The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (27 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

 

[superchuck500]

chuck from what you know and your experiences, how is it that the Steele dossier was used at all?

I don't have any experience with FISA applications (or any search warrant applications) so I don't have any personal experience to base an answer on.

But I think when you're talking about a surveillance warrant, the posture of law enforcement is that there is probable cause to warrant surveillance but you're often not further along than that. In a probable cause scenario to justify further investigation, I think the net for what is relevant can be fairly wide and investigators don't necessarily have to verify that the proffered basis is wholly reliable. And despite popular characterizations, I believe that the Page application included more than a full page in disclosure to the court that the dossier's author had been hired to prepare it for potential use in opposition to a Trump bid for the presidency.

So for example, I don't think it's unusual for narcotics law enforcement to include allegations made by drug dealers about other drug dealers in warrant applications. I think DEA agents regularly rely on that kind of suspect information - "Drug dealer X told investigators that the warrant subject kept a stash house located at Address." I think with disclosure as to the nature of the evidence, it's probably fair for investigators to use that kind of evidence is justification for probable cause.

The probable cause analysis for warrant applications, in the end, is supposed to balance the quality of the evidence in support of the warrant against the rights of the subject of the warrant. But that's the judge's role - not the investigator's role. The investigators have to be truthful and that duty certainly includes disclosures about the character of any evidence offered. I think those disclosures were made in the Page application that, again, relied on a substantial range of other information unrelated to the dossier.

 

[Lazybones]

I don't have any experience with FISA applications (or any search warrant applications) so I don't have any personal experience to base an answer on.

But I think when you're talking about a surveillance warrant, the posture of law enforcement is that there is probable cause to warrant surveillance but you're often not further along than that. In a probable cause scenario to justify further investigation, I think the net for what is relevant can be fairly wide and investigators don't necessarily have to verify that the proffered basis is wholly reliable. And despite popular characterizations, I believe that the Page application included more than a full page in disclosure to the court that the dossier's author had been hired to prepare it for potential use in opposition to a Trump bid for the presidency.

So for example, I don't think it's unusual for narcotics law enforcement to include allegations made by drug dealers about other drug dealers in warrant applications. I think DEA agents regularly rely on that kind of suspect information - "Drug dealer X told investigators that the warrant subject kept a stash house located at Address." I think with disclosure as to the nature of the evidence, it's probably fair for investigators to use that kind of evidence is justification for probable cause.

The probable cause analysis for warrant applications, in the end, is supposed to balance the quality of the evidence in support of the warrant against the rights of the subject of the warrant. But that's the judge's role - not the investigator's role. The investigators have to be truthful and that duty certainly includes disclosures about the character of any evidence offered. I think those disclosures were made in the Page application that, again, relied on a substantial range of other information unrelated to the dossier.

thanks for the input. Good analogy with the drug dealer. Kind of concerning if the same standard is used before employing an investigation into the president.

I guess there isn’t much difference in tabloid peddling and being a Junkie. Both are always looking for the next fix. (I’m being jocular)

 

[crosswatt]

If you are referring to my post I did not copy and paste it. I gave my opinion and I have a right to give my opinion. Your post sounds a lot like the "show me your work". I don't have the patience to debate, but I can give my opinions whether you like them or not.

You don't have the patience to debate. Well why should we have the patience to consider your opinion?

And it's literally been the main talking point since the president spoke those words almost verbatim two weeks ago. So yeah. I'd like to have your "opinion" expressed on a debate forum actually fleshed out a bit better.

 

[crosswatt]

My support for trump comes for a couple reasons not necessarily in this order

1. He is breaking up what had become a far to comfortable group of politicians
2. Judges
3. Abortion
4. Opposite of Romney and the establishment. Tired of republicans being pushovers. I’m a white conservative Christian male. I’m not a racist or homophobe and I was tired of it being ok to be classified this way.


I tend to disagree with you. He/stated what he felt. This isn’t a graduate class in college. People have a right to opinions. I don’t need a pundit to tell me what my opinion is either. If we are not allowed to put them here, what is the fun of it?

I don't mind opinions. But actual opinions. And it's literally a debate forum. Not Facebook or Instagram or Twitter where you have your own page to just say your piece and stop.

we are trying to Foster an actual debate board here. And that's something that has plagued the PDB for years, that I'd love to see go away.

 

[crosswatt]

His post was succinct and, in my opinion, accurate. I look forward to hearing more of his opinions. Hopefully he will stick around.

Hopefully he will. And add context and reasoning behind merely quoting the opinion of the one in danger of getting impeached.

 

[Dragon]

My support for trump comes for a couple reasons not necessarily in this order

1. He is breaking up what had become a far to comfortable group of politicians
2. Judges
3. Abortion
4. Opposite of Romney and the establishment. Tired of republicans being pushovers. I’m a white conservative Christian male. I’m not a racist or homophobe and I was tired of it being ok to be classified this way.


I tend to disagree with you. He/stated what he felt. This isn’t a graduate class in college. People have a right to opinions. I don’t need a pundit to tell me what my opinion is either. If we are not allowed to put them here, what is the fun of it?

Could you expand what you mean by judges? SCOTUS or generally?

 

[Dadsdream]

The emotions of election night, 2016, translate directly to the current impeachment proceedings, in my opinion.

In my honest opinion, this impeachment ties directly back through the Mueller investigation, through the Russia Collusion allegations and points to the traumatic night when Democratic voters, politicians and pundits watched in horror as all the bogus polls, in-the-tank for Hillary media, and an alienated electorate came together in a perfect storm for the ages.

The reactions were real and gut-wrenching as the no-way-we-can-lose victory celebration turned into a wake. Political appointees who had already picked out the drapes for their new offices found themselves out on the sidewalk with their belongings in a box. The call for a correction "by any means necessary" fed upon itself and continues to feed upon anything and anyone who would disagree.

For all the posturing about noble virtue and motives, I feel the House is doing nothing but seeking retribution. They didn't get the satisfaction they wanted from Mueller, so the "by any means necessary" clause has kicked into high gear.

I fear there's going to be a counter-backlash and this whole mess is going to get ugly beyond reason. We still haven't bottomed out. Both sides can, and will, stoop lower.

Can we? Oh, yes, yes we can!

 

[reubenray]

You don't have the patience to debate. Well why should we have the patience to consider your opinion?

And it's literally been the main talking point since the president spoke those words almost verbatim two weeks ago. So yeah. I'd like to have your "opinion" expressed on a debate forum actually fleshed out a bit better.

If Trump spoke those words two weeks ago I did not hear them. I do not watch the news and I don't read anything political on the web. I hate politics, but I do see headlines. My comment were based solely on these. Two weeks ago I was in the Virginia mountains where I could even get the news or internet. I figured I would try this board instead of the PDB being it was to one sided.

 

[JRad]

The emotions of election night, 2016, translate directly to the current impeachment proceedings, in my opinion.

This is ridiculous. You think the folks at the Trump rally wouldn't have been bummed had he lost? Switch the results and you could directly switch the reactions in the pictures.

 

[Archies Ghost]

I ask myself "Would the incident in question (Ukraine quid pro quo) rise to the level of impeachable offense in my mind if the president were one I did not view favorably?"

The answer is consistently no.

That means I see all of this as a pure political exercise.

Impeachment, conviction and removal of DJT has always been a sentence in search of a crime. Russia collusion didn't work, obstruction of Russia collusion didn't work and for those that still think there is evidence of impeachable offenses in those two attempts, you must ask yourself why the switch to Ukraine?

So now we move on to round three. Ukraine quid pro quo.

To me the transcript looks like a fairly average transaction among nations. Actually I found it a little heartening to see DJT actually going after the so called "soft corruption" rampant in our political establishment and the fact that it involves a political rival stupid enough to be involved in such obvious fashion does not bother me in the least.

DJT is threatening to read the transcript in an address to the nation. He knows that the average American is not going to look unfavorably on a president asking a foreign nation to investigate the Biden silliness.

And without widespread public support, impeachment is doomed to fail and likely backfire.

The Democrats are badly misreading this one.

 

[superchuck500]

thanks for the input. Good analogy with the drug dealer. Kind of concerning if the same standard is used before employing an investigation into the president.

I guess there isn’t much difference in tabloid peddling and being a Junkie. Both are always looking for the next fix. (I’m being jocular)

Why would you characterize the Page case as "an investigation into the president"?

Carter Page had been on the FBI's radar for regarding his activities in Russia for several years. He had described himself as an 'advisor to the Kremlin' and had contact with Russian officials under US sanction. And the FISA application that contained the dossier information was filed in October 2016, after Page had left the Trump campaign (he had only been associated with the campaign for six months).

 

[Dadsdream]

This is ridiculous. You think the folks at the Trump rally wouldn't have been bummed had he lost? Switch the results and you could directly switch the reactions in the pictures.

No.
I have watched election night results since 1970, and I have never seen the level of utter despair that I saw that night.
Never had a party begun the night thinking it had an iron-clad victory in hand only to see it turn into ashes right before their eyes.
Never had a spokesman had to walk out onto a stage and tell people at a victory celebration that they should go home.
Still, right here in this thread, the anguished cry has rung out, "But she won the popular vote!"
Never have we had a candidate who lost a presidential election declare, "I can beat him again!"
Care to relive the moment?




Now, not so surprisingly, those who lost that night are strongly in favor of impeachment and those who won that night are strongly against it.
Much as I despise CNN opinion polls, the appearance is that there's a direct correlation.

In Friday's poll, 49% of Americans indicated that Trump should be impeached and removed from office, while 47% indicated that he should not be as the House's impeachment inquiry into Trump's dealings with Ukraine head into its next phase.

The poll finds a wide partisan gap on impeachment and removal. Eighty-two percent of Democrats support removing the President from office, while 13% are against it. Meanwhile, 18% of Republicans back removing Trump, while 82% oppose it. Independents, though, are split -- with 47% backing impeachment and 49% against it.

Americans split again on impeachment, according to new poll

On impeachment, Americans are split along party lines on whether to remove President Donald Trump, according to a Washington Post/ABC News poll released Friday.

www.cnn.com

 

[superchuck500]

I ask myself "Would the incident in question (Ukraine quid pro quo) rise to the level of impeachable offense in my mind if the president were one I did not view favorably?"

The answer is consistently no.

That means I see all of this as a pure political exercise.

Impeachment, conviction and removal of DJT has always been a sentence in search of a crime. Russia collusion didn't work, obstruction of Russia collusion didn't work and for those that still think there is evidence of impeachable offenses in those two attempts, you must ask yourself why the switch to Ukraine?

So now we move on to round three. Ukraine quid pro quo.

To me the transcript looks like a fairly average transaction among nations. Actually I found it a little heartening to see DJT actually going after the so called "soft corruption" rampant in our political establishment and the fact that it involves a political rival stupid enough to be involved in such obvious fashion does not bother me in the least.

DJT is threatening to read the transcript in an address to the nation. He knows that the average American is not going to look unfavorably on a president asking a foreign nation to investigate the Biden silliness.

And without widespread public support, impeachment is doomed to fail and likely backfire.

The Democrats are badly misreading this one.

Collusion? No: the investigation found that there was insufficient evidence to support allegations that the Trump campaign conspired with Russian agents regarding the 2016 election.

Obstruction? Yes and No: the investigation found that there was meaningful evidence that the president's conduct could have been illegal under obstruction statutes, but due to DOJ's (well-founded, in my opinion) policy of non-prosecution of a sitting president, the obstruction evidence was academic as long as Trump remained president.

Corruption/Zelensky? The use of granting an official act (here, approving conveyance of $400M in aid/arms) as leverage to obtain the "deliverable" (Zelensky's public announcement of the Biden/Burisma and 2016 DNC investigation) is quite clearly a violation of federal anti-corruption statutes IF that exchange (or threat) is for a "corrupt" or "personal" interest of the official (the president in this case).

To me, that's what it boils down to - we know that Trump pulled the aid package from its usual channels so that he could control its release, and then he attempted to condition the release of the package upon Zelensky's announcement of the investigation. So the only real question for the purposes of application of the criminal statute is whether the purpose of that condition was a personal (and hence, corrupt) interest of the president, or an official interest of the United States.

I think there's pretty good evidence that was his personal/political interest, with the activity of his "personal lawyer" and the public comments made by the personal lawyer standing as key evidence. There's also the very nature of the demand and in the context that the president wasn't making such demands or advancing such an agenda in any other context apart from Biden and the DNC. Plus the fact that a host of government and national security officials made their concerns known that they did not believe it was an official interest.

That said, I don't think any amount of evidence would sway you from thinking it was nothing more than an official interest of the United States - and others share that view. So I think that's really the crux of the Zelensky matter.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

The emotions of election night, 2016, translate directly to the current impeachment proceedings, in my opinion.

In my honest opinion, this impeachment ties directly back through the Mueller investigation, through the Russia Collusion allegations and points to the traumatic night when Democratic voters, politicians and pundits watched in horror as all the bogus polls, in-the-tank for Hillary media, and an alienated electorate came together in a perfect storm for the ages.

The reactions were real and gut-wrenching as the no-way-we-can-lose victory celebration turned into a wake. Political appointees who had already picked out the drapes for their new offices found themselves out on the sidewalk with their belongings in a box. The call for a correction "by any means necessary" fed upon itself and continues to feed upon anything and anyone who would disagree.

For all the posturing about noble virtue and motives, I feel the House is doing nothing but seeking retribution. They didn't get the satisfaction they wanted from Mueller, so the "by any means necessary" clause has kicked into high gear.

I fear there's going to be a counter-backlash and this whole mess is going to get ugly beyond reason. We still haven't bottomed out. Both sides can, and will, stoop lower.

Can we? Oh, yes, yes we can!

What you have said about the 2016 election night reactions may be right, but that is where you fall off into the same tired GOP talking points. No, the impeachment of trump has nothing to do with retribution and has everything to do with his lawless actions. I am willing to admit that there are some Dems in the House who want to "impeach the mf" by any means necessary, but you have to admit that their calls have been rebuffed by the House D's leadership, in particular Nancy Pelosi. If retribution is what they were seeking, they had the votes since Jan to impeach, and yet they didn't.
Rep Green has forced two votes for impeachment when they were in the minority and one this year in what I would describe as retribution and they all failed, bigly.

House will have to vote on impeaching Trump, regardless of Pelosi’s opposition - Roll Call

Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s opposition to impeaching President Donald Trump won’t stop a House vote on the issue, as Texas Democratic Rep. Al Green intends to force one again like he twice did when Republicans held the majority. “I’m going to bring it the floor of the House again,” Green said Tuesday...

www.rollcall.com

“Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country,” Pelosi told the Post. “And he’s just not worth it.”

What Nancy Pelosi Learned From the Clinton Impeachment

Interviews with the House speaker’s old friends and colleagues offer a window into her reluctance to pull the pin on a political grenade.

www.theatlantic.com

Many House Democrats wary of trying to impeach Trump after Mueller report

Special counsel Robert Mueller's report has prompted new consideration of impeachment by House Democrats.

abcnews.go.com

Nancy Pelosi frustrates Democratic activists on impeachment but party strategists like what she's doing

About three dozen House Democrats have called for impeachment hearings on President Donald Trump, a billionaire's TV ads rip the House for "doing nothing," and legal experts find clear justification in special counsel Robert Mueller's report. Pelosi keeps resisting variously citing GOP...

www.cnbc.com

Pelosi understands that impeachment is a serious matter and it should not be used frivolously as many on her left would like for her to do. She could have sought impeachment for the obstruction claims after the Mueller report, and yet again, she held the left back knowing that, while they may have a case, it was not worth it politically. Honestly, impeachment favors trump more than the D's because he knows his base will not go for it it, no matter what he is accused of doing.

This time it is different. These allegations are about serious abuses of power by POTUS and they HAVE TO draw a line here, even if their R colleagues turn a blind eye. Regardless of the outcome, there will be a price to pay because the populace has been so poisoned by false information and obfuscation they will lash out and vote a lot of them out of office. So be it. The integrity of our government is worth the loss seats, at least they would have done the right thing and held trump accountable for HIS actions.

 

[bdb13]

I ask myself "Would the incident in question (Ukraine quid pro quo) rise to the level of impeachable offense in my mind if the president were one I did not view favorably?"

The answer is consistently no.

I ask myself the same basic question with a President I do view more favorably than Trump and I'm confident I'd still feel that impeachment and removal from office are appropriate.

My standard for removal from office might be too low because I think Clinton should have been removed from office because of his relationship with a subordinate, but I don't view Trump's quid pro quo as a close call.

Admittedly I can't stand Trump but I think I'm pretty good at taking a step back and attempting to look at things fairly objectively, but ultimately I do think that this is a big deal and I don't believe this is something I would be giving any President a pass on. I'll say that without the quid pro quo it's probably borderline, but with it the level of corruption is too high for me to ignore.

 

[yuyi64]

And it's literally a debate forum.

This is a discussion forum that reuberay is posting on, not a debate forum. The debate forum on this site hasn't even been activated yet. He is welcomed to post his opinion if it's honestly believed. You in turn can post your honest opinion about his opinion without ridicule or condescension. Let's not turn this Community Discussion Forum into another PDB [Edited out "Echo Chamber". Inflammatory! -Andrus].

 

[TheRealTruth]

This is a discussion forum that reuberay is posting on, not a debate forum. The debate forum on this site hasn't even been activated yet. He is welcomed to post his opinion if it's honestly believed. You in turn can post your honest opinion about his opinion without ridicule or condescension. Let's not turn this Community Discussion Forum into another PDB [Edited out "Echo Chamber". Inflammatory! -Andrus]..

I agree, the post came off as condescending. I hope we can get away from that here and not have these types of belittling posts and refrain from the personal attacks.

I personally despise Trump, but I don't let my dislike of him influence my ability to rationalize and understand that people supported him out of interests that aligned with their own politics.

We have to get away from judging people simply because they supported or still support Trump.

You cannot expect people to change their core values just because the figure head of their personal political beliefs is a terrible person.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Collusion? No: the investigation found that there was insufficient evidence to support allegations that the Trump campaign conspired with Russian agents regarding the 2016 election.

Obstruction? Yes and No: the investigation found that there was meaningful evidence that the president's conduct could have been illegal under obstruction statutes, but due to DOJ's (well-founded, in my opinion) policy of non-prosecution of a sitting president, the obstruction evidence was academic as long as Trump remained president.

Corruption/Zelensky? The use of granting an official act (here, approving conveyance of $400M in aid/arms) as leverage to obtain the "deliverable" (Zelensky's public announcement of the Biden/Burisma and 2016 DNC investigation) is quite clearly a violation of federal anti-corruption statutes IF that exchange (or threat) is for a "corrupt" or "personal" interest of the official (the president in this case).

To me, that's what it boils down to - we know that Trump pulled the aid package from its usual channels so that he could control its release, and then he attempted to condition the release of the package upon Zelensky's announcement of the investigation. So the only real question for the purposes of application of the criminal statute is whether the purpose of that condition was a personal (and hence, corrupt) interest of the president, or an official interest of the United States.

I think there's pretty good evidence that was his personal/political interest, with the activity of his "personal lawyer" and the public comments made by the personal lawyer standing as key evidence. There's also the very nature of the demand and in the context that the president wasn't making such demands or advancing such an agenda in any other context apart from Biden and the DNC. Plus the fact that a host of government and national security officials made their concerns known that they did not believe it was an official interest.

That said, I don't think any amount of evidence would sway you from thinking it was nothing more than an official interest of the United States - and others share that view. So I think that's really the crux of the Zelensky matter.

The question isn't whether there was anything more than just the official interest of the United States. The question was whether what was asked was in the national interest. It clearly was so the fact that it was also politically helpful to DJT is incidental. As I said, looks like a pretty normal exchange, one I am sure has been duplicated many times in the past by every president there ever was. That is why this is all a bit silly.