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

 

[FullMonte]

If it was illegal please point out the law that Trump broke with the call. Why didn't the Democrats list an actual crime in their articles of impeachment instead of the nebulous Abuse of Power?

So, you are saying Bill Clinton was impeached without breaking any laws.

But....here we go again:

52 USC 30121: Contributions and Donations By Foreign Nationals
--Section (a)(2) of this law prohibits any US person from "soliciting, accepting, or receiving" any contribution or donation of any thing of value in connection with a Federal, state, or local election (NOTE: The very first item listed in the examples of "thing of value" is 'opposition research')

So, in asking for Zalenskyy to give him dirt on Joe Biden (or to announce an investigation to damage Joe Biden's election potential) Donald Trump broke 52 USC 30121.

2 USC Ch.17B: Impoundment Control
--Section 684(a) of this law requires the president, when he proposes to defer any spending authorization of congress, to transmit a special message to both houses of congress specifying (1)the amount of money to be deferred,(3)the period during which it is to be deferred, and (4) the reasons for the proposed deferral, among other things.

So, when the president ordered the OMB to hold up the aid to Ukraine, and not to tell anyone that it was being held up, Donald Trump broke 2 USC Ch.17B.

18 USC 1505: Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
The second paragraph of this law prohibits anyone from corruptly endeavouring to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the congress.

So, by stating outright that he would not deliver a single document that was subpoenaed and by telling members of his administration to ignore any congressional subpoenas, Donald Trump broke 18 USC 1505.

 

[MT15]

There were plenty reasons for Vindman being removed from the NSC. Here is Vindman's boss testifying to some of the issues.

This was petty revenge alone, and you must know that. The timing points that out, perfectly. Why do you pretend that it was otherwise? What action could Trump take that you would not defend? It seems there is nothing.

 

[MT15]

The President's foreign policy agenda or do NSC officials get to set the agenda? Vindman still has his job. He wasn't fired. He was transferred.

The presidents “agenda“ was a corrupt and illegal act. And someone who was merely “transferred” as you like to put it doesn’t get escorted out of the building like a thief. Trump could have done an actual transfer in a manner that allowed Vindman to retain his dignity, but he didn’t do that. He wanted to humiliate him publicly, and his brother too, who wasn’t even involved.

You are defending the indefensible here. This was an act of petty revenge, nothing more.

The fact that people are “afraid”, or whatever they are that allows them to defend this act, is the most concerning thing going on here. There should be no defenders of this very public humiliation of a decorated war veteran. Zero. Trump should get the message that this is unacceptable. But instead we get toadies parsing words in defense of this act of venal pettiness.

 

[Optimus Prime]

President Trump and some of his allies in the Senate are kicking off the post-impeachment era with vengeance on their minds.

In a speech on Thursday, Trump condemned “leakers and liars” and declared that “this should never, ever happen to another president, ever.” On Capitol Hill, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said Republicans plan to launch an investigation of the whistleblower who disclosed President Trump’s effort to coerce Ukraine to investigate a political rival.

Graham threatened that they are “going to get to the bottom of all of this to make sure this never happens again.”

If they carry out this threat of state-sponsored retaliation, whistleblowing as we know it may be over. That would be a disastrous blow to government integrity.

Do not doubt that the eyes of our nation are watching this situation unfold. Federal officials will now think twice before reporting any wrongdoing they witness.

Their reticence will only be magnified if Republicans exact a price by grilling the Ukraine whistleblower in a Senate hearing “to make sure this never happens again.”

The same will be true if Congress lets executive branch officials fire or otherwise punish the whistleblower — as the Trump administration did to Marie Yovanovitch, the former ambassador to Ukraine.............

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outlook/trumps-quest-for-revenge-could-mean-the-end-of-whistleblowing/2020/02/07/a576b860-4918-11ea-9164-d3154ad8a5cd_story.html

 

[Optimus Prime]

......The Post’s team — Josh Dawsey, Robert Costa and Greg Miller — also reported that White House aides are also “discussing whether to remove or reassign several administration officials who testified during the impeachment inquiry."

It remains to be seen what will happen with the others. At the very least, the White House seems to be sending a message that heads are about to roll. Now that Trump is clear of impeachment, it seems they feel free to send it.

That message has permeated Trump’s presidency: If you do something Trump doesn’t like, he will make you pay for it.

He will not only exact potential professional revenge and/or criticize you, but he will turn half the country — and the conservative media apparatus Trump has in his back pocket — against you.

He will make it immensely painful for anyone who dares to say a negative word about him.

He’s done it most notably with John McCain, repeatedly deriding him even in death for his decisive vote against the GOP health-care bill.

That serves notice that not only will Trump criticize you harshly, but he’s willing to shred societal mores like not speaking ill of the dead to forever damage your legacy.

He did it with Robert S. Mueller III, turning him from a reputable former war hero (like McCain) who was appointed by Trump’s own Justice Department into the face of evil in the Russia investigation..............

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/07/why-trump-is-so-vindictive/

 

[MT15]

This should be a moment when those who have defended Trump finally see him clearly, but I have very little confidence that this will be the case.

There will be no further whistleblowers, Trump has already largely undone any protection they would have thought they were due. The GOP has aided and abetted him, so that now there will be nobody who will risk coming forward. Any further ”investigations” by his lackeys is not necessary but I’m sure he will demand them because there is no slight too small for him to ignore.

This is a man who cares nothing for due process, nor free speech, nor the rule of law. This is a man who only wants absolute fealty, no matter how illegal his aims. He will demonize anyone who dares to disagree with him. How many times do some people have to see it before they realize what he is and what he is doing? This is not normal behavior. This is not a man who will ever defend free speech, except if it is praise of him.

At this point, I’m not sure that Bolton will even be allowed to publish his book at all. I hope I’m wrong.

 

[MT15]

Great thread about revenge by Trump:

 

[MT15]

They are just getting started on Mitt:



And no R that I have seen has said one word about the total irony of Trump using the National Prayer Breakfast to not only “disagree” with a basic Christian tenet, but to then belittle the faiths of those who have crossed him.

Trump supporters may think he champions “them” or he champions “the little people” but nothing could be further from the truth. He champions only himself and his absolute authority. Thats it.

 

[SaintForLife]

This was petty revenge alone, and you must know that. The timing points that out, perfectly. Why do you pretend that it was otherwise? What action could Trump take that you would not defend? It seems there is nothing.

Do you honestly think any President would trust someone in their NSC who tried to assist in getting him removed from office? Oh but the timing and petty revenge! Maybe Trump should have held a ceremony for Vindman for congratulating him for his effort.

What do you think about what Vindman's boss said about him?

 

[SaintForLife]

So, you are saying Bill Clinton was impeached without breaking any laws.

But....here we go again:

52 USC 30121: Contributions and Donations By Foreign Nationals
--Section (a)(2) of this law prohibits any US person from "soliciting, accepting, or receiving" any contribution or donation of any thing of value in connection with a Federal, state, or local election (NOTE: The very first item listed in the examples of "thing of value" is 'opposition research')

So, in asking for Zalenskyy to give him dirt on Joe Biden (or to announce an investigation to damage Joe Biden's election potential) Donald Trump broke 52 USC 30121.

2 USC Ch.17B: Impoundment Control
--Section 684(a) of this law requires the president, when he proposes to defer any spending authorization of congress, to transmit a special message to both houses of congress specifying (1)the amount of money to be deferred,(3)the period during which it is to be deferred, and (4) the reasons for the proposed deferral, among other things.

So, when the president ordered the OMB to hold up the aid to Ukraine, and not to tell anyone that it was being held up, Donald Trump broke 2 USC Ch.17B.

18 USC 1505: Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees
The second paragraph of this law prohibits anyone from corruptly endeavouring to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the congress.

So, by stating outright that he would not deliver a single document that was subpoenaed and by telling members of his administration to ignore any congressional subpoenas, Donald Trump broke 18 USC 1505.

If it's as clear as you claim, why didn't the Democrats include those in their articles of impeachment? Why did they use the nebulous term Abuse of Power and the laughable Obstruction of Congress when they refused to get the courts to compell the testimonies? They wouldn't have enough time right?

 

[SaintForLife]

The presidents “agenda“ was a corrupt and illegal act. And someone who was merely “transferred” as you like to put it doesn’t get escorted out of the building like a thief. Trump could have done an actual transfer in a manner that allowed Vindman to retain his dignity, but he didn’t do that. He wanted to humiliate him publicly, and his brother too, who wasn’t even involved.

You are defending the indefensible here. This was an act of petty revenge, nothing more.

The fact that people are “afraid”, or whatever they are that allows them to defend this act, is the most concerning thing going on here. There should be no defenders of this very public humiliation of a decorated war veteran. Zero. Trump should get the message that this is unacceptable. But instead we get toadies parsing words in defense of this act of venal pettiness.

Okay fine. Let's say he was fired from the NSC, but he still has his job in the Defense Department. If anyone is fired at the White House they are escorted out. It's almost like you are acting like nobody has ever been escorted out of the White House before. Do you realize that freaking out about everything Trump does makes people stop taking you seriously(I'm speaking generally and not about you)? Boy who cried wolf...

The call wasn't illegal and that's why the Democrats didn't include any actual crimes that he broke in their impeachment articles. What he did could be wrong or questionable without being illegal.

Who is afraid and what are they afraid of? Oh that War hero that was sharing classified information with his brother and the Whistleblower which he wasn't allowed to do. The same war hero refused to follow the chain of command and inform his boss. The same war hero that had been accused of leaking. The same war hero that got mad because he didn't go on the Ukraine trip. The same war hero that was offered to be Ukraine's defense minister.

 

[FullMonte]

If it's as clear as you claim, why didn't the Democrats include those in their articles of impeachment? Why did they use the nebulous term Abuse of Power and the laughable Obstruction of Congress when they refused to get the courts to compell the testimonies? They wouldn't have enough time right?

Go back to the first sentence of my post. Are you saying that Bill Clinton was impeached without breaking any laws?

But....you say "why didn't the Democrats include those in their articles of impeachment"??

Well, the first law I mentioned makes it illegal for a US person to solicit opposition research from a foreign national. According to the articles of impeachment President Trump "corruptly solicited the government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into (A) a political oppoent, for Vice President Joseph R Biden."

So, they clearly included the first one in the articles of impeachment.

Article II of the articles of impeachment spell out mulitiple instances where President Trump endeavoured to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the congress.

So, they included the third one in their articles of impeachment.

The call wasn't illegal and that's why the Democrats didn't include any actual crimes that he broke in their impeachment articles. What he did could be wrong or questionable without being illegal.

False. The reason why no actual crimes were listed is because (as numerous people have pointed out in this thread numerous times) impeachment is not a criminal trial. The reason I asked about Clinton earlier is because he was clearly accused of breaking a codified law, yet the article of impeachment against him make no mention of any laws that were broken.

 

[Dadsdream]

Last time I checked, people who are FIRED do not draw a paycheck from their employer anymore.
A U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel, with 20 years of service, stationed at the Pentagon is paid exactly the same thing as a U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel, with 20 years of service, stationed at the White House.
He just won't carry the duty same title or prestige.

After calculating his annual income, and knowing he's still going to make exactly the same amount if he chooses to continue to serve, we might consider toning down the rhetoric.

His pay is the same. His retirement pay will be the same.
Keep in mind, he's only 44 years old.
He can retire tomorrow and draw $80,052 per year for the rest of his life, not counting COLAs and he shop tax free in the military exchange system.

How would you like this deal:

$9,530 Pay, Month
$2,739 Basic Allowance for Housing, Washington DC, Month
$ 256 Basic Allowance for Subsistence, Month
$12,525
X 12 months
$150,300 per year, Gross

If he chooses to retire, as a 20-year veteran (EDIT: Purple Heart, wounded in action), he'll get at least 70% of his Base Pay, more if he is found to have disabilities during his out processing physical.

$9,530 Pay, Month
X .70
$6,671
X 12 months
$80,052 Per year, Gross

So, why again are we crying about a U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel getting transferred from the presidential staff to the Pentagon?
He'll probably be glad to be out of there.

 

[JimEverett]

The reason I asked about Clinton earlier is because he was clearly accused of breaking a codified law, yet the article of impeachment against him make no mention of any laws that were broken.

Where are you getting that from?

Both Articles of Impeachment against Clinton were for violations of statutory criminal law:
1 - Perjury
2- Obstruction of Justice

 

[Dadsdream]

The presidents “agenda“ was a corrupt and illegal act. And someone who was merely “transferred” as you like to put it doesn’t get escorted out of the building like a thief. Trump could have done an actual transfer in a manner that allowed Vindman to retain his dignity, but he didn’t do that. He wanted to humiliate him publicly, and his brother too, who wasn’t even involved.

You are defending the indefensible here. This was an act of petty revenge, nothing more.

The fact that people are “afraid”, or whatever they are that allows them to defend this act, is the most concerning thing going on here. There should be no defenders of this very public humiliation of a decorated war veteran. Zero. Trump should get the message that this is unacceptable. But instead we get toadies parsing words in defense of this act of venal pettiness.

Hi MT15,
People who work jobs with high security clearances are regularly escorted from the workplace after they are released from a duty position.
There's a process in place that involves making sure they're not taking so much as a scrap of paper with them that they are not supposed to have.
I understand your passion. But, your response would seem to indicate a lack of familiarity with the subject.

 

[dtc]

Last time I checked, people who are FIRED do not draw a paycheck from their employer anymore.
A U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel, with 20 years of service, stationed at the Pentagon is paid exactly the same thing as a U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel, with 20 years of service, stationed at the White House.
He just won't carry the duty same title or prestige.

After calculating his annual income, and knowing he's still going to make exactly the same amount if he chooses to continue to serve, we might consider toning down the rhetoric.

His pay is the same. His retirement pay will be the same.
Keep in mind, he's only 44 years old.
He can retire tomorrow and draw $80,052 per year for the rest of his life, not counting COLAs and he shop tax free in the military exchange system.

How would you like this deal:

$9,530 Pay, Month
$2,739 Basic Allowance for Housing, Washington DC, Month
$ 256 Basic Allowance for Subsistence, Month
$12,525
X 12 months
$150,300 per year, Gross

If he chooses to retire, as a 20-year veteran, he'll automatically get at least 70% of his Base Pay, more if he is found to have disabilities during his out processing physical.

$9,530 Pay, Month
X .70
$6,671
X 12 months
$80,052 Per year, Gross

So, why again are we crying about a U.S. Army Lieutenant Colonel getting transferred from the presidential staff to the Pentagon?
He'll probably be glad to be out of there.

20 years doesn't get you 70%. As far as I know, it never has.

20 gets you half your final base pay.

 

[dtc]

Hi MT15,
People who work jobs with high security clearances are regularly escorted from the workplace after they are released from a duty position.
There's a process in place that involves making sure they're not taking so much as a scrap of paper with them that they are not supposed to have.
I understand your passion. But, your response would seem to indicate a lack of familiarity with the subject.

And your response makes it seem like you're ok with a career officer being publicly humiliated for testifying under oath by the person who is supposed to stand for all that is good with our form of government.

 

[Dadsdream]

20 years doesn't get you 70%. As far as I know, it never has.

20 gets you half your final base pay.

Sorry, you're right. I misstated.

Purple Heart wounded in action, which he is, would normally start at 70%.

I added an EDIT to the post. Thanks, dtc!