The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (22 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

 

[wardorican]

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.

Can you elaborate?

 

[superchuck500]

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.

I think to put it most succinctly, the facts are that Trump (largely through activities of his personal lawyer - a non-federal official who refuses to even say if he has a security clearance) embarked on a strategy to withhold a $400 million package of aid and arms that had already been approved by Congress with no such conditions, to use as leverage to compel the new Ukrainian president to make a public announcement that Ukraine was investigating the Biden/Burisma matter and links between the 2016 DNC and interests in Ukraine.

I don't think this is a question of whether you believe that these activities were or were not in the best interest of the nation - a fair but academic question to pose to any activity of an administration. The question is whether these activities crossed the line into what we can tolerate from the office of the president. Was this conditioning of a nearly half a billion dollars in aid (that Congress had approved and was already signed by the president) on a new requirement that the receiving nation make public statements about launching an investigation of who is likely to be a top rival of the president in the upcoming election an abuse of power for a corrupt (i.e. personal) interest of the president?

On its face, if the "deliverable" (the public announcement of the Biden investigation) is a personal interest and not a federal interest, the activity appears to clearly violate the federal (criminal) anti-corruption statute, 18 USC Sec. 201(b). In context, with the president using his personal lawyer (who has since claimed attorney-client privilege) instead of established diplomatic channels that carry appropriate accountability and oversight only adds to the troubling nature of the conduct - and the support for the characterization that the president's intent was improper . . . and therefore an abuse of power and ostensibly a federal crime.

We have now heard from numerous sources in various capacities that officials at the White House (NSC), the State Department, and the Pentagon raised concerns to both the president, the White House counsel, and other officials that the president's conditioning Ukraine aid on Zelensky's investigation of Biden/Burisma/DNC was, at minimum, a potential illegal repurposing of federal funds, and also an improper 'quid pro quo' that could violate federal law.

Yet, the president chose to do it anyway. And when confronted with the prospect of the episode going public, the president and his political staff sought to withhold the initial report from Congress and to respond to the allegations with an alleged "transcript" that has been in substantial question from day one as to its authenticity and completeness.

Nothing in this recitation of is false or misleading. We're all entitled to draw our own conclusions from these facts - of course. But to conclude that it is insufficient cause, it begs the question of what would be sufficient cause?

 

[st dude]

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.

Yuyi, impeachment has always been troubling for for me because I don't want to turn it into a deal where whenever a party controls the House it impeaches a president it doesn't like. I feel the same way about booing a sitting US president, I think the president of our country deserves respect even when we disagree with him.

I am a bit of an old dog, having been through many presidents I liked and did not like. I am more prone to vote for a democrat than a republican, but I easily cross party lines for the better candidate. I thought the first Bush a good president, the second one a very bad president. But I always thought both were doing their best for the country. The most ineffective president in my lifetime was Jimmy Carter.

Trump is different for me than all the rest. I believe he is a serial liar, even about the dumbest of things. I cant just dismiss that by saying all politicians lie, because none of them on either side lie on the scale that Trump does.

I think Trump is narcissistic, in a dangerous way. Every conversation he has is "perfect". He uses the internet better than anyone in the world. He will tell you he is the smartest person in the world. His ego is unprecedented.

He pretends to be religious, he is not, and I could care less but for the evangelical right that is fooled into thinking Trump is a man of god. I do not think he loves his country. I don't even think he loves his kids. I think virtually everything he does is for self interest. He loves himself, in a way that would be comical if it were not so scary.

I have never seen anything like it in my life.

I do agree politicians on both side can shade the truth and do bad things.

BUT NOT ALL BAD THINGS ARE CREATED EQUAL.

Trump doesn't get a pass for extorting an ally for political purposes because Hillary hid emails, or for whatever other false equivalency can be made.

The people in Congress who support him were screaming no quid pro quo. Now that quid pro quo is obvious, the defense has turned to either everyone does it, its okay.

I am okay with Trump being impeached, I am okay with him being booed. I never even felt this way about Nixon, indeed I though Nixon was a shrewd politician who did some good things. I have never distrusted or disliked a president more in my life than Trump. Its so scary to me that so many people do like him or think he is a good man.


Donald Trump is a bad guy, a bad person. History will not be kind to him, indeed history teachers will look to see what environment existed that allowed a serial lying narcissist to come into power.

 

[JimEverett]

Can you elaborate?

There are a lot of things, but one is simply whether this is another example of overreaction to something Trump has done (or not done). And part of that goes into context. I mean I have never heard or seen transcripts of PResidential phone calls with world leaders until Trump. So how are we to really know that this is unprecedented?

I will also add, that if that call is made without the continual references to Giuliani then I would be far more inclined to think the call was okay as opposed to bribery or something else.
But even here there is something that is slightly troubling to me - Presidents make foreign policy decisions all the time with political considerations in mind - including re-election chances, Congressional elections, and so on. They may even consult with political advisors and members of their campaign team over it. When that decision making process results in gaining some perceived benefit to election chances after a foreign power does something or does not do something are we going to start impeachment inquiries?

 

[superchuck500]

 

[JimEverett]

For his own purposes (or clients' purposes) or at the request of Trump?

 

[superchuck500]

For his own purposes (or clients' purposes) or at the request of Trump?

Why would a president need to run a campaign against an official that serves at the pleasure of the president?

 

[Beach Friends]

Yuyi, impeachment has always been troubling for for me because I don't want to turn it into a deal where whenever a party controls the House it impeaches a president it doesn't like. I feel the same way about booing a sitting US president, I think the president of our country deserves respect even when we disagree with him.

I am a bit of an old dog, having been through many presidents I liked and did not like. I am more prone to vote for a democrat than a republican, but I easily cross party lines for the better candidate. I thought the first Bush a good president, the second one a very bad president. But I always thought both were doing their best for the country. The most ineffective president in my lifetime was Jimmy Carter.

Trump is different for me than all the rest. I believe he is a serial liar, even about the dumbest of things. I cant just dismiss that by saying all politicians lie, because none of them on either side lie on the scale that Trump does.

I think Trump is narcissistic, in a dangerous way. Every conversation he has is "perfect". He uses the internet better than anyone in the world. He will tell you he is the smartest person in the world. His ego is unprecedented.

He pretends to be religious, he is not, and I could care less but for the evangelical right that is fooled into thinking Trump is a man of god. I do not think he loves his country. I don't even think he loves his kids. I think virtually everything he does is for self interest.

I have never seen anything like it in my life.

I do agree politicians on both side can shade the truth and do bad things.

BUT NOT ALL BAD THINGS ARE CREATED EQUAL.

Trump doesn't get a pass for extorting an ally for political purposes because Hillary hid emails, or for whatever other false equivalency can be made.

The people in Congress who support him were screaming no quid pro quo. Now that quid pro quo is obvious, the defense has turned to either everyone does it, its okay.

I am okay with Trump being impeached, I am okay with him being booed. I never even felt this way about Nixon, indeed I though Nixon was a shrewd politician who did some good things. I have never distrusted or disliked a president more in my life than Trump. Its so scary to me that so many people do like him or think he is a good man.


Donald Trump is a bad guy, a bad person. History will not be kind to him, indeed history teachers will look to see what environment existed that allowed a serial lying narcissist to come into power.

And I think many people who absolutely intend to vote for him would agree with you on a lot of those points. Hell, take this current mess - in my opinion he had no political reason to focus on Biden. He had all he needed with the facts as they were already known. He turned Biden's liability into his own.

The moment he called the whistleblower a traitor or whatever I did a facepalm. Anyone who has a working knowledge of general employment law knows the protections against retaliation mean you have to be very careful how you treat that person.

So, why would someone whose eyes are wide open be so certain that they are going to vote for him again?

For that answer, you have to look at the Democrats.

 

[JimEverett]

Why would a president need to run a campaign against an official that serves at the pleasure of the president?

Cover/reason for firing her?

 

[superchuck500]

Cover/reason for firing her?

Isn't that like a snake with two heads?

Q: Is it problematic that the president led a smear campaign against the ambassador?
A: No - the president has discretion to decide to remove an ambassador.
Q: Okay so why the need for a smear campaign?
A: So that the president can justify removing the ambassador.

(Note I just made that ^ up, not actual testimony). But it's like, what's the point?

 

[JimEverett]

Isn't that like a snake with two heads?

Q: Is it problematic that the president led a smear campaign against the ambassador?
A: No - the president has discretion to decide to remove an ambassador.
Q: Okay so why the need for a smear campaign?
A: So that the president can justify removing the ambassador.

(Note I just made that ^ up, not actual testimony). But it's like, what's the point?

I am just wondering - didn;t really think it all the way through.

But, haven't things like that been done before? You go behind the scenes to make someone look bad so you can eventually come up with reasons to fire her - even if you ha the power to fire her from the start?

Regardless, will this be a reason Trump dumps Rudy?

 

[superchuck500]

I am just wondering - didn;t really think it all the way through.

But, haven't things like that been done before? You go behind the scenes to make someone look bad so you can eventually come up with reasons to fire her - even if you ha the power to fire her from the start?

Regardless, will this be a reason Trump dumps Rudy?

Yeah, I suppose - it's just dirty biz.

Regarding Rudy, I don't think Trump is going to do anything with Rudy - he doesn't hold a position so it isn't like Trump can fire him. Trump could say Rudy is no longer his lawyer but I doubt he wants to do that either.

Like you spotted from day one, Rudy is really the source of a lot of how all of this went off the rails. I wonder just how close the SDNY is to charging him in the Parnas case - or if they're taking a hands off due to either instruction from AG/WH or their own discretion not to.

 

[yuyi64]

Donald Trump is a bad guy, a bad person. History will not be kind to him, indeed history teachers will look to see what environment existed that allowed a serial lying narcissist to come into power.

Bush 41 was the last President that I would consider a decent honorable man that lived his life with integrity. It's been all downhill since then and the slide will continue even after Trump is gone from office. Trump is a symptom of our society today, not the reason for the decay. Sadly what works politically in today's narcissistic, truth-bending, quick-gratification world is people like Donald Trump, Adam Schiff, AOC, etc. I don't see any decent, truthful, honorable candidates being able to win the Presidency anytime soon and probably not for a long time; not until society's focus shifts back to honor and service and away from self-entitlement and instant gratification.

 

[st dude]

Bush 41 was the last President that I would consider a decent honorable man that lived his life with integrity. It's been all downhill since then and the slide will continue even after Trump is gone from office. Trump is a symptom of our society today, not the reason for the decay. Sadly what works politically in today's narcissistic, truth-bending, quick-gratification world is people like Donald Trump, Adam Schiff, AOC, etc. I don't see any decent, truthful, honorable candidates being able to win the Presidency anytime soon and probably not for a long time; not until society's focus shifts back to honor and service and away from self-entitlement and instant gratification.

Yuyi, I cant go with the continuing equivalency argument that Trump might be a bad guy, but so is everyone else. By way of example, I cant stand Ted Cruz for a lot of reasons. I do not care for Lindsey Graham either. But I do not think they are narcissistic serial liars who operate solely out of self interest. I do not see them or Adam Schiff anywhere remotely in the category of Trump.

But I am glad to read you agree Trump is narcissistic and truth bending, its so hard for me to see how smart people can think otherwise. I can even understand, at least on some level, people who can hold their nose and vote for Trump because the alternative is not acceptable to them.

What scares me are the people who actually think he is a great man, a great American. I don't think he cares about America at all, just him.

 

[Lazybones]

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.

I am not going to go full on combative, but if you want conversation, the inflammatory language doesn’t work well. I’m not a minion and I don’t appreciate the insinuation that I don’t think for myself.

My response would be that the attempted impeachment is being done because the left unthinkably lost the election in 2016. The left will pull out all stops to attempt to win in 2020 no matter the cost.

 

[Lazybones]

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.

Don’t forget the polls and odds makers in 2016. The left are using this as a game plan to win the election. It’s not even subtle at this point.

 

[V Chip]

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.

If the Republican Party had a single, reliable mainstream candidate to offer, we wouldn't be in this situation with a corrupt, law-breaking Oval Office dividing the country on a daily basis and spewing outright lies on an almost hourly basis, and that's the simple fact of the matter.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I am not going to go full on combative, but if you want conversation, the inflammatory language doesn’t work well. I’m not a minion and I don’t appreciate the insinuation that I don’t think for myself.

My response would be that the attempted impeachment is being done because the left unthinkably lost the election in 2016. The left will pull out all stops to attempt to win in 2020 no matter the cost.

Once again, it's not about the election in 2016 or 2020, it's about the integrity of the office. I have stated Pelosi's rational apprehensions to impeachment prior to trump's nefarious actions regarding Ukraine and the Bidens. Even with these current allegations, she was still apprehensive because she knows that impeachment is politically bad for everyone, especially the Dems and yet, she has gone forward with it because it is the least she can do to hold some sense of accountability for trump's alleged crimes..

As for his Republican allies, I called them minions and I stand by that description. They are on TV everyday lying and obfuscating for POTUS all the while not even disputing the actual evidence. They claim that there's no quid pro quo, but the say we do it all the time. They insinuate that members of NSC are spies because they were not born in America. They tell the American people that this process is unfair because the R's can't participate, knowing damn well that 47 of them have access to these hearings. They all know the steps to this process and they know that once the Intel Committee finishes their part, they will have to vote to send it to the Judiciary Committee and they will decide whether or not to impeach. They know the facts are not on their side, so all they have is their disingenuous attacks on the process

What would you call someone who actively distort the truth and lie to the American people daily in an effort to protect the President over the Republic?