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

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

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.

You are right about one thing, too many Americans do not know how their government is formed or how it functions. DoJ, DoD, ect, ect were all created by Congress, not some presidential decree. POTUS cannot snap his fingers and dissolve these departments, it will take an act of Congress.

 

[LA - L.A.]

You are right about one thing, too many Americans do not know how their government is formed or how it functions. DoJ, DoD, ect, ect were all created by Congress, not some presidential decree. POTUS cannot snap his fingers and dissolve these departments, it will take an act of Congress.

Or Congress's approval of Presidential reorganization of departments. Either way, the current precedent is that Congress has the final say over departments.

 

[Intensesaint]

You are right about one thing, too many Americans do not know how their government is formed or how it functions. DoJ, DoD, ect, ect were all created by Congress, not some presidential decree. POTUS cannot snap his fingers and dissolve these departments, it will take an act of Congress.

I think you are reading him wrong. Of course you cannot dissolves the entire department and do away with it, but as president you can terminate the employment of every single person in a corresponding department.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I think you are reading him wrong. Of course you cannot dissolves the entire department and do away with it, but as president you can terminate the employment of every single person in a corresponding department.

His political appointees, yes, as for the other Federal employees, they are not serving at the pleasure of the President so I'm not sure he can just can them all.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I think you are reading him wrong. Of course you cannot dissolves the entire department and do away with it, but as president you can terminate the employment of every single person in a corresponding department.

I don't think that's true. The president can't fire non-political appointees at whim.

 

[Intensesaint]

I don't think that's true. The president can't fire non-political appointees at whim.

The president may fire anyone they can appoint. As well as any member of the military, ambassadors, and white house staffers.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

The president may fire anyone they can appoint. As well as any member of the military, ambassadors, and white house staffers.

That's what I said... he can't fire non-political appointees. Which means he can fire political appointees. I guess I left out military personnel ... but the point is the President cannot just fire whoever he wants within the executive branch.

 

[Dadsdream]

You are right about one thing, too many Americans do not know how their government is formed or how it functions. DoJ, DoD, ect, ect were all created by Congress, not some presidential decree. POTUS cannot snap his fingers and dissolve these departments, it will take an act of Congress.

My apologies for oversimplifying a VERY complicated subject.

Some things require new legislation, some do not. Depends. Certain amounts of reorganization take place without congressional approval all the time.

Of course, when you have a president who controls both houses, it can take on the appearance of a rubber stamp formality operation.

Organizing Executive Branch Agencies: Who Makes the Call? Jared P. Cole Legislative Attorney June 27, 2018

In a series of executive orders, directives, and publicly released recommendations, the Trump Administration has proposed reorganizing the executive branch. The reorganization proposals range from restructuring entities within an existing agency, to moving entities from one existing agency to another, to consolidating existing agencies into newly created departments, to privatizing certain government agencies. The Administration has indicated that it considers some of these proposals to be within its existing authority, while others may require new legislation authorizing such action.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/LSB10158.pdf

 

[Lazybones]

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.

The house does have the right to make the rules up as they go. It’s unfortunate that as a public we let them get away with it. And the R’s are not different.

 

[Taurus]

[Mod Edit Leave out the snarky personal comments]

What bribery statute are you referencing?

The one right there just before "high crimes and misdemeanors" in the Constitution.
When it was written there were no Federal crimes, there was only the blueprint of a Federal government. Yet the Framers specifically called out certain acts as worthy of impeachment.
Committing a statutory crime isn't necessary.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

The house does have the right to make the rules up as they go. It’s unfortunate that as a public we let them get away with it. And the R’s are not different.

The rules being used right now were approved by the Republicans initially.

But as you suggest, that doesn't mean that we have to accept it.

So, do we all agree that a whistleblower's identity should be protected? I assume the answer is yes, if you disagree please let me know.

So, given that restriction, how do we get the information that Johnson wanted? I think to answer that, I'd have to know what information Johnson wanted ultimately... what sorts of legitimate things could Johnson use with knowing who Vondland reported this to? There may be a way to create a system that he can get that information without outing the whistleblower.

 

[Intensesaint]

So, do we all agree that a whistleblower's identity should be protected? I assume the answer is yes, if you disagree please let me know.

Disagree. Especially when it comes to legal precedent. You have the right to face your accuser. Also a prosecutor cannot submit testimony from an anonymous witness and not allow the defense to cross examine.

I agree a whistleblower should be protected from retribution and blow-back. But a person should always be able to face their accuser. This could set a very bad precedent going forward.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Disagree. Especially when it comes to legal precedent. You have the right to face your accuser. Also a prosecutor cannot submit testimony from an anonymous witness and not allow the defense to cross examine.

I agree a whistleblower should be protected from retribution and blow-back. But a person should always be able to face their accuser. This could set a very bad precedent going forward.

But this isn't a trial, right? And no evidence from the whistleblower will be used in a trial... so the whistleblower is not an accuser in a trial.

70 out of the 73 IG's in government appointed by Democrats and Republicans disagree with your stance on this.

 

[Intensesaint]

But this isn't a trial, right? And no evidence from the whistleblower will be used in a trial... so the whistleblower is not an accuser in a trial.

70 out of the 73 IG's in government appointed by Democrats and Republicans disagree with your stance on this.

Well, I guess I'm not a sheep. Sorry I go against the grain here.

And an impeachment is very much a trial.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Well, I guess I'm not a sheep. Sorry I go against the grain here.

And an impeachment is very much a trial.

Or your just blinded by bias. If you're that far out of line from standard watchdog ethics, right?

We aren't at impeachment yet. We're at the investigation stage. If testimony from the whistleblower is used to impeach Trump and it goes to the Senate, then yes, Trump gets to face his accuser. However, there is no testimony that will be used to convict Trump that comes from the whistleblower. All the testimony that will be used is coming from the sources testifying.

Put this another way, what use would you or the Republicans get out of knowing the identity of the whistleblower other than to retaliate against them?

 

[Intensesaint]

Or your just blinded by bias. If you're that far out of line from standard watchdog ethics, right?

We aren't at impeachment yet. We're at the investigation stage. If testimony from the whistleblower is used to impeach Trump and it goes to the Senate, then yes, Trump gets to face his accuser. However, there is no testimony that will be used to convict Trump that comes from the whistleblower. All the testimony that will be used is coming from the sources testifying.

Put this another way, what use would you or the Republicans get out of knowing the identity of the whistleblower other than to retaliate against them?

You're blinded by bias thinking there is anything wrong with the presidents call. Good thing he released the transcripts otherwise the dems could just mark shirt up.

The whistleblower is making an accusation against another person, that person that is the target of the accusation should have the right to face the person accusing them of wrong doing.

By the way, is this going to be the new tactic on this board... screaming you're biased because you don't hold the same view as another person?

 

[Beach Friends]

But this isn't a trial, right? And no evidence from the whistleblower will be used in a trial... so the whistleblower is not an accuser in a trial.

70 out of the 73 IG's in government appointed by Democrats and Republicans disagree with your stance on this.

Can you tell me where I can find the opinion they signed off on? I am interested in seeing what they cited.

All I really know is that the whistleblower is protected against retaliation and the IG is not supposed to disclose his/her/zie's identity (but even that requirement of non disclosure is not absolute).

I don't know of any law that would prevent the disclosure of entire categories of fact witnesses on the basis that one of the witnesses within that category is also the whistleblower.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

You're blinded by bias thinking there is anything wrong with the presidents call. Good thing he released the transcripts otherwise the dems could just mark shirt up.

Except that we know today by Vondland's testimony that whole sections of the call were left out.

Are you seriously ok, with every President from this day forward asking foreign heads of states that need something from us to publicly open up investigations into their political opponents outside of the DOJ but with a personal lawyer with no oversight? You're ok with that?

The whistleblower is making an accusation against another person, that person that is the target of the accusation should have the right to face the person accusing them of wrong doing.

So, you don't believe in whistleblower protections as they currently stand?