The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (8 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

 

[MT15]

It’s a valid point. So much impropriety has come to light just in the last few days, this pressure to hold the vote now comes off as pretty convenient for someone who might just be worried about what other shoes are left to drop. There’s nothing in the books that says the House has to hold a vote now, when they have just started the investigative process. This WH tactic is just another way to delay providing documents.

 

[MT15]

I found this viewpoint from a former FBI agent interesting. It speaks to the current defense that Trump is “fighting corruption” by targeting his main political rival the way he is. (emphasis mine)

“If you really just want another country to investigate, they can do it quietly, you wait for the findings, and then let them take it on. What they wanted was a public announcement, that would then publicly cast doubt on Joe Biden in a way that would benefit Trump. And I think that that need for them to be very public about this investigation that they were potentially starting really adds to this idea that he was looking for a personal benefit to his own campaign," she continued.”

She makes a valid point. Trump is concerned with messaging, not fighting corruption. The text messages show an obsession with having Ukraine make an announcement that they would be investigating, not with actually having the investigation. That wasn’t the important part. It speaks to how corrupt this whole deal truly is.

In a viral Twitter thread, attached to a clip from CNN posted by former FBI special agent Asha Rangappa, Rangappa accuses Donald Trump of employing covert propaganda against the American public.

www.newsweek.com

 

[N.O.Bronco]

It’s a valid point. So much impropriety has come to light just in the last few days, this pressure to hold the vote now comes off as pretty convenient for someone who might just be worried about what other shoes are left to drop. There’s nothing in the books that says the House has to hold a vote now, when they have just started the investigative process. This WH tactic is just another way to delay providing documents.

It literally was the tactic of Nixon.

I mean he closed out his State of The Union with, essentially, a more elegant version of the Fox News talking points getting disseminated here. Talking about speeding this up to a vote to get us back to doing the business of America.

it’s the equivalent of arguing a prosecutor should close up discovery before the DNA results are even back and then rest his case on the first day. And it also speaks volumes to those that have no desire to get further clarity about an already damning 11 minute partial transcript but that was transcribing a 30 minute call. Or why calls with Saudi Arabia(who he and his family of robust conflicts of interest with), and Russia were covered up similarly to this conversation.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I don't think anyone other than Trump thinks the call was a good thing or proper. Where we vehemently disagree is on the impeachability of the impropriety. Many look at the transcript and see no crime while others see a crime on every page. I say the House should charge him with a specific crime if they think one was committed, otherwise move along and focus on other matters of national interest that they get paid to address. Bring the impeachment to the floor for a vote and let every member go on record if they think a crime was committed.

You do understand that the printed version of the phone call is not verbatim, right?

"CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place."

Anything less than a complete and accurate transcript can be edited to portray those involved in a way the editors so choose, and what was released still makes Trump look terrible. What do you think is missing from this version if what was left in is so damning?

 

[Beach Friends]

What do you think is missing from this version if what was left in is so damning?

I don't see any justification for a presumption that there was anything substantive left out, or that any such omission would necessarily be damning.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I don't see any justification for a presumption that there was anything substantive left out, or that any such omission would necessarily be damning.

Other than covering up the call and still keeping hidden the more complete transcript you mean?

 

[Beach Friends]

Honest questions, so please feel free to give a fact based response:

How was the call covered up?

Is there a more complete transcript?

 

[MT15]

At the risk of not having links, here’s my understanding: the cover up referenced was the habit of placing call notes and transcripts on the special servers used to hold only the most sensitive spy-type info, rather than routine calls. And on the DOJ and WH at first blocking the whistleblower complaint. A second complaint lodged by the CIA lawyer was also concealed by the DOJ and is just now coming to light.

We’re not sure if there is a more complete transcript. Some say there is and some say there may not be. I say let’s find out, because the notes released only represent about 1/3 of the time that was recorded for the call.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

Honest questions, so please feel free to give a fact based response:

How was the call covered up?

Is there a more complete transcript?

The call was immediately placed under code level protections. Which is reserved for the most top secret communications and severely limits access and removes the call from the normal circulation process amongst agencies.


As one official on Lawfare put it, not even calls coordinating responses with heads of state after 9/11 were put under these protections. None of Trump’s early communications about Afghanistan or other matters with heads of state that likely contained actual national security implications have been placed there. But what has been placed there was this call that had minimal to zero national security discussions and others to Mohammed bin Salman before we capitulated to Saudi Arabia on Khashogi and another to Putin. The former of which was directly hidden from circulation at all. Then when internal complaints were filed those were covered up as well.

So if it wasn’t for legitimate purposes to hide the Ukraine call, it leaves only other motives. And it’s clear the administration saw the asking of a favor as a damning thing based on their posture and secrecy and unwillingness to be transparent. So to take all that and assume everything left behind the curtain is most likely above board requires pushing all that context away from your brain before processing.

 

[yuyi64]

You do understand that the printed version of the phone call is not verbatim, right?

"CAUTION: A Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation (TELCON) is not a verbatim transcript of a discussion. The text in this document records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place."

Anything less than a complete and accurate transcript can be edited to portray those involved in a way the editors so choose, and what was released still makes Trump look terrible. What do you think is missing from this version if what was left in is so damning?

We all understand that the transcript is not verbatim but it's as close as you're ever going to get and multiple intelligence officials collaborated on the transcript to make it as close to verbatim as possible. Even the loonies on the left are not disputing the accuracy of the transcript, they're just seeing crimes where others see the same things and don't consider them crimes. While what was released makes Trump look terrible it doesn't show him to be a criminal and I don't consider what's in the transcript to be so "damning" that it rises to the level of impeachment. If you think Trump is the first President to ask a foreign government for a political favor in exchange for favorable consideration you probably also believe there is no bias in NFL officiating and the no-call was just an innocent mistake.

 

[Ayo]

Time to put up or shut up. Vote now or stop the dog and pony show.

why?

this is all politics. If they think that dragging it out will help them, they will drag it out. Or, it could also be about accumulating evidence. Maybe let time go and see what else comes up - maybe this second whistleblower comes out. Who knows.

The point is, I don't understand the absolute requirement you keep insisting on which is that they - for some reason - must vote now.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

We all understand that the transcript is not verbatim but it's as close as you're ever going to get and multiple intelligence officials collaborated on the transcript to make it as close to verbatim as possible. Even the loonies on the left are not disputing the accuracy of the transcript, they're just seeing crimes where others see the same things and don't consider them crimes. While what was released makes Trump look terrible it doesn't show him to be a criminal and I don't consider what's in the transcript to be so "damning" that it rises to the level of impeachment.

There is likely a fuller transcript and a partial and edited notes version(and increasingly likely an edited partial version that we have publicly).

the latter is what gets circulated throughout agencies to coordinate relevant responses and activity. A partial transcript that was withheld from circulation and placed in top secret holding based on no justifiable national security reason. Especially relative to past transcripts that were not. Leaving only the possibility that it was done so for reasons other than national security.

And I’ll point out again you are reiterating the same talking point from yesterday but have yet to answer my challenge to that position. You claim no crime was committed but impeachment is not a criminal process. And what the founders explicitly pointed to, the use of public office outside of the public interest, is directly demonstrated in this call and cover up. The one action that the founders most explicitly defined and thought impeachment should be used for in the constitution: bribery(as understood at the time)

And if your argument boils down to: “other guys beat their wives much worse than him,” you really don’t have one.

 

[yuyi64]

why?

this is all politics. If they think that dragging it out will help them, they will drag it out. Or, it could also be about accumulating evidence. Maybe let time go and see what else comes up - maybe this second whistleblower comes out. Who knows.

The point is, I don't understand the absolute requirement you keep insisting on which is that they - for some reason - must vote now.

Because making a formal charge of impeachment and bringing debate to the House floor would give both sides of the aisle subpoena powers, not just the side trying to score political points as it stand now. Once it gets to the floor both sides can take as long as they want to investigate all principals involved.

 

[MT15]

Ok, I’ll bite. What would Republicans subpoena in this case?

 

[Ayo]

Because making a formal charge of impeachment and bringing debate to the House floor would give both sides of the aisle subpoena powers, not just the side trying to score political points as it stand now. Once it gets to the floor both sides can take as long as they want to investigate all principals involved.

and?

There's nothing here that's all that compelling when it comes to your demands that it must be now. It's politics. And Trump has continually demonstrated his willingness to challenge others to go lower than he.

This seems to me to be the Dems fighting Trump in the same way that Trump likes to fight.

Maybe if you spent more time chastising Trump for his rhetoric or methods, it might make for a reasonable point - but as it stands, it feels just as one-sided as you're complaining this process is and has been thus far.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Because making a formal charge of impeachment and bringing debate to the House floor would give both sides of the aisle subpoena powers, not just the side trying to score political points as it stand now. Once it gets to the floor both sides can take as long as they want to investigate all principals involved.

Well, that not true at all. Subpoena powers still lie with committee chairs even through impeachment hearings. That being said, there is nothing preventing the ranking members from seeking a subpoena.

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

Ok, I’ll bite. What would Republicans subpoena in this case?

Susan Rice, Eric Holder, Loretta Lynch, and Valerie Jarrett for starters. I am surprised that none of these names have surfaced on state TV yet

 

[yuyi64]

there is nothing preventing the ranking members from seeking a subpoena.

Not true at all. The minority party does not have subpoena power in Congressional investigations and the Democrats would never subpoena anyone who would undermine their objectives.