The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (6 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

 

[yuyi64]

I haven't heard any congressmen from either side nor the president talk about immigration proposals.

Impeachment isn't the reason we don't have immigration reform.

So how many heathcare bills has the House passed in the last few months? How many bills to lower prescription drugs? How many bills to fix Social Security once and for all? How many bills to repair/replace our aging infrastructure? Shall we go on?

 

[RobF]

So how many heathcare bills has the House passed in the last few months? How many bills to lower prescription drugs? How many bills to fix Social Security once and for all? How many bills to repair/replace our aging infrastructure? Shall we go on?

Go to https://www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/browse

Type in 'healthcare', for example, and check 'Passed house (senate next)'. Then browse the list of bills, which includes things like 'H.R. 987: Strengthening Health Care and Lowering Prescription Drug Costs Act'.

You can of course debate the merits of any particular bill, but you appear to be under the impression that there simply aren't any bills related to those subjects being passed in the House, and that's evidently false.

Legislation has proceeded and will continue to proceed irrespective of impeachment inquiries. (Or it might, if it didn't hit a brick wall with the Senate and the current Administration).

 

[st dude]

You're missing the point. It's not about believing the witness or not; I think most people that have read the call transcript and read the Volker texts believe there was quid pro quo involved. The difference of opinion arises with respect to whether whatever happened is reason enough for impeachment and removal of a President. Those that want the President impeached believe that what he did is reason for enough for impeachment and removal, and those that don't support impeachment don't see quid pro quo with respect to dishing out foreign aid as anything warranting impeachment. Neither side is going to convince the other one that their position is wrong. That's why dragging this out will only exacerbate the division in our country and cause each side to harden their position even more. Let's bring it to a vote and move on.

First of all, let me say this. You engage in fair debate and I understand your position. I do not necessarily disagree with you that Vindman's testimony will probably not move the needle much for most Trump supporters.

But its not true that all republican congressmen are conceding quid pro quo. Those with any integrity can't bring themselves to say its okay to hold up military aid to Ukraine for political purposes.

Here is what Trump's biggest supporter says:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news...hing-trump-if-quid-pro-quo-proven/4051241002/


So where exactly do you stand? At least you concede the obvious that Trump's supporters deny, that is, that he clearly withheld aid to squeeze Ukraine into an investigation.

You do not see that as an impeachable offense? A US president withheld military aid voted for by Congress to an ally for political gain?

This is why the republicans are fighting quid pro quo. Even Graham admits he might consider impeachment if there was quid pro quo. Where Graham is being intellectually dishonest is pretending quid pro quo has not been proven anyway.

Back to my post on Vindman. Why his testimony is so significant to me is that even Trump's attack dogs in Congress like Nunes will have a hard time going after Vindman. Of course, Nunes will. But there are some republicans very. very uncomfortable with what Trump has done and who morally will have a hard time trying to paint Vindman as a bad guy.

 

[st dude]

On the other hand, the Lt.Col. is a Ukrainian American who expressed a concern that if the Ukraine became involved in investigating Democratic corruption that it would cost the Ukraine the bilateral support the Ukraine currently enjoys.

It was, in his view, a no win proposition for the Ukraine.

So with everything you have read and heard from multiple sources, do you believe or not that more probably than not Trump delayed aid to Ukraine for political purposes? Is there any source you would believe? Even yuyi64 appears to concede there was quid pro quo.

Do you think Trump held up military aid to squeeze Ukraine to investigate Biden? Try to be as objective as you can when answering. I know i am biased, I just cannot see how any reasonable person doesn't see quid pro quo.

 

[Beach Friends]

So with everything you have read and heard from multiple sources, do you believe or not that more probably than not Trump delayed aid to Ukraine for political purposes? Is there any source you would believe? Even yuyi64 appears to concede there was quid pro quo.

Do you think Trump held up military aid to squeeze Ukraine to investigate Biden? Try to be as objective as you can when answering. I know i am biased, I just cannot see how any reasonable person doesn't see quid pro quo.

Just to clarify, I was pointing out what the LTC said he was concerned that the Ukraine would lose billateral support if they investigated Obama era corruption.

I have absolutely no reason not to believe that.

I am far less concerned about Trump asking for an investigation than I am that the reasons why an investigation is needed in the first place.

I don't blame the man. I hope the Ukraine and all the other foreign nations cooperate fully and honestly and we get to the bottom of all the shady crap that was being pulled by Biden, HRC, the DNC and the IC.

Those folks created the situation where the current administration is having to talk to foreign nations about corruption in the first place.

I really don't see any real concern coming from Democrats about the attempted coup, the Clinton Foundation etc. So, all of this outrage about Trump's phone call just seems pretty phony to me.

But, I will wait until the details come in. I think if you went back and looked at the old Russia thread and how it developed you would see why that's a good idea.

 

[st dude]

Just to clarify, I was pointing out what the LTC said he was concerned that the Ukraine would lose billateral support if they investigated Obama era corruption.

I have absolutely no reason not to believe that.

I am far less concerned about Trump asking for an investigation than I am that the reasons why an investigation is needed in the first place.

I don't blame the man. I hope the Ukraine and all the other foreign nations cooperate fully and honestly and we get to the bottom of all the shady crap that was being pulled by Biden, HRC, the DNC and the IC.

Those folks created the situation where the current administration is having to talk to foreign nations about corruption in the first place.

I really don't see any real concern coming from Democrats about the attempted coup, the Clinton Foundation etc. So, all of this outrage about Trump's phone call just seems pretty phony to me.

But, I will wait until the details come in. I think if you went back and looked at the old Russia thread and how it developed you would see why that's a good idea.

Thanks for responding , but I don't think you answered my question which would help me understand your position better:

Do you think there is enough evidence for you to conclude Trump likely withheld military aid, approved by Congress, to get Ukraine to investigate a political rival?

Do you think it is an impeachable offense to withhold military aid to an ally to get them to do you a political favor?


It would help me understand you better if I knew where you stood on this. I am happy to answer any questions you have. I can start with Biden's son. I think the arrangement he had with the Ukraine company was terribly inappropriate and clearly (at least to me) the reason he was being paid so much money was to have access to influence his dad.

I am still outraged Trump held up military aid to an ally. Is my outrage phony? Or are we okay with not only enlisting n foreign allies to help in our elections, but also in coercing them to do so?

Or do you just not believe Trump was squeezing Ukraine? I cannot see how any objective person cant see Trump was using military aid to squeeze Ukraine.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Thanks for responding , but I don't think you answered my question which would help me understand your position better:

Do you think there is enough evidence for you to conclude Trump likely withheld military aid, approved by Congress, to get Ukraine to investigate a political rival?

Do you think it is an impeachable offense to withhold military aid to an ally to get them to do you a political favor?


It would help me understand you better if I knew where you stood on this. I am happy to answer any questions you have. I can start with Biden's son. I think the arrangement he had with the Ukraine company was terribly inappropriate and clearly (at least to me) the reason he was being paid so much money was to have access to influence his dad.

I am still outraged Trump held up military aid to an ally. Is my outrage phony? Or are we okay with not only enlisting n foreign allies to help in our elections, but also in coercing them to do so?

Or do you just not believe Trump was squeezing Ukraine? I cannot see how any objective person cant see Trump was using military aid to squeeze Ukraine.

The very nature of foreign relations is squeezing the other guy or avoiding getting squeezed.

It is hard to believe that the American Left is this naive about it, so one must believe that it is willful.

The only question is whether the squeeze put on Ukraine was in the national interest of the US or not. If it was in the national interest, it should not be contemplated as a pretext for impeachment except by parties interested in finding a crime to fit the predetermined sentence of impeachment.

A recent piece by Andrew McCarthy is relevent

Foreign relations is categorically distinct from domestic law-enforcement. The imposition of quid pro quo demands and intense pressure (even to the point of what would be extortion in the domestic setting) are staples of negotiations between sovereigns. A quid pro quo is improper in foreign relations only when a government official is seeking something that is not arguably in the national interest, particularly if it involves self-dealing — e.g., using government power to further a personal or partisan political objective.

Stop Claiming ‘No Quid Pro Quo’ | National Review

The President’s best Ukraine defense has always been that any quid pro quo demand was not close to an impeachable offense.

www.nationalreview.com

The rest of the piece is definitely worth reading.

:trump2:

 

[st dude]

Even Graham concedes it might be impeachable if there was quid pro quo.

Since there was obviously quid pro quo, which Trump denies, denies, denies, - the Trump supporter fallback position is Trump withheld military aid out of love for country and for our national interest? LOL

And its just a coincidence he happened to be asking for an investigation into a very possible political opponent in 2020?

Come on Archie, you really cant believe this isn't politically motivated? If Obama did this you would be calling for his head. So would I ,

There are no gray lines here. Yes we use influence with our allies all the time. But that's a far, far cry from withholding military aid to have a political opponent investigated. Do you really think thats okay?

 

[Beach Friends]

Well, you will have to take my word for it when I say that I don't know whether the aid was actually held up and if so for what reasons. How would I at this point? I am not going to pretend to know how such funds are released and what all could cause the delays. I have worked with government agencies enough to know that one should not assume that they know the cause of any inneficiencies.

Do I think Trump was doing a little arm twisting to get the Ukraine to investigate? Yeah, probably. Was he going to actually withhold the funds? I don't think so, I am not sure he could.

Do I give a damn? Not yet.

We should be investigating and I really don't think Trump was doing anything other than stupidly running his mouth, which he is all too prone to do.

I will pay more attention as the facts are fleshed out.

I am much more concerned about what is about to come out with the FISA report and what Durham has uncovered.

 

[wardorican]

You're missing the point. It's not about believing the witness or not; I think most people that have read the call transcript and read the Volker texts believe there was quid pro quo involved. The difference of opinion arises with respect to whether whatever happened is reason enough for impeachment and removal of a President. Those that want the President impeached believe that what he did is reason for enough for impeachment and removal, and those that don't support impeachment don't see quid pro quo with respect to dishing out foreign aid as anything warranting impeachment. Neither side is going to convince the other one that their position is wrong. That's why dragging this out will only exacerbate the division in our country and cause each side to harden their position even more. Let's bring it to a vote and move on.

Well, that is a change. I'd say a month ago, "there was no quid pro quo", "it was a perfect call " was the chorus. Now it is, of course he's guilty? Or are you trying to split the idea that what is best for the country sometimes mixes in a dash of politics vs pure personal politics? I get that argument, to a point. Still doesn't pass the sniff test to me.

 

[JimEverett]

I know that impeachment can be based on whatever Congress wants to base it on, so that is not why I am asking this, but is there a law on the books that prohibits a President from asking for an investigation that touches upon a potential political rival and tying such a request to already approved aid funding?

 

[Dadsdream]

I know that impeachment can be based on whatever Congress wants to base it on, so that is not why I am asking this, but is there a law on the books that prohibits a President from asking for an investigation that touches upon a potential political rival and tying such a request to already approved aid funding?

No. It's political arm twisting and bullying, but it's not illegal.
It's a rich man's game and as such, hitting the other fellow in the pocketbook has always been fair game.

EDIT: Moreover, foreign aid falls under the State Department, which falls under the Executive Branch, under the Chief Executive, ie the President.
Attempts to place authority in such matters under the scrutiny of the Legislative Branch get shot down by the Judicial Branch based on Separation of Powers. Congress can cut off or add to the funding to the aid package , but they can't oversee its execution. There's still such a thing as a Pocket Veto, where the President simply does not act on something Congress has authorized.

You know, it really boggles my mind when people say they're going to fix this once their party gets in power. The thing they think they're going to do to "fix" the Separation of Powers is to do away with the Separation of Powers by giving it all to the Legislative Branch simply because they despise the current Chief Executive. It doesn't work that way. Sheesh!

 

[st dude]

I know that impeachment can be based on whatever Congress wants to base it on, so that is not why I am asking this, but is there a law on the books that prohibits a President from asking for an investigation that touches upon a potential political rival and tying such a request to already approved aid funding?

I am not aware of any criminal statute that says withholding aid from another country for political purposes is a crime.

I can say this with relative certainty. Before this happened if you surveyed the House and the Senate say ten years ago, 90% from both parties would say withholding military aid from an ally for political purposes is wrong and impeachable. Lindsey Graham still says that.

Had Obama been caught doing the same thing the outcry from Republicans would be deafening.

Now would some democrats argue its not a crime or no quid quo pro or some of the other ridiculous and inconsistent defenses some republicans are doing? I have no doubt Obama would have his defenders.

I would not be one of them. There is no gray line here. That's why republicans screamed no quid pro quo for so long. What Trump did is not defensible. Its never been fair game.

 

[superchuck500]

 

[JimEverett]

I am not aware of any criminal statute that says withholding aid from another country for political purposes is a crime.

I can say this with relative certainty. Before this happened if you surveyed the House and the Senate say ten years ago, 90% from both parties would say withholding military aid from an ally for political purposes is wrong and impeachable. Lindsey Graham still says that.

I disagree with that given the way you framed it. I have no problem with foreign aid approvals/denials being made for political purposes - not sure how you could begin to police that.

Is it impeachable if a President discusses poll numbers with people on the topic of Israeli aid? On military aid to Saudi Arabia?
What if, within those discussions, a lawyer for the President's Re-election campaign is present and is even engaged in the conversation?

Now the Trump thing is still different in that there was a direct request to do something.

What if a PResident tells the Israeli Prime Minister it is going to be difficult to get U.S. aid if Israel begins developing a new settlement? In part because the PResident knows a new settlement will derail his peace process and might end up costing him the election back home?

Or what if the President tells the Israeli PM that he will look into decreasing aid if he goes and addresses Congress - presumably in part because the address before Congress can help his political rivals?

 

[Taurus]

I know that impeachment can be based on whatever Congress wants to base it on, so that is not why I am asking this, but is there a law on the books that prohibits a President from asking for an investigation that touches upon a potential political rival and tying such a request to already approved aid funding?

Yes, actually. It's illegal to ask a foreign power to aid your campaign or do any personal favor for you.
It's called bribery.
You can *hire* a foreigner to do research or dig up dirt, so long as it's lined out in your campaign finance forms.

Jesus does our media suck at explaining these things. They're so terrified of stating a fact they equivocate themselves right up their own arses.

 

[JimEverett]

Yes, actually. It's illegal to ask a foreign power to aid your campaign or do any personal favor for you.
It's called bribery.
You can *hire* a foreigner to do research or dig up dirt, so long as it's lined out in your campaign finance forms.

Jesus does our media suck at explaining these things. They're so terrified of stating a fact they equivocate themselves right up their own arses.

[Mod Edit Leave out the snarky personal comments]

What bribery statute are you referencing?

 

[Dadsdream]

We had a president who got caught whispering to a foreign head of state that he'd be able to do more for him after he got reelected, with the explicit implication that it was in the foreign leader 's best interest.

But, I digress.