The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (8 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

 

[insidejob]

I guess this is what the GOP senators meant when they said Trump learned a lesson from all this
===================

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Thursday that he might end the long-running practice of letting other administration officials listen in on presidential calls with foreign leaders.

That’s after Trump’s impeachment was triggered by his July phone call with the president of Ukraine.

“I may end the practice entirely,” Trump told Geraldo Rivera in a radio interview that aired Thursday.

Records experts said that was a bad idea, for multiple reasons...........

Trump says he might keep others from listening in on calls

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump said Thursday that he might end the long-running practice of letting other administration officials listen in on presidential calls with foreign leaders.

apnews.com

Why would he stop it if he has nothing to hide? It's pathetic that this is becoming normalized behavior and nobody can stop him from just doing whatever the hell he wants to do.

From the article:

Larry Pfeiffer, a 30-year U.S. intelligence veteran who managed the Situation Room during the Obama years, said his predecessor told him that the White House had stopped taping presidential calls in the 1970s after Nixon recorded 3,700 hours of conversations. Transcripts of those conversations were used by Watergate investigators and during the impeachment hearings that followed.

“The long-standing practice is something meant to help and protect the president. It allows the president and the national security adviser to track any agreements made on the call and to refute quickly and accurately any incorrect claims about the call made by the foreign side,” Pfeiffer said, adding that it allows White House staff members to follow up and implement the president’s policy.

Pfeiffer, who now directs the Michael V. Hayden Center for Intelligence, Policy, and International Security at George Mason niversity, said the memoranda of foreign leader calls also fulfill important historical record-keeping requirements.

“By stopping the practice, the president only shoots himself in the foot,” he said. “And one can only surmise that the president therefore has something to hide from his own staff and bureaucracy.”

Steven Aftergood, who directs the Federation of American Scientists’ Project on Government Secrecy, also said that the resident has the power to limit access to his conversations. But Aftergood said it’s a “bad idea.”

“The president requires the expertise and advice of his senior officials, and they require access to these calls in order to do their job,” Aftergood said. “Secrecy here becomes self-defeating.”

 

[SaintForLife]

An update on McGahn which shows that the Obstruction of Congress article of impeachment was not valid.

 

[JimEverett]

An update on McGahn which shows that the Obstruction of Congress article of impeachment was not valid.

That impeachment was an absolute disgrace to this country.

 

[dtc]

That impeachment was an absolute disgrace to this country.

The president is a much larger disgrace to the planet.

 

[Maxp]

That impeachment was an absolute disgrace to this country.

The disgrace was Pelosi's leadership long before and throughout the impeachment. I am firm in the belief Pelosi and Trump protect the same class.

 

[TaylorB]

An update on McGahn which shows that the Obstruction of Congress article of impeachment was not valid.

A 2-1 DC circuit ruling does not “invalidate” an entire constitutional argument on an issue the court was not specifically addressing. If anything, the court saying it has no role in a congressional subpoena fight would tend to support the House’s argument that Congress was not obligated to seek judicial review of Trump’s blocking of witnesses before taking its own action to enforce the subpoena by including it in an impeachment article.

If, for example, the House had sought judicial review over the subpoena fight instead of including it as an impeachment article, and then a court had said it had no role in the fight, Rs would probably be arguing that the House missed its opportunity to enforce the subpoena by making it part of the impeachment case.

I was not a particularly strong proponent of thr obstruction article, but if courts won’t intervene in a congressional subpoena fight, then the only way congress can enforce it besides using it as part of impeachment is to throw people in jail. With all the whining over the alleged mistreatment of Trump associates, I can’t imagine throwing McGahn in jail would persuade congressional Rs to do their jobs. So I think the House chose the best option from a menu of less than ideal options.

SFL, if the DC circuit hears the McGahn case en banc and reverses the 2-1 ruling, or if SCOTUS overturns it, does it make the obstruction case more valid?

 

[TaylorB]

That impeachment was an absolute disgrace to this country.

It’s a disgrace that the only Rs with the courage to speak truth to power are not running for re-election and/or terminally ill and/or Mitt Romney. Their failure to rein in Trump’s perpetual assault on the rule of law and the dignity of the office will be their legacy.

 

[JimEverett]

It’s a disgrace that the only Rs with the courage to speak truth to power are not running for re-election and/or terminally ill and/or Mitt Romney. Their failure to rein in Trump’s perpetual assault on the rule of law and the dignity of the office will be their legacy.

I think every Democrat in Congress - with the exception of Gabbard - voted for the obstruction charge and/or convicting on obstruction. And our courts just ruled in favor of Trump's position and you find Republicans who voted against obstruction disgraceful? LOL

 

[MT15]

JimE and SFL, you cannot have it both ways, and I’m pretty sure you both know that. All we heard was that it was disgraceful that the Democrats didn’t wait on the courts, as that’s what they were supposed to do, and it couldn’t be obstruction because the courts hadn’t ruled.

Now this particular court seems to contradict that outlook, as they are saying they don’t need to rule on it. So evidently you were both (and all the other people complaining that they didn’t wait) wrong.

It’s hilarious that people can read the tweets posted and come away thinking the view that the Dems had to wait on the court to rule was validated. It says exactly the opposite.

 

[TaylorB]

I think every Democrat in Congress - with the exception of Gabbard - voted for the obstruction charge and/or convicting on obstruction. And our courts just ruled in favor of Trump's position and you find Republicans who voted against obstruction disgraceful? LOL

I explained why I don’t think the court’s ruling favors Trump’s position in the previous post.

But even if it did favor Trump’s position on obstruction, if the DC decision had been 2-1 the other way with two D nominees against McGahn vs one R nominee in his favor, I don’t think you’d be proclaiming that ruling validated the obstruction article and the entire impeachment. And if DC overturns this en banc or SCOTUS overturns it, I won’t be proclaiming victory either. It’s similar to Ds saying that impeachment is valid because Turley was 1 of 3 testifying constitutional scholars who didn’t think it was impeachable. It’s people with differing legal opinions. The ruling doesn’t specifically address the legitimacy of impeachment.

I did not say Rs position on obstruction is what is disgraceful. You said impeachment was a disgrace, and I am saying that what is disgraceful is that the entire R party kowtows to a megalomaniac who is unfit for the office he occupies. I don't think it’s a disgrace to use a constitutionally prescribed remedy to try to address behavior you’ve basically admitted the House proved. It’s fine if you think what the House proved doesn’t rise to the level of being impeachable, but your disregard and disdain for the point of view that the conduct is impeachable is not warranted. Since you clearly don’t think Romney excoriating Trump and his enablers over abuse of power validates the views of those who favored impeachment, it’s a stretch for you to also tout a 2-1 ruling indirectly relating to one of two impeachment articles as something that conclusively invalidates those views.

I don’t care if you like Trump and/or want to defend him but the instinct to treat legal arguments in favor of impeachment as extreme or hyper-partisan is itself hyper-partisan, and certainly is not the product of measured and objective analysis. I’ll concede that there is a non-absurd legal argument to be made against this conduct being impeachable, but I will not back down from the implication that we are being intellectually dishonest or that the whole thing was a disgrace.

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

I think every Democrat in Congress - with the exception of Gabbard - voted for the obstruction charge and/or convicting on obstruction. And our courts just ruled in favor of Trump's position and you find Republicans who voted against obstruction disgraceful? LOL

Lawyer who prosecuted watergate agrees with Taylor

 

[GMRfellowtraveller]

We try not to ‘just’ post clips and memes on this board
We encourage members to make their point and then use the clip/meme to back the point up
-at the very least summarize how the clip addresses the posts you quote

 

[TaylorB]

An update on McGahn which shows that the Obstruction of Congress article of impeachment was not valid.

SFL, if the DC circuit hears the McGahn case en banc and reverses the 2-1 ruling, or if SCOTUS overturns it, does it make the obstruction case more valid?

our courts just ruled in favor of Trump's position and you find Republicans who voted against obstruction disgraceful? LOL

if DC overturns this en banc or SCOTUS overturns it, I won’t be proclaiming victory either. It’s similar to Ds saying that impeachment is valid because Turley was 1 of 3 testifying constitutional scholars who didn’t think it was impeachable. It’s people with differing legal opinions.

Since you clearly don’t think Romney excoriating Trump and his enablers over abuse of power validates the views of those who favored impeachment, it’s a stretch for you to also tout a 2-1 ruling indirectly relating to one of two impeachment articles as something that conclusively invalidates those views.

Just to re-up this discussion in light of the appeals court in the McGahn case vacating the 2-1 ruling and taking it up en banc:

DC Circuit Throws Out McGahn Ruling on House’s Lack of Standing, Grants En Banc Rehearing | National Law Journal

The circuit said it will also rehear the House’s lawsuit over Trump officials’ diversion of military funds for a border wall.

www.law.com

The way I understand Jim’s and SFL’s positions, if the en banc ruling goes against McGahn, it means the obstruction case was valid, right?

 

[JimEverett]

Just to re-up this discussion in light of the appeals court in the McGahn case vacating the 2-1 ruling and taking it up en banc:

DC Circuit Throws Out McGahn Ruling on House’s Lack of Standing, Grants En Banc Rehearing | National Law Journal

The circuit said it will also rehear the House’s lawsuit over Trump officials’ diversion of military funds for a border wall.

www.law.com

The way I understand Jim’s and SFL’s positions, if the en banc ruling goes against McGahn, it means the obstruction case was valid, right?

Of course not.
The Circuit Court ruling wasn't a great ruling, and I expect at least parts of it to be overturned. But it does stress the whole argument I made on here against obstruction charges - there is a long history of Presidents doing what the Trump Administration did, and that there are bona-fide disagreements about the contours, scope, specifics, etc. of executive privilege and that it is jumping the gun, at a minimum, to charge obstruction before trying to resolve those issues through the courts.

 

[TaylorB]

Of course not.
The Circuit Court ruling wasn't a great ruling, and I expect at least parts of it to be overturned. But it does stress the whole argument I made on here against obstruction charges - there is a long history of Presidents doing what the Trump Administration did, and that there are bona-fide disagreements about the contours, scope, specifics, etc. of executive privilege and that it is jumping the gun, at a minimum, to charge obstruction before trying to resolve those issues through the courts.

As long as we agree that the 2-1 ruling didn’t absolutely vindicate the president on obstruction then we are on the same page re: the limited purpose of my posts, because that’s what I understood SFL to be saying in the OP, and what I understood you to be saying when you said our courts “ruled in Trump’s favor” on obstruction.

 

[JimEverett]

As long as we agree that the 2-1 ruling didn’t absolutely vindicate the president on obstruction then we are on the same page re: the limited purpose of my posts, because that’s what I understood SFL to be saying in the OP, and what I understood you to be saying when you said our courts “ruled in Trump’s favor” on obstruction.

it vindicates the idea that the House jumped the gun on charging Trump with obstruction, that the obstruction charge was inappropriate at that time.

 

[TaylorB]

it vindicates the idea that the House jumped the gun on charging Trump with obstruction, that the obstruction charge was inappropriate at that time.

And if DC overturns the 2-1 ruling then it means that view is not representative of the majority view in the DC circuit.

 

[dtc]

it vindicates the idea that the House jumped the gun on charging Trump with obstruction, that the obstruction charge was inappropriate at that time.

I'm confused. I thought your argument was that Trump hadn't obstructed justice. Aside from the semantics and legal maneuvering with regard to the House's choice to charge rather than wait for the courts to rule, what is your actual stance? Clarify for us, please.

Was Trump obstructing justice or not?