The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (3 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]

Perhaps this sidetrack discussion should be taken to the Mud Pit.

 

[Lazybones]

Perhaps this sidetrack discussion should be taken to the Mud Pit.

Yeah we all have to do better.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Yeah we all have to do better.

This is true. Overall I think most people are trying though.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

I just can't wait until next week when the GOP and its trump apologist, after weeks of denying a quid pro quo existed, acknowledge that it did but it's not an impeachable offense. Then they will follow it up with several examples of how Obama did the same thing. (of course those examples will be filled with false equivalencies)

 

[Sledge Hammer]

This is true. Overall I think most people are trying though.

So far, casually observing, it feels like most posters are acting like their better selves most of the time.

It is when people get frustrated, that they slide into their worse selves. Many are quick to knifing the other side.

(Not directed at you ) But let's remain on the topic.

 

[RobF]

This is the part where I provide examples of president’s engaging in foreign affairs activities that are both in the national interest and politically expedient and you reply that none are EXACTLY the same as the incident in question, a phone call on a Thursday referencing a former VP now running for president whose son got kicked out the Navy.

That may be the case, but without even presenting the examples, the line of discussion goes nowhere. No-one is simply going to replace their opinion with someone else's simply because they say so.

Sorry, not playing. You aren’t the teacher, this isn’t a classroom and this isn’t a test where you get to demand answers.

It's not a 'teacher' thing or a 'moderation' thing, it's a case of the argument going nowhere if you don't even attempt to back it up.

You've said it looks like a "looks like a pretty normal exchange, one I am sure has been duplicated many times in the past by every president there ever was". You've, not unreasonably, been asked how you've arrived at that conclusion, and if you have any examples. I would also like to see them. From my perspective, Trump's behaviour in this instance seems highly likely to be unique, with a national interest defense seeming improbable given the unorthodox approach taken to the request together with the highly specific and narrow nature of the request. But I can't claim to be an expert on the history of presidential activities of this nature, so if there are examples indicating this approach is actually common, I'd certainly be interested in seeing them.

If you present the examples, some people may consider them relevant. If some people say they're not the same, they will hopefully point out why they're not the same, and we can then engage with that reasoning. You might even agree with some of it. If you don't have examples, and your view is based on more of a generalised behavioural assumption, that's OK too, you can just say so.

But if the approach is instead, "I have examples but I'm not going to bother sharing them, I'm not playing, you're not a teacher", then the conversation could more easily be served by a simple yes or no poll.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

That may be the case, but without even presenting the examples, the line of discussion goes nowhere. No-one is simply going to replace their opinion with someone else's simply because they say so.


It's not a 'teacher' thing or a 'moderation' thing, it's a case of the argument going nowhere if you don't even attempt to back it up.

You've said it looks like a "looks like a pretty normal exchange, one I am sure has been duplicated many times in the past by every president there ever was". You've, not unreasonably, been asked how you've arrived at that conclusion, and if you have any examples. I would also like to see them. From my perspective, Trump's behaviour in this instance seems highly likely to be unique, with a national interest defense seeming improbable given the unorthodox approach taken to the request together with the highly specific and narrow nature of the request. But I can't claim to be an expert on the history of presidential activities of this nature, so if there are examples indicating this approach is actually common, I'd certainly be interested in seeing them.

If you present the examples, some people may consider them relevant. If some people say they're not the same, they will hopefully point out why they're not the same, and we can then engage with that reasoning. You might even agree with some of it. If you don't have examples, and your view is based on more of a generalised behavioural assumption, that's OK too, you can just say so.

But if the approach is instead, "I have examples but I'm not going to bother sharing them, I'm not playing, you're not a teacher", then the conversation could more easily be served by a simple yes or no poll.

I’ve asked this question as well because I have tried to look for historical analogies after running into similar arguments without qualification and the only one I came up with that even approaches this level was a series of events during Nixon’s 68 election.

Who engaged in a scheme to use back channel communications through a political donor to undermine the Johnson administration’s conduct of foreign policy in Vietnam and China and buff up his argument that Humphrey’s and the Democrats had no answers for Vietnam. Using a proxy political donor, Anna Chennault, they convinced the South Vietnamese to delay or chill certain diplomatic announcements in order to damage Johnson on the pretense Nixon was becoming the far and away favorite and this would be mutually beneficial and curry future favor. They also did this with China as well. When sufficient evidence of this was released through the Nixon library in 2007 by way of his campaign chief’s notes, the scholars and political scientists that took note considered it an impropriety on the level of Watergate that almost certainly would have been damaging to his campaign(if not put him in severe legal jeopardy) or gotten him removed from office for undermining American foreign policy and misleading the American public. You could probably be justifiably even harsher than that in your criticism.

Beyond that though I see little evidence that soliciting and pressuring a foreign government by re-purposing the application of foreign policy to damage a political rival is a common and routine thing president’s do. And the testimony of now several bi-partisan career senior officials serving under president’s of both parties, in various departments and capacities, have testified under oath to that effect. That this is not normal, routine, or something that just goes on. This was unique, beyond any pale they have witnessed in their service, and the administration knew it was problematic and immediately tried to alter transcripts, quiet people that were troubled, and cover it up. Furthermore, if “others probably do it as well so it’s okay to keep doing it” is the argument being put forth, what that amounts to is an endorsement of illiberal democracy. As the only justifiable response to a premise that this is a common occurrence should be it needs to stop immediately and indefinitely, and be punished harshly to deter its use in the future. Anything less is unacceptable to the very health of a Democratic-Republic society.

 

[Lazybones]

That may be the case, but without even presenting the examples, the line of discussion goes nowhere. No-one is simply going to replace their opinion with someone else's simply because they say so.


It's not a 'teacher' thing or a 'moderation' thing, it's a case of the argument going nowhere if you don't even attempt to back it up.

You've said it looks like a "looks like a pretty normal exchange, one I am sure has been duplicated many times in the past by every president there ever was". You've, not unreasonably, been asked how you've arrived at that conclusion, and if you have any examples. I would also like to see them. From my perspective, Trump's behaviour in this instance seems highly likely to be unique, with a national interest defense seeming improbable given the unorthodox approach taken to the request together with the highly specific and narrow nature of the request. But I can't claim to be an expert on the history of presidential activities of this nature, so if there are examples indicating this approach is actually common, I'd certainly be interested in seeing them.

If you present the examples, some people may consider them relevant. If some people say they're not the same, they will hopefully point out why they're not the same, and we can then engage with that reasoning. You might even agree with some of it. If you don't have examples, and your view is based on more of a generalised behavioural assumption, that's OK too, you can just say so.

But if the approach is instead, "I have examples but I'm not going to bother sharing them, I'm not playing, you're not a teacher", then the conversation could more easily be served by a simple yes or no poll.

as I was reading this, it reminded me of the scene in “a few good men”. When asked where code red was in the sop manual, after the witness didn’t have an answer, the attorney walked back with a smile.

then the defense grabbed the book and asked the witness if the mess hall location was in the book, the witness said no. Well how do you know where to eat, he asked. I just follow the crowd he answered.

Just because it hasn’t been brought up in an attempted coup doesn’t mean that it’s not part of the norm.

 

[Archies Ghost]

I’ve asked this question as well because I have tried to look for historical analogies after running into similar arguments without qualification and the only one I came up with that even approaches this level was a series of events during Nixon’s 68 election.

Who engaged in a scheme to use back channel communications through a political donor to undermine the Johnson administration’s conduct of foreign policy in Vietnam and China and buff up his argument that Humphrey’s and the Democrats had no answers for Vietnam. Using a proxy political donor, Anna Chennault, they convinced the South Vietnamese to delay or chill certain diplomatic announcements in order to damage Johnson on the pretense Nixon was becoming the far and away favorite and this would be mutually beneficial and curry future favor. They also did this with China as well. When sufficient evidence of this was released through the Nixon library in 2007 by way of his campaign chief’s notes, the scholars and political scientists that took note considered it an impropriety on the level of Watergate that almost certainly would have been damaging to his campaign(if not put him in severe legal jeopardy) or gotten him removed from office for undermining American foreign policy and misleading the American public. You could probably be justifiably even harsher than that in your criticism.

Beyond that though I see little evidence that soliciting and pressuring a foreign government by re-purposing the application of foreign policy to damage a political rival is a common and routine thing president’s do. And the testimony of now several bi-partisan career senior officials serving under president’s of both parties, in various departments and capacities, have testified under oath to that effect. That this is not normal, routine, or something that just goes on. This was unique, beyond any pale they have witnessed in their service, and the administration knew it was problematic and immediately tried to alter transcripts, quiet people that were troubled, and cover it up. Furthermore, if “others probably do it as well so it’s okay to keep doing it” is the argument being put forth, what that amounts to is an endorsement of illiberal democracy. As the only justifiable response to a premise that this is a common occurrence should be it needs to stop immediately and indefinitely, and be punished harshly to deter its use in the future. Anything less is unacceptable to the very health of a Democratic-Republic society.

Here is a fine example of what I was referring to. If you narrow the definition of the unacceptable behavior enough it will eventually only fit the event you want it to fit.

If DJT is to be impeached for using the president's perquisites in the realm of foreign affairs to do something perceived as in his political interest while also in the national interest, we certainly have a long string of such incidents to point to in the past and we can certainly expect more of the same in the future.

If his impeachment is to be predicated on a tightly constrained scenario that excludes acts of a similar nature that do not match exactly, then I would say it is a sentence in search of a crime, defined only in the minds of the accusers.

To specifically cite previous examples will only generate endless paragraphs of "Its not the same thing" and is, therefore, counterproductive.

I cannot think of a president I am familiar with who has not engaged in politically advantageous foreign policy actions, up to and include military action.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Here is a fine example of what I was referring to. If you narrow the definition of the unacceptable behavior enough it will eventually only fit the event you want it to fit.

If DJT is to be impeached for using the president's perquisites in the realm of foreign affairs to do something perceived as in his political interest while also in the national interest, we certainly have a long string of such incidents to point to in the past and we can certainly expect more of the same in the future.

If his impeachment is to be predicated on a tightly constrained scenario that excludes acts of a similar nature that do not match exactly, then I would say it is a sentence in search of a crime, defined only in the minds of the accusers.

To specifically cite previous examples will only generate endless paragraphs of "Its not the same thing" and is, therefore, counterproductive.

I cannot think of a president I am familiar with who has not engaged in politically advantageous foreign policy actions, up to and include military action.

First off, you need to qualify how potentially illegally (2) stopping the transfer of congressionally passed and allocated foreign military aid to a critical ally in order to pressure the foreign leader of that country to announce publicly that they are re-opening an already concluded investigation into Trump's chief political rival is acting in the national interest of the United States? Then when concern about those actions became known to ambassadors and respected military and civil leadership, Trump's administration attempted to cover up those demands, edit transcripts, and silence those that were voicing concerns.

You are continuing to state Trump's behavior as being easily justifiable as acting in the national interest without providing any evidence.

Then we can move onto where we parse these so-called extensive examples of past presidents routinely doing such things that apparently none of these bi-partisan senior members of the federal government that have testified seem to think occurs at all with the frequency you claim. But much like Nixon's behavior, and to the point I ended on, subverting the normal operations of foreign policy for pure political gain has no place in a functioning and healthy democracy. Excusing it at any level, under any rationale, is not acceptable to me, or I would imagine anyone that values healthy democratic governance. Excusing or not attempting to punish, deter, or take major steps to better sanction such behavior is, for all practical purposes, a vote of confidence for illiberalism.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Here is a fine example of what I was referring to. If you narrow the definition of the unacceptable behavior enough it will eventually only fit the event you want it to fit.

If DJT is to be impeached for using the president's perquisites in the realm of foreign affairs to do something perceived as in his political interest while also in the national interest, we certainly have a long string of such incidents to point to in the past and we can certainly expect more of the same in the future.

If his impeachment is to be predicated on a tightly constrained scenario that excludes acts of a similar nature that do not match exactly, then I would say it is a sentence in search of a crime, defined only in the minds of the accusers.

To specifically cite previous examples will only generate endless paragraphs of "Its not the same thing" and is, therefore, counterproductive.

I cannot think of a president I am familiar with who has not engaged in politically advantageous foreign policy actions, up to and include military action.

One simple question for you, how is a public announcement of an investigation into Hunter Biden a priority of the United States of America?

 

[samiam5211]

as I was reading this, it reminded me of the scene in “a few good men”. When asked where code red was in the sop manual, after the witness didn’t have an answer, the attorney walked back with a smile.

then the defense grabbed the book and asked the witness if the mess hall location was in the book, the witness said no. Well how do you know where to eat, he asked. I just follow the crowd he answered.

Just because it hasn’t been brought up in an attempted coup doesn’t mean that it’s not part of the norm.

So you’re saying you just “know” it’s happened before because you’re not naive? Or do you have a single other example to back up your assumption?

 

[N.O.Bronco]

One simple question for you, how is a public announcement of an investigation into Hunter Biden a priority of the United States of America?

Not just an announcement, but in the context of pressuring a foreign government to publicly re-open an already investigated case under threat of losing critical military aid the administration had no legal right to withhold in the first place.

That according to sworn testimony Pentagon and Defense Department officials unanimously concluded was threatening critical US national security interests. Which the White House roundly ignored.

 

[Ayo]

One simple question for you, how is a public announcement of an investigation into Hunter Biden a priority of the United States of America?

Hunter Biden was, as far as I follow the argument, part of the Ukranian "corruption" that was being investigated.

This has become the pivot point for a some GOP Senators. They acknowledge quid pro quo - since it's patently undeniable at this point, the result of all the corroborating testimony - but that it was in the name of rooting out corruption. That we need to ascertain the integrity of the Ukrainian government before we give them hundreds of millions of dollars in military support and give their leader a White House audience.

I suspect the admission of quid pro quo - at least for Congressional Republicans - will increase and the argument will increasingly become about how justifiable it was in terms of US national interest.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Hunter Biden was, as far as I follow the argument, part of the Ukranian "corruption" that was being investigated.

This has become the pivot point for a some GOP Senators. They acknowledge quid pro quo - since it's patently undeniable at this point, the result of all the corroborating testimony - but that it was in the name of rooting out corruption. That we need to ascertain the integrity of the Ukrainian government before we give them hundreds of millions of dollars in military support and give their leader a White House audience.

I suspect the admission of quid pro quo - at least for Congressional Republicans - will increase and the argument will increasingly become about how justifiable it was in terms of US national interest.

And it may be a thread you could knot if the quid pro quo didn't involve undermining national security interests on the basis, not of a promise to be diligent on matters of internal and foreign corruption broadly speaking, but on the premise that the president publicly announcing the re-opening of an investigation into his chief political rival's son.

Then when concerns internally and externally began to crop up, the administration edited, obstructed, and tried to silence people from letting it be known that was the rationale for potentially taking illegal action in re-routing congressionally allocated military aid.

About the only somewhat logically consistent angle I can see some Republicans eventually defaulting to is that this doesn't rise to the level of impeachment....Of course that would require some serious maneuvering around the language and context of the constitution since it specifically mentions bribery in a context of the time that is basically verbatim what Trump did: leveraging or abusing the power of your office for personal/political gain.

 

[Ayo]

And it may be a thread you could knot if the quid pro quo didn't involve undermining national security interests on the basis, not of a promise to be diligent on matters of internal and foreign corruption broadly speaking, but on the premise that the president publicly announcing the re-opening of an investigation into his chief political rival's son.

Then when concerns internally and externally began to crop up, the administration edited, obstructed, and tried to silence people from letting it be known that was the rationale for potentially taking illegal action in re-routing congressionally allocated military aid.

About the only somewhat logically consistent angle I can see some Republicans eventually defaulting to is that this doesn't rise to the level of impeachment....Of course that would require some serious maneuvering around the language and context of the constitution since it specifically mentions bribery in a context of the time that is basically verbatim what Trump did: leveraging or abusing the power of your office for personal/political gain.

to be clear, I don't think the defense comes even close to holding up to any sort of scrutiny or, more generally, logic. Just pointing out how I understand those dots are being connected. Louisiana's own John Kennedy has been doing just that, in fact.

 

[JimEverett]

Yes, it does matter in that respect, but help me understand how it helps if none of the whistleblower’s testimony is used in trial? Or specifically in this case if all of the information the whistleblower reported on is backed by the testimony of others.


Let’s go worst case and say the whistleblower is Biden’s drinking buddy. How do you use that to discredit the information we have through the testimony of others?

Because the whistleblowers complain formed the basis for the latter testimony. It was the initial complaint that laid out the claim that there was pressure put on Ukraine to interfere with a US election. So that initial charge can be argued as to alter interpretations of the anyone else testifying on the matter.

That is one possible way.

I guess I’m not seeing how keeping the whistleblower’s identity a secret as being a breach of transparency. Whistleblower identity protection is standard practice right? So, to go against that, particularly when the whistleblower reported based on existing laws that would protect their identity.

Existing law does not protect a whistleblower from being outed by the press. It only applies to the IG - and the IG has the power, under the law, to disclose the identity.
But why should a free press withhold the identity of someone whose charge was the initial domino in trying to remove a sitting U.S. President?

I’m not familiar of any other case where a whistleblower or informant was outed against their will in a trial by the defense unless the whistleblower’s testimony was entered as evidence in the trial, are you?

As I wrote above, I don't think is like a normal trial on a criminal matter. This is a case of trying to remove an elected PResident from office The idea that the identity of the person making the charge that operates and framed the basis for that action a secret strikes me as being something a totalitarian state would do, with the help of a compliant "press" - not an open and transparent democracy.

 

[Ayo]

But why should a free press withhold the identity of someone whose charge was the initial domino in trying to remove a sitting U.S. President?

Personally, I think there's valid importance to the anonymity of a whistleblower. Revealing names that could have the (perhaps deliberate) impact of discouraging others to come forward is problematic. In this day and age, when there have been clear and explicit threats, that personal exposure to danger and harm is worth considering. And when we are talking matters of national security and public safety, we should encourage people who have witnessed wrongdoing to come forward - not endanger them.

The idea that the identity of the person making the charge that operates and framed the basis for that action a secret strikes me as being something a totalitarian state would do, with the help of a compliant "press" - not an open and transparent democracy.

when has this happened? If the charges are valid and legitimate - not fabricated - (and these have largely been corroborated by multiple people), then I don't follow the path to totalitarianism.

What you are suggesting is some sort of Pravda-esque collusion between State media and the State itself. In this case, I don't think the comparison holds, because the Free Press isn't doing the bidding of the State. In fact, the State seems to be demanding the release of the name - if they did that, then I think the argument might be more compelling. Except, when it comes to your argument, it's contrary.

Are there boundaries around a 'free' press that you think are legitimately drawn? If so, what are they?