The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (24 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

 

[B4YOU]

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?

US Constitution
Article II Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

The Constitution Says ‘Bribery’ Is Impeachable. What Does That Mean?

Now that Congress has launched an impeachment investigation into President Trump’s effort to use the Ukrainian government to target a political rival, much ink has been spilled on the question of whether Trump’s actions amount to “high crimes and misdemeanors” for which he may be impeached. In...

www.lawfareblog.com

The Federal Bribery Statute, 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)
(2) being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for:
(A) being influenced in the performance of any official act;
(B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or
(C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;
. . . shall be fined under this title . . . or imprisoned for not more than fifteen years, or both.

https://www.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/public-integrity/a_guide_to_commonly_used_federal_statutes_in_public_corruption_cases.pdf

52 USC 30121: Contributions and donations by foreign nationals
(a) Prohibition
It shall be unlawful for-
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title:52%20section:30121%20edition:prelim)

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

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.

Yes, you do digress.

Do you really think this is similar?

To put this in another context. Are you ok with President Warren (or whoever the next Democrat president is) putting pressure on a foreign country to publicly announce an investigation into presidential candidate Crenshaw (or insert your preferred candidate) during the election cycle?

Because that's what this is about. Investigating corruption is fine and well within the President's rights. Putting pressure on a foreign government or tying aid to a direct benefit to the United States is also fine. But that is not what Trump is being accused of. He's being accused of putting pressure on a foreign government to do something to solely benefit him personally.

And the reason he is being accused of that is because he did not go through the normal course of action when investigating corruption. The DOJ did not launch it's own investigation first, and then initiate contacts with specific lines of questions to their foreign counterparts. Further, the ask was for Ukraine to make a public announcement of the investigation. Further, the President requested the foreign government to work with his personal attorney, and not the DOJ.

This is not a stretch to think that the President was using the power and resources of the United States government to pressure a foreign government solely to aid him politically.

 

[LA - L.A.]

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.

Which president got caught doing this?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

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.

Which president got caught doing this?

Obama did to Medvedev with regards to negotiations over missile defense. He said he'd have more flexibility after his last election he'd ever run.

 

[Dadsdream]

Which president got caught doing this?

There was also that case where a president cut a deal to remove our missiles from Turkey (without admitting that we had them there in the first place or that we removed them) if the Russians would remove their missiles from Cuba.

Was Congress consulted? No. He had full authority to cut a deal.

Unfortunately, not everybody is comfortable with the current president cutting those kinds of deals.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

There was also that case where a president cut a deal to remove our missiles from Turkey (without admitting that we had them there in the first place or that we removed them) if the Russians would remove their missiles from Cuba.

Was Congress consulted? No. He had full authority to cut a deal.

Unfortunately, not everybody is comfortable with the current president cutting those kinds of deals.

I think it's more accurate to say that not everybody believes the current president is cutting those kinds of deals, but is instead doing this solely for his own benefit and not for that of the country.

 

[Dadsdream]

Yes, you do digress.

Do you really think this is similar?

To put this in another context. Are you ok with President Warren (or whoever the next Democrat president is) putting pressure on a foreign country to publicly announce an investigation into presidential candidate Crenshaw (or insert your preferred candidate) during the election cycle?

Because that's what this is about. Investigating corruption is fine and well within the President's rights. Putting pressure on a foreign government or tying aid to a direct benefit to the United States is also fine. But that is not what Trump is being accused of. He's being accused of putting pressure on a foreign government to do something to solely benefit him personally.

And the reason he is being accused of that is because he did not go through the normal course of action when investigating corruption. The DOJ did not launch it's own investigation first, and then initiate contacts with specific lines of questions to their foreign counterparts. Further, the ask was for Ukraine to make a public announcement of the investigation. Further, the President requested the foreign government to work with his personal attorney, and not the DOJ.

This is not a stretch to think that the President was using the power and resources of the United States government to pressure a foreign government solely to aid him politically.

Well, Jim, there's the problem. Since the DOJ is an arm of the Executive Branch, it's under the President's control, and it serves at the President's discretion.

That's something that keeps getting left out over and over again in these discussions. Can the President dissolve the Department of Justice and create a new Department of Whatever? Of course he can.
Can he throw out all the rules and make his own? Of course he can.

Look at Homeland Security. POOF! New federal executive department from nothing! Totally new regulations too!

We have a War Department for most of the country's history? POOF! Now we have a Department of Defense. Totally new regulations, new internal power structure, everything!

These department are transient institutions that serve the office of the Chief Executive just as the people who work in these departments serve at the discretion of the President.

Too many Americans these days don't even know how their government is formed or how it actually functions. They fall prey to sensationalist headlines and bombastic politicians who prey upon and compound their ignorance of their own institutions.

So, you believe everything this President does is for his own personal gain every time?

Well, you may be right. I'm not sure what a 70-something year-old man with more money than Midas would need with more, but maybe I lack insight and understanding.

See, I didn't watch his TV show because he literally made my skin crawl. I couldn't stand his smug, condescending, holier-than-thou persona, or his screeching voice, or his hair.

But, I'm an old Cold Warrior. I salute the rank/office, say "Yes, sir!" and do my damnedest to carry out my orders, no matter what jerk happens to have issued them.

Nice talking with you, Jim, as always.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Well, Jim, there's the problem. Since the DOJ is an arm of the Executive Branch, it's under the President's control, and it serves at the President's discretion.

That's something that keeps getting left out over and over again in these discussions. Can the President dissolve the Department of Justice and create a new Department of Whatever? Of course he can.
Can he throw out all the rules and make his own? Of course he can.

Look at Homeland Security. POOF! New federal executive department from nothing! Totally new regulations too!

We have a War Department for most of the country's history? POOF! Now we have a Department of Defense. Totally new regulations, new internal power structure, everything!

These department are transient institutions that serve the office of the Chief Executive just as the people who work in these departments serve at the discretion of the President.

Too many Americans these days don't even know how their government is formed or how it actually functions. They fall prey to sensationalist headlines and bombastic politicians who prey upon and compound their ignorance of their own institutions.

But that's not what he's doing. He's asking a foreign government to work with his personal attorney that is not subject to an IG rules, or ethics probes or any other oversight. Further, he's asking that foreign government to make a public announcement about that investigation. Both of those things make it reasonable to think that he's doing this for his own benefit and not the benefit of the country.

So, you believe everything this President does is for his own personal gain every time?

When did I say that? This is a serious question. I just did a quick re-read of my most recent posts and I didn't say that everything he did is for his own personal gain every time. Why would you ask that question? Please give a direct answer.

Well, you may be right. I'm not sure what a 70-something year-old man with more money than Midas would need with more, but maybe I lack insight and understanding.

Does Trump strike you as a very secure individual that is content?

Also, to pull an old Trump tactic, "people are saying that Trump was close to bankruptcy again and needed the presidency to help his cash flow". Who knows? People are saying it...

See, I didn't watch his TV show because he literally made my skin crawl. I couldn't stand his smug, condescending, holier-than-thou persona, or his screeching voice, or his hair.

But, I'm an old Cold Warrior. I salute the rank office, say "Yes, sir!" and do my damnedest to carry out my orders, no matter what jerk happens to have issued them.

And that's fine and what you should do as long as you are issued a lawful order. You can think that a president is corrupt and should be impeached, but as long as your orders are given lawfully and the president hasn't been convicted you only have two real options. Follow the lawful order or resign.

Nice talking with you, Jim, as always.

Likewise

 

[Beach Friends]

So, the LTC testified he spoke about the content of the phone call with several people. When Rep. Johnson asked who had spoken with, Schiff instructs the witness not to answer.

Anyone on the other side of the aisle see a problem with this?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

So, the LTC testified he spoke about the content of the phone call with several people. When Rep. Johnson asked who had spoken with, Schiff instructs the witness not to answer.

Anyone on the other side of the aisle see a problem with this?

The fear is that Johnson was trying to get Vondland to out the whistleblower. Which you have to admit is a Republican strategy.

 

[Dadsdream]

1. But that's not what he's doing. He's asking a foreign government to work with his personal attorney that is not subject to an IG rules, or ethics probes or any other oversight. Further, he's asking that foreign government to make a public announcement about that investigation. Both of those things make it reasonable to think that he's doing this for his own benefit and not the benefit of the country.

2. When did I say that? This is a serious question. I just did a quick re-read of my most recent posts and I didn't say that everything he did is for his own personal gain every time. Why would you ask that question? Please give a direct answer.

3. Does Trump strike you as a very secure individual that is content?

4. Also, to pull an old Trump tactic, "people are saying that Trump was close to bankruptcy again and needed the presidency to help his cash flow". Who knows? People are saying it...

5. And that's fine and what you should do as long as you are issued a lawful order. You can think that a president is corrupt and should be impeached, but as long as your orders are given lawfully and the president hasn't been convicted you only have two real options. Follow the lawful order or resign.

Likewise

Well, since I've forgotten more text coding than I can remember at the moment, I'll switch to ye olde paragraph numbering, so you can follow.

1. Given what happened to his previous personal attorney, I'm not exactly sure whether this is germane. Now, the fact that it's celebrity politician/lawyer Rudy is definitely a factor. Yes, I do believe Joe and his son got involved in some rather shady dealings, based on their name and political clout, not merit. Is calling on a foreign government to look into those shady dealings or have US aid withheld a criminal act? It's going to be a long and circuitous route to the Supreme Court, but I fully see this heading that way, just as you probably do.

2. Looks like I'm guilty of lumping you together with others and not necessarily treating you as an individual. Always an error, in your case. It's become the standard go-to response that everything the President is doing is for his own personal gain. I really think he plays that up, too. Look at the abortive conference at Mar-a-Lago. Geez, what was he thinking? He craves the spotlight, I do believe.

3. He's an egotist. So long as he is the center of attention, he's content. If he's not, he will do something, ANYTHING to regain that attention. He's also a control freak. Now, he's not the first president to have multiple foibles, but his are probably the most extreme I've seen in my lifetime.

4. Yes, and my wife's Facebook feed keeps pointing out that he's not accepting the presidential pay to which he is entitled. Is that even true? Who knows! I really don't care one way or the other.

5. Exactly. So far, he hasn't been convicted of anything. But, the incessant demands people are making on the Internet are that everybody should denounce him this minute and openly join the not-so-loyal opposition. They have become increasingly strident, bordering on manic.

As always, my responses are my own, written in my own words, using my honest thoughts, impressions and ideas.

 

[Beach Friends]

The fear is that Johnson was trying to get Vondland to out the whistleblower.

I understand that is their stated reason, but it is not acceptable for one side to prevent the other from learning the identity of witnesses on the grounds that one of them may be the whistleblower. That's ridiculous.

 

[LA - L.A.]

You said this:

...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.

The way you described it is inaccurate. Obama was telling him that he would not be in a position to negotiate a treaty until after the election was over. He did not ask or pressure Russia into publicly announcing an investigation into one of his political rivals in the election, which is what Trump did.

There was also that case where a president cut a deal to remove our missiles from Turkey (without admitting that we had them there in the first place or that we removed them) if the Russians would remove their missiles from Cuba.

Again another irrelevant comparison to what Trump has done. The missile deal was not done to ask or pressure Russia into publicly announcing an investigation into one of his political rivals during an election.

Do you have a single example of any other president besides Trump asking or pressuring a foreign government into publicly announcing an investigation into a political rival during an election?

If you do not, then please stop making the unsupported claim that what Trump did is normal and other presidents have done it.

 

[Dadsdream]

You said this:

The way you described it is inaccurate. Obama was telling him that he would not be in a position to negotiate a treaty until after the election was over. He did not ask or pressure Russia into providing dirt on one of his political rivals in the election, which is what Trump did.

Again another irrelevant comparison to what Trump has done. The missile deal was not done to ask or pressure Russia into providing dirt on one of his political rivals during an election.

Do you have a single example of any other president besides Trump asking or pressuring a foreign government to provide dirt on a political rival during an election?

If you do not, then please stop making the unsupported claim that what Trump did is normal and other presidents have done it.

Let's see, you're demanding an exact match correlation? No there isn't one that I know of.

Do the two examples I provided, of Obama and Kennedy using their executive powers to cut deals with foreign governments without consulting Congress, provide historical examples of actions that would have been jeopardized or not taken had they not had the authority vested in them by their office?

Yes, yes they do.

It's that same authority that the President used, or misused depending on your take, in the case of the carrot-and-stick approach to the Ukraine.

I sincerely believe this is going to end up in the Supreme Court. I also believe executive powers will be upheld.

Your last sentence indicates you were not able to follow my chain of thought and fact. That's OK. Not many people can.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I understand that is their stated reason, but it is not acceptable for one side to prevent the other from learning the identity of witnesses on the grounds that one of them may be the whistleblower. That's ridiculous.

Even in a court of law, witness identities are some times shielded to protect witnesses, so it is at times acceptable.

Congress isn't bound by the same due process as is the judicial branch.

It's empirically acceptable and reasonable to protect witnesses from retaliation. The whistle blower laws specifically mandate protecting the identity of whistle blowers.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Well, since I've forgotten more text coding than I can remember at the moment, I'll switch to ye olde paragraph numbering, so you can follow.

1. Given what happened to his previous personal attorney, I'm not exactly sure whether this is germane. Now, the fact that it's celebrity politician/lawyer Rudy is definitely a factor. Yes, I do believe Joe and his son got involved in some rather shady dealings, based on their name and political clout, not merit. Is calling on a foreign government to look into those shady dealings or have US aid withheld a criminal act? It's going to be a long and circuitous route to the Supreme Court, but I fully see this heading that way, just as you probably do.

So, I'm still not exactly sure what it is you and others think Biden did. That he used his position as Vice President to pressure Ukraine to fire a prosecutor who might be investigating his son, or the company that he's a part of? Is that right?

OK, and the evidence for believing that is that Biden's son was on the board of directors of Burisma. And Burisma was being investigated by Shokin. And Vice President Biden delivered an ultimatum to the previous president that Shokin needed to be fired. Is there anything else, or is that the gist of it?

The reason I ask is that if that's it, are you saying we should open an investigation into every time a relative of a top official receives benefit from a business in a foreign country in which that official is doing something in official capacity? Is that the standard we're going to use going forward?

And if so, what should that investigation look like? Who performs the investigation? Should it be performed outside a government agency with oversight?

I'm ok with investigating public officials. I also think high level public officials should be divested of control over their assets where their work could have a direct impact. But I don't think that's what Trump is going for.

To me you have to ask yourself, what was the action, and what was the benefit. In the Biden case -- the action was to pressure Ukraine to fire Shokin. Was that action unusual? Was Biden leading the charge or a major voice in pushing for his removal? Considering several countries were pushing Ukraine to fire Shokin because he WASN'T investigating corruption, and I haven't seen any evidence that Biden was a major factor in trying to influence US policy in this regard, it doesn't appear the action in question was that unusual. Do you have something else that indicates it was an unusual action?

As far as benefit. What was the benefit to Biden? His son was on the board of governors of a company that was being investigated (and later cleared by a subsequent Ukrainian AG). If Shokin was not removed, what would that have cost Biden? What would that have cost Biden's son? This is harder to quantify since we don't know what Shokin would have decided, what the penalty would have been, and what the company would have done vis a vis Hunter after they paid whatever penalty would have been levied on them (a penalty that never came afterwards in the investigation). So we have several steps with an unquantifiable benefit.

So, is that your threshold for investigation? A relative doing business in a foreign country where an action was taken that probably would have occurred anyway if there was no connection? Or is there some other piece of evidence that you have?

2. Looks like I'm guilty of lumping you together with others and not necessarily treating you as an individual. Always an error, in your case. It's become the standard go-to response that everything the President is doing is for his own personal gain. I really think he plays that up, too. Look at the abortive conference at Mar-a-Lago. Geez, what was he thinking? He craves the spotlight, I do believe.

It's ok. I'm highly skeptical of Trump and his motives. But I'm pretty sure he'd order the stike against Baghdadi with or without direct credit. And wanting credit for your actions isn't a crime either..... every politician hopes their actions will benefit them in some way, either through praise or re-election, or a lucrative speaking tour afterwards.

3. He's an egotist. So long as he is the center of attention, he's content. If he's not, he will do something, ANYTHING to regain that attention. He's also a control freak. Now, he's not the first president to have multiple foibles, but his are probably the most extreme I've seen in my lifetime.

No argument from me obviously. I'll also add, that his own actions and words lead to the criticism he gets. He's being treated exactly the way he's treated others... so it seems rather weak for him to complain about it.

4. Yes, and my wife's Facebook feed keeps pointing out that he's not accepting the presidential pay to which he is entitled. Is that even true? Who knows! I really don't care one way or the other.

5. Exactly. So far, he hasn't been convicted of anything. But, the incessant demands people are making on the Internet are that everybody should denounce him this minute and openly join the not-so-loyal opposition. They have become increasingly strident, bordering on manic.

So, I think this President desperately cares what his base thinks. I really think if his base was more critical of his stupid tweets, and all of his other baggage, he'd stop.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Let's see, you're demanding an exact match correlation? No there isn't one that I know of.

It doesn't have to be an exact match. Do you have any examples of a president using their executive power over foreign policy in a way that would give them a personal benefit in an election?

Do the two examples I provided, of Obama and Kennedy using their executive powers to cut deals with foreign governments without consulting Congress, provide historical examples of actions that would have been jeopardized or not taken had they not had the authority vested in them by their office?

The main question is did Trump abuse his executive powers by using them for personal political gain. Having an executive power does not negate an abuse of those powers.

There is a question of whether or not the president has the constiutional power to withhold foreign aid that has been allocated by Congress. Do you have an example of any other president withholding foreign aid after Congress approved it?

It's that same authority that the President used, or misused depending on your take, in the case of the carrot-and-stick approach to the Ukraine.

Which other president withheld foreign aid to a country after Congress approved it? Even if the president is deemed to have that power, a misuse of that power for personal political gain would be an impeachable offense.

Your last sentence indicates you were not able to follow my chain of thought and fact. That's OK. Not many people can.

It seems your thought process is that the president has the power to do whatever they want with foreign policy without any Congressional oversight, therefore nothing they do in exercising that power is an impeachable offense.

If I'm mistaken, please explain how I'm mistaken. Merely saying others aren't able to follow your chain of thought doesn't help anyone to understand your chain of thought.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I understand that is their stated reason, but it is not acceptable for one side to prevent the other from learning the identity of witnesses on the grounds that one of them may be the whistleblower. That's ridiculous.

So, I understand your point. I think it's fair for the Republicans to want to figure out who also might be a witness, and that they should be allowed to do so.

So, the question then becomes do you trust that that is what Johnson was doing or do you think he was just trying to out the whistleblower. And if you do you think he was just honestly trying to find witnesses, how do you protect the whistleblower? As well.

Basically, what information is Johnson looking for, and can you help him get that information while also protecting the whistleblower?