalise√
3. Brian Babin√
4. Andy Biggs√
5. Mo Brooks√
6. Ken Buck√*
7. Bradley Byrne
8. Buddy Carter√
9. Ben Cline
10. Jeff Duncan√
11. Drew Ferguson√
12. Russ Fulcher
13. Louie Gohmert√
14. Paul Gosar√*
15. Mark Green*
16. Vicky Hartzler√
17. Kevin Hern
18. Jody Hice√*
19. Duncan Hunter√
20. Bill Johnson√
21. Jim Jordan√*
22. Fred Keller*
23. Steve King√
24. Debbie Lesko
25. Carol Miller*
26. Alex Mooney√
27. Markwayne Mullin√
28. Ralph Norman*
29. Mark Walker√
30. Mark Meadows√*
31. Greg Murphy
32. Peter Olson√
33. Gary Palmer√
34. Scott Perry√*
35. David Rouzer√
36. Ross Spano
37. Michael Waltz
38. Steve Watkins
39. Randy Weber√
40. Ron Wright*
41. Lee Zeldin√*

Also note that the rules Adam Schiff is using for this inquiry are similar to the rules that Mark Meadows used for the investigation of the Russian investigation that he, Gaetz, Jordan, and Gowdy did last year.

 

[wardorican]

Ward and UTJ thanks for those links. Hopefully I'll get a chance to check them out tomorrow.

Any time. I sorta came of age during that Clinton stuff. I believe we talked about it a bit in Government class too. It was big news. I actually watched a lot of those released testimonies.

Side note, Politics with Amy Walter is a great weekly podcast. I just don't get to always listen to it.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Seems like a somewhat partisan source, but the "update" I'm quoting is the focus.

GOP Republicans Stage Brooks Brothers Riot 2.0 to Emasculate Their Own Power of the Purse - emptywheel

Over 20 Republican members of Congress are staging a riot so as to be able to trade away the most important authority of the House of Representatives, the power of the purse.

www.emptywheel.net

Political theater. There's never been anything wrong or controversial with holding Congressional investigations behind closed doors. Republicans have done it, Democrats have done it, etc. But complaining about it helps keep the base riled up, and exhausts everyone else, so they'll keep complaining. Partisans don't care.

 

[wardorican]

I just finished that Politics with Amy Walter 40+ min story I posted. It was really good. Some opinions from various perspectives. The gentleman at the end actually did bring up the point that with the Nixon Impeachment inquiry, the Democrats successfully got Republicans on board, and the Republicans were the ones who drafted the Articles of Impeachment. He suggested a good faith effort by the Democrats would be in the best interest.

I think that's fair. But, I also know it wasn't going to happen. Washington is too hyper partisan now. Republicans haven't played fair in a while. All of them should take their duty seriously, investigate, listen to the evidence and make a judgement, like a juror. I don't like Democrats that have already decided to vote for impeachment. Wait for it all to come out. It's one thing to support an inquiry, another to already predetermine the outcome. That includes Republicans already stating they'll vote against it.

I hope more of you can give it a listen and give some thoughts.

 

[Taurus]

I just finished that Politics with Amy Walter 40+ min story I posted. It was really good. Some opinions from various perspectives. The gentleman at the end actually did bring up the point that with the Nixon Impeachment inquiry, the Democrats successfully got Republicans on board, and the Republicans were the ones who drafted the Articles of Impeachment. He suggested a good faith effort by the Democrats would be in the best interest.

I think that's fair. But, I also know it wasn't going to happen. Washington is too hyper partisan now. Republicans haven't played fair in a while. All of them should take their duty seriously, investigate, listen to the evidence and make a judgement, like a juror. I don't like Democrats that have already decided to vote for impeachment. Wait for it all to come out. It's one thing to support an inquiry, another to already predetermine the outcome. That includes Republicans already stating they'll vote against it.

I hope more of you can give it a listen and give some thoughts.

I know you bend over backwards to be fair, but if all we had was the transcript released by (and thus, attested to) Trump, that would be enough to impeach. It's an obvious attempt at bribery. Finis.

 

[Beach Friends]

Political theater. There's never been anything wrong or controversial with holding Congressional investigations behind closed doors. Republicans have done it, Democrats have done it, etc. But complaining about it helps keep the base riled up, and exhausts everyone else, so they'll keep complaining. Partisans don't care.

I don't really care that is being held behind closed doors. All they do when it is public is grandstand for 5 minutes and argue about who "controls the time."

I am more concerned about the leaking, the POTUS and agencies not being allowed counsel, not being able to call witnesses, not being able to subpoena documents, etc.