The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (5 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

 

[V Chip]

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.

As for his Republican allies, I called them minions and I stand by that description. They are on TV everyday

I think the misunderstanding is DJ was calling the Republican politicians and pundits "minions" as opposed to the rank and file people who support him. I think a better term would be party officials who support Trump. A lot longer but better in general?

 

[Lazybones]

Once again, it's not about the election in 2016 or 2020, it's about the integrity of the office.

Can you please point me to the proof of this so I can read more about it?

As far as your minion comment. My personal belief is that many on the left see themselves as intelligent, thoughtful and nuanced. I think they also believe that everyone on the right brainwashed minions who can’t think for themselves.

Your post is just another stoke of paint on an already developed picture.

 

[yuyi64]

What would you call someone who actively distort the truth and lie to the American people daily

Chairman of the United States House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

 

[Dadsdream]

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?

Personally, I'd call them a Clintonista, but that's just me having flashbacks to the 1990s.

 

[Lazybones]

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.

Do you think that any elected official in Washington cares about you or America? I don’t think trump is a great man. I do think he is running the country the way he would his business, unapologetically. I like that style to be honest.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Do you think that any elected official in Washington cares about you or America? I don’t think trump is a great man. I do think he is running the country the way he would his business, unapologetically. I like that style to be honest.

And the Constitution and the laws that bind it be damned. Got it.

 

[Lazybones]

And the Constitution and the laws that bind it be damned. Got it.

How do you make a leap to that conclusion?

 

[st dude]

Do you think that any elected official in Washington cares about you or America? I don’t think trump is a great man. I do think he is running the country the way he would his business, unapologetically. I like that style to be honest.

I know many, many politicians who are ethical, competent and well meaning. I liked one Bush, not the other, but thought both of them cared deeply about America.

I think Trump is running America the way he runs his business, to make him the most money he can at the expense of everyone else. I don't care for his style at all, he insults people, he lies and he brags.

 

[yuyi64]

I know many, many politicians who are ethical, competent and well meaning.

I strongly suggest you encourage them to run for President then so the voters will have a real alternative to the current flock of candidates.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

How do you make a leap to that conclusion?

There is a credible allegation that POTUS has broken several laws while in office, your response to those allegations was to attack the process that the House is using to investigate those allegations. Further, you seem to be perfectly fine with how POTUS conducts government business, even though he may have broken the law.

18 U.S.C. § 610 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 610. Coercion of political activity

It shall be unlawful for any person to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, any employee of the Federal Government as defined in section 7322(1) of title 5, United States Code , to engage in, or not to engage in, any political activity, including, but not limited to, voting or refusing to vote for any candidate or measure in any election, making or refusing to make any political contribution, or working or refusing to work on behalf of any candidate.  Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


18 U.S.C. § 872 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 872. Extortion by officers or employees of the United States

Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both;  but if the amount so extorted or demanded does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

18 U.S.C. § 607 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 607. Place of solicitation

(a) Prohibition.--
(1) In general. --It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election from a person who is located in a room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an officer or employee of the United States.  It shall be unlawful for an individual who is an officer or employee of the Federal Government, including the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress, to solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election, while in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an officer or employee of the United States, from any person.
(2) Penalty. --A person who violates this section shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.
(b)  The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to the receipt of contributions by persons on the staff of a Senator or Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress or Executive Office of the President, provided, that such contributions have not been solicited in any manner which directs the contributor to mail or deliver a contribution to any room, building, or other facility referred to in subsection (a), and provided that such contributions are transferred within seven days of receipt to a political committee within the meaning of section 302(e) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.

I do think he is running the country the way he would his business, unapologetically. I like that style to be honest.

He has ran his business' into bankruptcies, several times and has being sued more times than I can count due to his nefarious business practices. But, yeah letting him run the country like he runs his business seems like a great idea.

 

[Beach Friends]

I know many, many politicians who are ethical, competent and well meaning. I liked one Bush, not the other, but thought both of them cared deeply about America.

I think Trump is running America the way he runs his business, to make him the most money he can at the expense of everyone else. I don't care for his style at all, he insults people, he lies and he brags.

I think the way Congressmen behave in their public hearings (in general) goes a long way in undermining public confidence.

First, the 5 minute format is horrible. It lends itself to 5 minutes of grandstanding and endless disputes over who "controls the time," which in reality is a dispute over whether the witness gets to respond to the smears that have just been levied.

Furthermore, and this is the reason I am qouting you since you will have some insight - they often treat witnesses in a manner that you would rarely see an attorney treat a witness in a courtroom. One, a good judge would not allow it. Two, a good attorney would realize that juries often relate to the witnesses more than the attorney.

Some of what you see is disgraceful. And the Congressman hides behind the office, and insists that the witness show respect.

I really wish you would see witnesses tell Congressmen behaving in that manner that they are the ones who are demonstrating contempt for the office.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I think the way Congressmen behave in their public hearings (in general) goes a long way in undermining public confidence.

First, the 5 minute format is horrible. It lends itself to 5 minutes of grandstanding and endless disputes over who "controls the time," which in reality is a dispute over whether the witness gets to respond to the smears that have just been levied.

Furthermore, and this is the reason I am qouting you since you will have some insight - they often treat witnesses in a manner that you would rarely see an attorney treat a witness in a courtroom. One, a good judge would not allow it. Two, a good attorney would realize that juries often relate to the witnesses more than the attorney.

Some of what you see is disgraceful. And the Congressman hides behind the office, and insists that the witness show respect.

I really wish you would see witnesses tell Congressmen behaving in that manner that they are the ones who are demonstrating contempt for the office.

When you focus a camera on a person, they either get shy or ham it up. This is why cameras are still not welcome in a courtroom. It's a good argument for having most Congressional hearings camera free and then releasing the full transcript to the public. It would reduce both grandstanding and stage fright in the hearings.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

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.

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.

So, I get this line of thinking. Impeachment scares the crap out of me, and it should scare everyone. You're removing a lawfully elected president of the United States. That's obviously really serious stuff.

So, what is the line for impeachment? And if the nation becomes convinced that Donald Trump used the office of the Presidency for corrupt purposes, namely trying to get a foreign government to open a false investigation against a political opponent in order to favorably influence an election in his favor (worst case scenario for Trump) - what is an appropriate punishment if not impeachment?

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?

Well, no one has raised this as a problem before, so we're already in unprecedented territory, right? These calls are made with non-political appointees with a broad range of political philosophies and preferences listening in and advising the President, and no one has before this thought the President was nakedly trying to influence foreign leaders mainly for his own benefit. That should tell you something right?

No, we don't know every single call ever made -- but you have to go with what you have evidence of. And as you said, context is important. Here's the context of this phone call:

1. Trump asked Zelensky to investigate Biden by name and to publicly announce that investigation.
2. Ukraine has already finished it's investigation of Burisma, and found no wrong doing. Trump is asking them to re-open an investigation they've already done.
3. The only evidence that has been offered to date that the Biden's did something wrong is that Biden's son had business dealings in a country that Biden had official action in. Trump and his children do bu
3. Trump has not offered evidence of asking any other foreign leader to investigate any other corruption case directly. This is the only one that we know of. If we find out that he's asking the leader of Costa Rica to investigate some other American directly by name, this would be mitigating evidence that the President takes a personal interest in directing corruption investigations.
4. Trump is directing Ukraine to work with his personal lawyer.

Does this seem like normal ordinary work of the President? Do you have additional context to offer?

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?

It's a judgement call on whether this was a part of the normal business of the President of the United States or not. Are you comfortable with the President directing foreign nations to begin investigations into political adversaries in this manner or not?

 

[buzd]

2. Ukraine has already finished it's investigation of Burisma, and found no wrong doing. Trump is asking them to re-open an investigation they've already done.
3. The only evidence that has been offered to date that the Biden's did something wrong is that Biden's son had business dealings in a country that Biden had official action in. Trump and his children do bu

In the event the President/DOJ actually had evidence that an American citizen had broken American laws, wouldn't the appropriate thing to do be to launch an investigation by Americans (i.e. the FBI). I could see where it would be appropriate to contact a foreign government to ask them to cooperate with a legitimately established American investigation, but I can think of no circumstance where it is appropriate to ask a foreign government to investigate an American citizen (obviously Burisma is a Ukrainian company, so that's a slightly different issue - but calling out Biden by name seems wholly inappropriate unless it's part of a broader American action). That seems counter to the general government mandate to protect its own citizens.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

In the event the President/DOJ actually had evidence that an American citizen had broken American laws, wouldn't the appropriate thing to do be to launch an investigation by Americans (i.e. the FBI). I could see where it would be appropriate to contact a foreign government to ask them to cooperate with a legitimately established American investigation, but I can think of no circumstance where it is appropriate to ask a foreign government to investigate an American citizen (obviously Burisma is a Ukrainian company, so that's a slightly different issue - but calling out Biden by name seems wholly inappropriate unless it's part of a broader American action). That seems counter to the general government mandate to protect its own citizens.

Yes, that's why I think it's reasonable to believe that this was not actual investigation into corruption, but a political hit job for Trump's benefit.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Yes, that's why I think it's reasonable to believe that this was not actual investigation into corruption, but a political hit job for Trump's benefit.

Unless someone has a compelling case for why it is multiple highly respected members of the government lied under oath, and Trump’s own appointee amended his testimony to concede their overarching points about a political quid pro quo, I think it becomes pretty hard to make the case that there was anything but political motivations at the root of this quid pro quo. I mean the conditional terms requiring that Zelensky announce the investigation into Biden publicly can not be construed in any sort of non-political manner. The question now is whether we want to change the norms of this country, and allow this sort of behavior to become normalized and acceptable. And to me the onus is on those standing against impeachment to articulate a compelling case.

And to a point attempted earlier, there is a fundamental difference between prioritizing actions that are still acting in the best interest of the country, in line with your constitutional obligations and responsibilities, that happens to produce political benefit, with abusing and using the power of the office to explicitly and near exclusively weaponize it for political and/or personal gain.

As there is a term for that sort of governance/government, it’s called kleptocracy. And if we really want to understand Ukraine, we can keep normalizing this type of behavior and we will get the chance to play it out first hand. As the ironic thing in all this is when anyone across the world talks about improving corruption in the Ukraine, what they are referring to 9 times out of 10 is the kleptocratic nature of their political system that has fallen into a pattern of using the powers of office to amass personal power and wealth and punish their political enemies using the powers they yield.

 

[Lazybones]

There is a credible allegation that POTUS has broken several laws while in office, your response to those allegations was to attack the process that the House is using to investigate those allegations. Further, you seem to be perfectly fine with how POTUS conducts government business, even though he may have broken the law.

18 U.S.C. § 610 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 610. Coercion of political activity

It shall be unlawful for any person to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, or attempt to intimidate, threaten, command, or coerce, any employee of the Federal Government as defined in section 7322(1) of title 5, United States Code , to engage in, or not to engage in, any political activity, including, but not limited to, voting or refusing to vote for any candidate or measure in any election, making or refusing to make any political contribution, or working or refusing to work on behalf of any candidate.  Any person who violates this section shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.


18 U.S.C. § 872 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 872. Extortion by officers or employees of the United States

Whoever, being an officer, or employee of the United States or any department or agency thereof, or representing himself to be or assuming to act as such, under color or pretense of office or employment commits or attempts an act of extortion, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both;  but if the amount so extorted or demanded does not exceed $1,000, he shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

18 U.S.C. § 607 - U.S. Code - Unannotated Title 18. Crimes and Criminal Procedure § 607. Place of solicitation

(a) Prohibition.--
(1) In general. --It shall be unlawful for any person to solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election from a person who is located in a room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an officer or employee of the United States.  It shall be unlawful for an individual who is an officer or employee of the Federal Government, including the President, Vice President, and Members of Congress, to solicit or receive a donation of money or other thing of value in connection with a Federal, State, or local election, while in any room or building occupied in the discharge of official duties by an officer or employee of the United States, from any person.
(2) Penalty. --A person who violates this section shall be fined not more than $5,000, imprisoned not more than 3 years, or both.
(b)  The prohibition in subsection (a) shall not apply to the receipt of contributions by persons on the staff of a Senator or Representative in, or Delegate or Resident Commissioner to, the Congress or Executive Office of the President, provided, that such contributions have not been solicited in any manner which directs the contributor to mail or deliver a contribution to any room, building, or other facility referred to in subsection (a), and provided that such contributions are transferred within seven days of receipt to a political committee within the meaning of section 302(e) of the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971.



He has ran his business' into bankruptcies, several times and has being sued more times than I can count due to his nefarious business practices. But, yeah letting him run the country like he runs his business seems like a great idea.

I honestly didn’t read past, “he may have committed a crime”

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I honestly didn’t read past, “he may have committed a crime”

Not surprised by that at all. I, on the other hand, would like to know the answer either way. That is why an investigation is necessary and if it turns out that he did, then he'll have to face the consequences.