The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (17 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

 

[LA - L.A.]

I know the House has not even voted to have an impeachment inquiry. That's just another problem the Democrats have.

Since the comparison is always to a judicial process, the House is following the normal process flow of the judicial branch:

• Someone sees or points out a potential crime
• An investigation is started into the alleged crime and evidence is gathered
• After enough evidence is gathered to prove a crime, an indictment is made
• After an indictment is made, a trial takes place
• After the trial has concluded, the jury votes on whether or not to convict

Why is it a problem that the Democrats are conducting an investigation before seeking an indictment by formally voting on an impeachment inquiry?

In the previous two impeachments, years long investigations were conducted before the House moved to hold a vote on an impeachment inquiry.

Why should it be any different this time around?

 

[JimEverett]

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.

Yeah, but come on - you have to admit it seems somewhat Kafka-esque.
You are fine if your co-workers are all subpoenaed, acquaintances are subpoenaed, etc. but you have no idea who made an accusation?
I get that it is legal. But there is nothing extreme about arguing the compete unfairness around it.

 

[LA - L.A.]

You are fine if your co-workers are all subpoenaed, acquaintances are subpoenaed, etc. but you have no idea who made an accusation?

Only speaking for myself, I would be focused on what those who are subpoenaed are saying about me, since I know their testimony is what I'm going to be judged on.

As long as I get a fair chance to respond to their testimony, then I'd have no issues with the process. I would have a personal issue with anyone who lied about me during testimony that is weighed as evidence.

That's all based on me knowing I'm innocent. If I knew I was guilty of something and afraid of being held accountable for it, then I'd be screaming that everyone is being unfair about everything.

 

[Dadsdream]

If the Democratic Party had a single, reliable mainstream candidate to offer, we wouldn't be subjecting the country to the political theater of a dead on arrival impeachment, and that's the simple fact of the matter.

The fear that they will experience 2016 all over again drove the Mueller investigation and it's driving the impeachment inquiry now.

Honestly, putting forth Warren? Good grief, that's the equivilent of the Republicans nominating Sara Moose Killer Palin, in my book!

 

[LA - L.A.]

...that's the simple fact of the matter...

The entire post was a matter of opinion without any facts to support the opinions.

I'm honestly surprised so many people seem to confuse opinions with facts.

 

[reubenray]

This is the main reason for the impeachment the Democrats know they cannot win in 2020.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Here is the thing, you can't really hear one side of a "case" and simply say, "I can't think of any defense, I bet the defendant can't either" and let that be the basis for excluding the defendant from the process.

For example, I bet if you looked back at the comments made during the beginning of the Russia ordeal you would find they would not reflect the shenanigans that we are just now learning about.
We already know Schiff has lied about his office's contact with the whistleblower. What we don't know is the extent to which this entire thing has been orchestrated by people with less than pure motives. If we were only relying on the transcript, I guess you could argue that it does not matter. But we are going outside the transcript, and the credibility of witnesses is at issue.

I have seen people suggesting that it is off limits to question the LTC who testified today simply because he has, as far as we know, honorably served our nation in uniform. When did Democrats suddenly take that position? It must have happened in the last few days, because it was just last week that Secretary Clinton was calling Major Gabbard a Russian spy. I doubt Col. Oliver North has been invited to many functions at the DNC recently. General Flynn damn sure wasn't off limits.

I am not saying the LTC who testified today was anything other than 100% honest. What I am saying is that a case can look dramatically different from the time the prosecutor rests and the defendant rests. We should not prejudge the case and decide that the defendant does not need full access to the evidence.

Which is why I said at the very beginning that I was open to trying to get the information the Republicans want, with the caveat that you protect the whistleblower's identity. And I was open to suggestions on how you do that. And no one has offered up anything other than wanting to know the whistleblower's identity. To me, the only reason you want to know the whistleblower's identity is to attack them. If you can give other reasons, I'd honestly like to hear it.

We already know the whistleblower's credibility isn't an issue on this matter because literally every concern they addressed has now been verified by testimony in committee. So what do you need to know now? You can admit the whistleblower wasn't lying about their concerns right? The tip was that they heard from multiple people that the President was withholding aid from the Ukraine to aid in his reelection. We now have testimony from multiple people that they interpreted the President's actions to be withholding aid from Ukraine in order to help his reelection.

Thanks for that.

It seems that the issue, at least in part, depends on the notion of "value" in any sort of "foreign aid" situation, right?

I mean, is there not value to be gained in altering, in some way, the foreign aid of the country? Politically speaking? There has to be some sort of political value attached to any decision right? I wonder where the line is drawn.

How much political thought is allowable, according to you (speaking generally) in terms of decision making on things like foreign/military aid? I mean if a PResident asks Pakistan, for instance, if you do not invade India the US will increase aid by 30%? And further suppose, the PResident's political advisor consulted him on this particular "offer" - do you think that falls under the bribery statute?

If a President or presidential candidate gets value from a foreign country's investigation into a former sitting VP's family and potential general election competitor, isn't it fair to say a sitting President gets "value" from avoiding a war in South Asia?
And does it, or should it, make a difference if the President is in his first or second term? For example - the Iran nuclear deal that Obama made. Seems like a textbook case of bribery if you take some sort of personal political "value" gained by Obama. But he wasn't up for re-election. Should that make a difference?

And I am not arguing with you. I think you can look at my posts when this story broke and I was saying that quid-pro-quo would make it illegal. I am now just wondering how this works.

Well, I think we're all sorting that out, right?

It goes to intent and do we believe this to be a normal action of a President in pursuit of his duties. I then stated why I believe the President is doing this solely for political purposes and not as a matter of fighting corruption. And no one has participated in that line of questioning, instead going back to complaining about whistleblower laws and a process that the Republicans created to investigate the Clintons.

Yeah, but come on - you have to admit it seems somewhat Kafka-esque.
You are fine if your co-workers are all subpoenaed, acquaintances are subpoenaed, etc. but you have no idea who made an accusation?
I get that it is legal. But there is nothing extreme about arguing the compete unfairness around it.

I'm not sure if it's extreme, but I don't think it holds a lot of merit. The only reason I'd want to know who made the initial accusation is so that I could be retaliate against them, unless their testimony was actually used against me in court. This is not the only time investigations are launched after anonymous tips. The IG found the whistleblower to be credible, and the whistleblower's report has now been corroborated by testimony... so again I ask, what information do you need from the whistleblower other than to go after them in some way?

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

If the Democratic Party had a single, reliable mainstream candidate to offer, we wouldn't be subjecting the country to the political theater of a dead on arrival impeachment, and that's the simple fact of the matter.

The fear that they will experience 2016 all over again drove the Mueller investigation and it's driving the impeachment inquiry now.

Honestly, putting forth Warren? Good grief, that's the equivilent of the Republicans nominating Sara Moose Killer Palin, in my book!

This is the main reason for the impeachment the Democrats know they cannot win in 2020.

And this is now the standard Republican response. It's no longer about defending the President it's just saying the Democrats are doing it because they can't win.

That's kind of silly on the surface. The Democrat's can't win? Trump is enormously unpopular. Even a lot of his supporters believe he's a buffoon. Hillary, who was under investigation from the Republicans for years at the cost of millions of dollars (which Republicans didn't complain about then, but Democrats did), and who has the charisma of a wet paper towel, only lost by less than 50,000 votes spread across 3 states. I had said early in that election that the Republicans nominated the only person Hillary could beat -- turns out I was wrong and the Democrats probably nominated the only person who couldn't beat Donald Trump. Obviously I could be wrong about that... but Trump is a failed businessman who everyone in the world except Putin and Kim Jong Un hates, who's running a trillion dollar deficit and a now slowing economy (again - not solely his fault, but that's how these elections work).

 

[Lazybones]

And this is now the standard Republican response. It's no longer about defending the President it's just saying the Democrats are doing it because they can't win.

That's kind of silly on the surface. The Democrat's can't win? Trump is enormously unpopular. Even a lot of his supporters believe he's a buffoon. Hillary, who was under investigation from the Republicans for years at the cost of millions of dollars (which Republicans didn't complain about then, but Democrats did), and who has the charisma of a wet paper towel, only lost by less than 50,000 votes spread across 3 states. I had said early in that election that the Republicans nominated the only person Hillary could beat -- turns out I was wrong and the Democrats probably nominated the only person who couldn't beat Donald Trump. Obviously I could be wrong about that... but Trump is a failed businessman who everyone in the world except Putin and Kim Jong Un hates, who's running a trillion dollar deficit and a now slowing economy (again - not solely his fault, but that's how these elections work).

It keeps getting touted how unpopular trump is.

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Dadsdream]

The entire post was a matter of opinion without any facts to support the opinions.

I'm honestly surprised so many people seem to confuse opinions with facts.

This is an Opinion Board, not a Fact Check board. The backhanded aside comment is unwarranted, unnecessary, and may cause me to stop responding at some point.

 

[Dragon]

I wonder why not a single Trump supporter find his blatant disregard of the laws and the constitution he has sworn to protect, troubling?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Gotta love the shifting narrative by these so called Republicans. The Democrats are only impeaching trump because they have looney candidates and can't win in 2020. I mean comparing Warren to Palin is the most asinine thing I've seen in the last two days.

Trump is being impeached because he appears to have broken the law. Full stop. Pelosi has fought off the impeachment calls from her left for years, and now it has become unavoidable, but because of her left flank, it is all trump's fault. This process is taking place to restore some accountability and integrity to the executive branch, considering trump's Republican minions refuse to uphold him to any standards whatsoever.

There was a credible allegation made against POTUS and instead of DoJ investigating the allegation, they blew it off leaving Congress no choice but to perform their own investigation. Congress has known for months before the WB's allegation that POTUS wanted Rudy to dig up dirt on Biden in Ukraine and they were already calling foul. The WB's allegation tells a story that was much worse than they imagined which left Pelosi little choice but to move forward with this investigation.

Rest assured though, once the House votes to move this to the Judiciary Committee and they draft the articles of impeachment, then you can serve all the subpoenas you want and cross examine whomever you like. Hell, y'all can drag in Susan Rice, Loretta Lynch, Valerie Jarrett and Eric Holder for all I care. Just know this, none of that is going to change the facts of this matter which are trump ASKED Ukraine for help to discredit Biden's campaign for President and he withheld aid already granted to them as leverage.

 

[RobF]

And this is now the standard Republican response. It's no longer about defending the President it's just saying the Democrats are doing it because they can't win.

That's kind of silly on the surface. The Democrat's can't win?

Silly all the way down I'd say. I mean, as a personal, highly subjective, opinion, sure, that's something someone can hold. But taking that, assuming it's a view also shared by your political opposites, and then further assuming that's the sole basis for their actions? Someone doing that isn't so much going out on a limb as they are throwing themself out of the tree.

Objectively, polling indicates the opposite - that the Democrats are currently the slight favourites, with the leading Democratic candidates all holding an edge over Trump. Similarly, bookmaker's odds also give the Democrats a slight edge. I'm pretty sure the Democrats think they can win.

 

[Dadsdream]

I wonder why not a single Trump supporter find his blatant disregard of the laws and the constitution he has sworn to protect, troubling?

Hi, Dragon. Innocent until proven guilty, perhaps? He hasn't been convicted of anything. The breathless anticipation of the Russia collusion investigation led to exactly zilch, when it came to the man himself.

Mind you, I don't consider myself to be a "Trump Supporter." I voted for the lesser of two evils, as I saw it at the time. I still see it that way.

Money donated to campaigns: $0
Rallies attended: 0
MAGA hats owned: 0

So, I had hoped the Democrats would field a reasonable alternative candidate. Looks like that won't happen either. *SIGH*

Nice talking with you, Dragon, as always.

 

[Dragon]

Hi, Dragon. Innocent until proven guilty, perhaps? He hasn't been convicted of anything. The breathless anticipation of the Russia collusion investigation led to exactly zilch, when it came to the man himself.

Mind you, I don't consider myself to be a "Trump Supporter." I voted for the lesser of two evils, as I saw it at the time. I still see ot that way.

Money donated to campaigns: $0
Rallies attended: 0
MAGA hats owned: 0

So, I had hoped the Democrats would field a rasonable alternative candidate. Looks like that won't happen either. *SIGH*

Nice talking with you, Dragon, as always.

Also nice talking to you

I did not say he was convicted of anything but should his own words not be cause for reflection - like calling the emoluments clause "phony"
and that even at a time when he was upset about having to cancel a summit at his own resort..

Don't all his lying give you pause? He lies even about little unnecessary things.

He did take an oath to defend and protect the constitution...

If the lesser evil is someone who disregards the fundamental laws of the country, the other option must truely be very bad

 

[superchuck500]

Hi, Dragon. Innocent until proven guilty, perhaps? He hasn't been convicted of anything. The breathless anticipation of the Russia collusion investigation led to exactly zilch, when it came to the man himself.

Mind you, I don't consider myself to be a "Trump Supporter." I voted for the lesser of two evils, as I saw it at the time. I still see it that way.

Money donated to campaigns: $0
Rallies attended: 0
MAGA hats owned: 0

So, I had hoped the Democrats would field a reasonable alternative candidate. Looks like that won't happen either. *SIGH*

Nice talking with you, Dragon, as always.

The difference between Zelensky and Russia is that with Russia, the facts were unknown, at least with respect to the Trump campaign's relationship. There was substantial evidence that Russian assets engaged in various mischief intended to influence the 2016 election, but while there was some circumstantial evidence that the Trump campaign may have intentionally engaged with those Russian assets, that turned out to be unsupported by the evidence that the Mueller investigation developed. With Russia, it was fair for Trump supporters and anyone trying to be objective to wait on the results of the investigation.

With Zelensky, the facts are substantially known - and largely admitted by either Trump, Giuliani, or a host of witnesses that have testified with consistency about what happened, as well as official document releases. The question posed by the Zelenksy affair is not "what actually happened?" as it was with Russia. The question is whether what happened should be seen as an improper (or even illegal) abuse of power to advance a political interest of Trump the 2020 candidate and not Trump the President of the United States.

That said, it's entirely fair to ask you, or anyone whether they find the facts - largely known - to be troubling. Saying "innocent until proven guilty" is a bit of a cop out in this context, IMO.

EDIT - it's a total cop out.

 

[JimEverett]

The facts are troubling to me.
I am not following the story very closely. I have a couple of reasons for that. But I am struggling with the implications of what seems to be the generally accepted facts.

 

[yuyi64]

I wonder why not a single Trump supporter find his blatant disregard of the laws and the constitution he has sworn to protect, troubling?

Not sure how you define a Trump supporter (my guess is you probably define it as anyone who voted for Trump instead of Hillary), but as a conservative I find a lot of things politicians do troubling. I found many of the things Clinton and Obama did troubling and not in the best interest of the nation, but not once did I call for either President to be impeached and removed. What we have found out about Trump through the transcripts and leaked witness testimony is disappointing and unsavory but insufficient cause to remove a sitting President in my opinion.