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

 

[B4YOU]

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.

I believe the line is drawn where a transaction is solely for the personal benefit of the president for partisan reasons. Both requests (DNC hack and Biden) fit this category. This wasn't a general "fix corruption" request. It was a specific benefit for the President for partisan reasons. I can't find how withholding military aid for the investigation announcement request is justifiably in the national interest.

I don't know the details of the Iran deal. It seems that multiple nations signed on to the deal and the goal of lifting sanctions was to reign in Iranian nuclear ability. If there was a political benefit, then my question would be is this solely for the personal benefit of the president. I believe in this example with the multinational agreement and stated goals that any political benefit was secondary to national interests.

I'm not sure electability makes much difference. There is always another election, whether yours or another party member.

I believe you are engaging honestly and not just arguing.

 

[Lazybones]

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.

And when it comes back just as the mueller investigation, do you think the media and the left will let it go?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

And when it comes back just as the mueller investigation, do you think the media and the left will let it go?

Well, for me, the Mueller investigation wasn't about overturning the 2016 election, it was about uncovering the truth and due to multiple acts of obstruction, the findings were not completely clear, but they are acceptable. The same will be true for me regarding this current investigation.

What I reject though, is the notion that this is just a made up story to nail trump. I couldn't care less about ending trump's presidency prematurely, what I do care about is that he seems to believe that checks and balances do not apply to him and that he treats oversight as treachery.

 

[Taurus]

And when it comes back just as the mueller investigation, do you think the media and the left will let it go?

With ten counts of Obstruction and clear proof of Russian interference? They'd better not let that go.

 

[Nebaghead]

With ten counts of Obstruction and clear proof of Russian interference? They'd better not let that go.

I don't understand why people fail to grasp Mueller saying we can't do anything to a sitting president and it's the responsibility of the congress to pursue. I would compare it to a crime committed in a different jurisdiction and the prosecutor in one State can't prosecute because the crime occurred in another state.
If Trump doesn't get pardoned before he leaves office, I believe the SDNY will indict him.

 

[yuyi64]

With ten counts of Obstruction and clear proof of Russian interference? They'd better not let that go.

You didn't need the Mueller investigation to prove that Russia interferes in other countries' elections. That's a given, just like we interfere in other countries' elections for our benefit. Like I've stated before expect Russia, China, Iran, and possibly a few others to interfere with the 2020 elections; there's no need to act shocked when they do. What matters about the Mueller investigation is that it could find no conclusive evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to tamper with the election. To say that Russia interfered with the election is obvious and not what Mueller was charged with investigating.

 

[Lazybones]

You didn't need the Mueller investigation to prove that Russia interferes in other countries' elections. That's a given, just like we interfere in other countries' elections for our benefit. Like I've stated before expect Russia, China, Iran, and possibly a few others to interfere with the 2020 elections; there's no need to act shocked when they do. What's matters about the Mueller investigation is that it could find no conclusive evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to tamper with the election. To say that Russia interfered with the election is obvious and not what Mueller was charged with investigating.

Don’t forget about the Ukraine.

 

[Taurus]

You didn't need the Mueller investigation to prove that Russia interferes in other countries' elections. That's a given, just like we interfere in other countries' elections for our benefit. Like I've stated before expect Russia, China, Iran, and possibly a few others to interfere with the 2020 elections; there's no need to act shocked when they do. What's matters about the Mueller investigation is that it could find no conclusive evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to tamper with the election. To say that Russia interfered with the election is obvious and not what Mueller was charged with investigating.

Neither did the Trump campaign report the Russian interference or attempt to stop it. They welcomed it.

Coming back to "Well, duh. Of course they interfered, Russia gonna Russ." Is frankly appalling. Whether we screw with other nations or not is irrelevant. We should not tolerate it in our own, period.
I mean, you're seriously fine with Vlad Putin deciding who your President is? Your Senator? That's all cool with you?

 

[yuyi64]

Neither did the Trump campaign report the Russian interference or attempt to stop it. They welcomed it.

Coming back to "Well, duh. Of course they interfered, Russia gonna Russ." Is frankly appalling. Whether we screw with other nations or not is irrelevant. We should not tolerate it in our own, period.
I mean, you're seriously fine with Vlad Putin deciding who your President is? Your Senator? That's all cool with you?

Please stop the hyperbole and fake outrage. Barack Obama and the DNC knew the Russians were interfering with the 2016 election and did not nothing to stop it or even report it. Instead of letting your hate for Trump degrade your common sense and judgement, focus on how you're going to prevent interference (more accurately minimize the effect of) in the next election because I can assure you it's coming.

 

[Beach Friends]

Please stop the hyperbole and fake outrage. Barack Obama and the DNC knew the Russians were interfering with the 2016 election and did not nothing to stop it or even report it. Instead of letting your hate for Trump degrade your common sense and judgement, focus on how you're going to prevent interference (more accurately minimize the effect of) in the next election because I can assure you it's coming.

The Democrats just rejected an amendment which would require that any exculpatory evidence be turned over to the judiciary committee.

This type of rejection of fundamental due process and fairness is only going to create further tribalism. I don't want to hear crap when the Republicans act accordingly when the reaches the Senate.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

You didn't need the Mueller investigation to prove that Russia interferes in other countries' elections. That's a given, just like we interfere in other countries' elections for our benefit. Like I've stated before expect Russia, China, Iran, and possibly a few others to interfere with the 2020 elections; there's no need to act shocked when they do. What matters about the Mueller investigation is that it could find no conclusive evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to tamper with the election. To say that Russia interfered with the election is obvious and not what Mueller was charged with investigating.

ORDER NO. 3915-2017 APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

By virtue of the authority vested in me as Acting Attorney General, including 28 U.S.C. §§ 509, 510, and 515, in order to discharge my responsibility to provide supervision and management of the Department of Justice, and to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian govemmenfs efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election, I hereby order as follows:

(a) Robert S. Mueller III is appointed t() serve as Specia] Counsel for the United States Department of Justice.

(b) The Special Counsel is authorized to conduct the investigation confinned by then-FBI Director James 8. Corney in testimony before the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence on March 20, 2017, including:

(i) any links and/or coordination bet ween the Russian government and individuals associated with the campaign of President Donald Trump; and

(ii) any matters that arose or may arise directly from the investigation; and

(iii) any other matters within the scope of 28 C.F.R. § 600.4(a).

(c) If the Special Counsel believes it is necessary and appropriate, the Special Counsel is authorized to prosecute federal crimes arising from the investigation of these matters.

(d) Sections 600.4 through 600. l 0 of Title 28 of the Code of Federal Regulations are applicable to the Special Counsel.

 

[Lazybones]

Neither did the Trump campaign report the Russian interference or attempt to stop it. They welcomed it.

Coming back to "Well, duh. Of course they interfered, Russia gonna Russ." Is frankly appalling. Whether we screw with other nations or not is irrelevant. We should not tolerate it in our own, period.
I mean, you're seriously fine with Vlad Putin deciding who your President is? Your Senator? That's all cool with you?

No, but it was cool with the former white house as they knew there was interference. They assumed the interference would help Hillary. Ooops. (Maybe it actually did help Hillary. She may have lost by a larger margin if it weren’t for Russia and the Ukraine)

 

[N.O.Bronco]

You didn't need the Mueller investigation to prove that Russia interferes in other countries' elections. That's a given, just like we interfere in other countries' elections for our benefit. Like I've stated before expect Russia, China, Iran, and possibly a few others to interfere with the 2020 elections; there's no need to act shocked when they do. What matters about the Mueller investigation is that it could find no conclusive evidence that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia to tamper with the election. To say that Russia interfered with the election is obvious and not what Mueller was charged with investigating.

The Mueller investigation was first a foremost about Russian interference, broadly, so that’s factually incorrect. And also makes me question your hands on familiarity with the report seeing as the entire first part was explicitly about Russia’s broad efforts to interfere and how they did it.

DocumentCloud

www.documentcloud.org

That’s also not what the investigation concluded either.


it failed to establish a legal basis to charge conspiracy. In one case that simply fell upon a value judgement on Mueller that one of the participants, Trump Jr. was too stupid to have the requisite knowledge that what he was doing was conspiracy.

But as stated in the report, part of the reason leads could not be verified or corroborated was because of the obstruction on the part of the administration and key suspects.

More casually, there are plenty of examples of collusion in the casual sense. From Manafort passing off polling data to a Kremlin agent, to the campaigns foreknowledge of criminally attained opposition emails, and various members soliciting campaign help or setting up back channel communication lines.

But this continues to be this parlor trick where some of you point to inconclusiveness of Trump’s role as exoneration then completely move the goalposts now that the core matter of soliciting and coordinating foreign interference with Ukraine has been proven definitively. Through transcripts, public admissions, and first and second hand testimony of the quid pro quo being solicited. To go with an extensive set of obstructive acts to try and cover up and hide the abuse and impropriety. With an added level of impropriety from abusing the power of the executive to leverage this personally and politically motivated quid pro quo with a foreign government.

 

[yuyi64]

ORDER NO. 3915-2017 APPOINTMENT OF SPECIAL COUNSEL TO INVESTIGATE RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE WITH THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION AND RELATED MATTERS

to ensure a full and thorough investigation of the Russian government's efforts to interfere in the 2016 presidential election

You just proved the point I've made in my previous posts. It wasn't a question of "if" Russia interfered with the election; we already knew that. Mueller's job was to investigate "how" Russia interfered and if Russia colluded with the Trump campaign. He should've also investigated how the Clinton campaign and the DNC colluded with Russia and other foreign governments during the election but of course we know he never did that.

 

[Beach Friends]

I am more concerned about names like Brennan, Comey, and Clapper than I am Putin.

Fortunately, those people can worry about names like Durham and Barr.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

You just proved the point I've made in my previous posts. It wasn't a question of "if" Russia interfered with the election; we already knew that. Mueller's job was to investigate "how" Russia interfered and if Russia colluded with the Trump campaign. He should've also investigated how the Clinton campaign and the DNC colluded with Russia and other foreign governments during the election but of course we know he never did that.

There is zero credible evidence to support Clinton or the Clinton campaign seeking or being receptive to colluding with the Kremlin. There was more than enough evidentiary basis to follow the leads about members of the Trump campaign doing so. And trying to parse out false equivalencies doesn’t have any bearing on the improprieties of the Trump campaign/administration.

But your moving goalposts and deflecting so I’m not really interested in playing into that. Others can if they do I guess.

 

[Dragon]

Please stop the hyperbole and fake outrage. Barack Obama and the DNC knew the Russians were interfering with the 2016 election and did not nothing to stop it or even report it. Instead of letting your hate for Trump degrade your common sense and judgement, focus on how you're going to prevent interference (more accurately minimize the effect of) in the next election because I can assure you it's coming.

Well the republicans are surely doing a great job with that!

Senate Republicans block two election security bills

Klobuchar's bill, whose lone GOP co-sponsor is Sen. Lindsey Graham (S.C.), would require online platforms to make “all reasonable efforts” to ensure foreign entities are not buying political ads. It also would require public disclosure of who paid for the ad.

https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/466985-senate-republicans-block-two-election-security-bills

Wyden, meanwhile, tried to pass legislation, known as the SAFE Act, that would authorize more funding for the Election Assistance Commission and includes language that would ban voting machines from being connected to the internet and being produced in foreign countries.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...-three-election-security-bills-for-second-day

 

[Lazybones]

Well the republicans are surely doing a great job with that!

Senate Republicans block two election security bills



https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/466985-senate-republicans-block-two-election-security-bills



https://thehill.com/homenews/senate...-three-election-security-bills-for-second-day

1 billion dollars. I wonder if we followed that money, how many people in Washington would be getting a cut. 1 billion dollars.