The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (6 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

 

[Lazybones]

Nope. Because that actually IS "fake news". Biden went to Ukraine to jumpstart the investigation into Burisma by getting them to fire the corrupt prosecutor who was stalling it. That, in case it's not clear, is the opposite of "shady".

I’m not sure I follow. Are you talking about Biden or his son? Are you saying the 900k payment is fake news? And are you also saying it’s ok for the government to withhold aid if they feel the receiver is corrupted?

 

[cuddlemonkey]

Ok so let’s say we go with that. Does that not also undermine the DOJ investigation of Biden (if the DOJ actually investigated).

No. The DOJ reportedly failing to investigate the whistleblower complaint has nothing to do with any investigation into Biden, whether there is one or not.

 

[Lazybones]

No. The DOJ reportedly failing to investigate the whistleblower complaint has nothing to do with any investigation into Biden, whether there is one or not.

i know it has nothing to do with it. Cross watt said that he thinks the DOJ already cleared Biden. I’m saying if the DOJ cleared Biden and that should be good enough (paraphrasing crosswatr) why isn’t it good enough for trump.

this was probably more of a question for crosswatt to answer. I hope I’m not mischaracterizing his comments.

 

[Taurus]

I’m not sure I follow. Are you talking about Biden or his son? Are you saying the 900k payment is fake news? And are you also saying it’s ok for the government to withhold aid if they feel the receiver is corrupted?

Keerect. If the US government sees a given operator as corrupt, the US government can withhold money since giving them that money isn't in the best interests of the United States.

Notice that at no point in there are we withholding or approving money strictly for the benefit of one single government employee.

Which, this has to be repeated every time the subject comes up, which is exactly what a big, public announcement of an investigation into the Bidens is. It benefits one person, Trump.

It's about as clearcut an example of bribery as you're ever going to see.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

I’m not sure I follow. Are you talking about Biden or his son? Are you saying the 900k payment is fake news? And are you also saying it’s ok for the government to withhold aid if they feel the receiver is corrupted?

The latest came Wednesday, when Ukrainian lawmaker Andriy Derkach announced he has evidence that Burisma paid Joe Biden himself for lobbying. Derkach claimed his source for this information was a journalist; he didn't name him. The Kyiv Post, an English-language newspaper, called Derkach "dubious."

Hours later, Giuliani appeared on Sean Hannity's show on Fox News and parroted Derkach's claim.

usatoday.com/in-depth/news/world/2019/10/10/trumps-biden-ukraine-natural-gas-conspiracy-theory-false-but-alive/3851728002/

Also, John Solomon (who has been covering the Biden stuff for a bit) says that it's not true.

 

[cuddlemonkey]

i know it has nothing to do with it. Cross watt said that he thinks the DOJ already cleared Biden. I’m saying if the DOJ cleared Biden and that should be good enough (paraphrasing crosswatr) why isn’t it good enough for trump.

this was probably more of a question for crosswatt to answer. I hope I’m not mischaracterizing his comments.

I don't want to put words in Cross's mouth, so I will hang up and wait for them to answer, so to speak.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

The whole issue centers around Joe Biden telling the Ukrainian government that their prosecutor in charge of corruption investigations wasn't investigating anything and needed to be removed.

The decision to remove him was supported by international monetary fund among others. Several entities credit Biden with bring enough visibility to the issue that actually cause the action.

The investigation into Burisma preceded Hunter Biden being named to the board. and what's the actual investigation by a competent prosecutor was completed, a fine was paid by one of the managing partners.

To my understanding, the DOJ looked into Biden's efforts and found no improper action on his part.

Correct, and as I mentioned before, Viktor Shokin had actually chilled and shelved investigations into a number of companies, Burisma included.

Biden pressuring Ukraine to remove him on the premise of not being tough on corruption, which was the reason a coalition formed, opened the door to thawing those investigations, including back into Burisma. Which ended up happening.

Which is why these theories are so absurd, because they require an active ignorance of key context in order to make sense. Joe Biden’s position actually removed an impediment that was not interested in investigating Burisma for one that ended up doing so.

 

[N.O.Bronco]

I also just want to the nail into the coffin of this absurd notion that Trump has some great interest in combatting business corruption in foreign countries. For reference much of the context of these articles revolves around America's foremost way of dealing with corruption abroad, the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act:

DEFINITION of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act​

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is a United States law passed in 1977 that prohibits U.S. firms and individuals from paying bribes to foreign officials in furtherance of a business deal. The FCPA places no minimum amount for a punishment of a bribery payment. The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act also outlines required accounting transparency guidelines.​

​

BREAKING DOWN Foreign Corrupt Practices Act​

The act applies to actions that occur worldwide and is intended to deter corruption and abuses of power. The FCPA’s authority includes oversight of the actions of publicly traded companies as well as their directors, officers, shareholders, agents, and employees. This includes working through third parties such as consultants and partners in a joint venture with the company. That means the use of proxies to execute a bribe will not shield the company or individual from culpability.​

What Is the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA)? Antibribery Aim

The Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (FCPA) is a U.S. law that prohibits the payment of bribes to foreign officials to further business deals.

www.investopedia.com

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

​

"And 'bribes' is defined very broadly; there's not a need for a quid pro quo. It's essentially anything of value that you are giving to influence a foreign official to promote your business, or to promote getting a contract or any other benefit for your company," she added.​

​

When the law was first passed, the United States was something of an outlier because many other governments did little to stop bribery. Over time, however, attitudes changed. Today, governments around the world are much more likely to cooperate in pursuing wrongdoers.​

​

Still, the 1977 law has its critics, like Trump, who say companies can't compete when barred from paying bribes in places where doing so is routine.​

​

"Now, every other country goes into these places, and they do what they have to do. It's a horrible law and it should be changed. I mean, we're like the policeman for the world. It's ridiculous," Trump said in a 2012 interview on CNBC.​

​

​

​

Among them was Mr. Trump, who said on CNBC in 2012 that “the world is laughing at us” for enforcing the anti-bribery law. And after becoming president, Mr. Trump nominated Jay Clayton, a lawyer who has expressed skeptical views about the act, to lead the Securities and Exchange Commission, which also investigates violations of it.​

​

Sessions Vows to Enforce an Anti-Bribery Law Trump Ridiculed

Attorney General Jeff Sessions underscored his commitment to such cases amid concerns that they would take a back seat to violent crime and illegal immigration.

www.nytimes.com

In February, a few weeks after Tillerson was confirmed by the Senate, he visited the Oval Office to introduce the President to a potential deputy, but Trump had something else on his mind. He began fulminating about federal laws that prohibit American businesses from bribing officials overseas; the businesses, he said, were being unfairly penalized.​

​

Tillerson disagreed. When he was an executive with Exxon, he told Trump, he once met with senior officials in Yemen to discuss a deal. At the meeting, Yemen’s oil minister handed him his business card. On the back was written an account number at a Swiss bank. “Five million dollars,” the minister told him.​

​

“I don’t do that,” Tillerson said. “Exxon doesn’t do that.” If the Yemenis wanted Exxon on the deal, he said, they’d have to play straight. A month later, the Yemenis assented. “Tillerson told Trump that America didn’t need to pay bribes—that we could bring the world up to our own standards,” a source with knowledge of the exchange told me.​

​

https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/10/16/rex-tillerson-at-the-breaking-point

President Donald Trump does not like the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. “It’s a horrible law,” Trump has said. The FCPA makes it a crime for U.S. companies to bribe foreign officials, or to partner with others who are clearly doing so.​

​

Trump has argued that the law puts U.S. firms at a disadvantage. “It’s things like this that cause us to not be able to lead the world,” Trump said on CNBC in 2012. “For this country to prosecute because something took place in India is outrageous.”​

​

Corruption in India is quite common, particularly in the real estate industry. India’s also where the Trump Organization has four projects currently under construction and another just completed, more than it has in any other foreign country. As we detailed last week on “Trump, Inc.,” Donald Trump Jr. has been closely involved in much of the work.​

• The project: A residential tower in Gurgaon, a suburb of New Delhi
• What Trump Jr. has billed it as: “The most prestigious address in the city”
• What’s there now: A small patch of empty land
• Partner: M3M, which stands for “Magnificence in the Trinity of Men, Materials & Money”
• The red flags: Tax investigators seized about $70 million of undeclared money from M3M offices in 2011. The company later paid back taxes on the money, according to the Washington Post. Last year, a forest official filed a complaint alleging the company bribed forest guards to illegally cut trees. We couldn’t find any response from M3M about the alleged bribes

• The project: An office tower in Gurgaon
• What Trump Jr. has billed it as: “One of the most exciting and sought after commercial towers in India and beyond”
• What’s there now: An empty lot with goats grazing
• Partner: IREO
• The red flags: Last month, two investment companies filed a criminal complaint against IREO for defrauding investors of nearly $150 million. It cites the former CEO, who said he witnessed “various acts of cheating, fraud, and misappropriation of money.”

• The project: Trump Tower Mumbai
• What the Trumps have billed it as: “The most spectacular addition to the Mumbai skyline.”
• What’s there now: The tower is almost complete.
• Partner: The Lodha Group
• The red flags: Officials at multiple Indian agencies told Kamat they had been looking into allegations of money laundering, tax fraud and violations of foreign exchange regulations involving Lodha Group subsidiaries. No charges have been brought.

The Many Red Flags of Trump’s Partners in India — ‘Trump, Inc.’ Podcast

The Trump Organization has five active projects in India, a country where corruption is common in the real estate industry.

www.propublica.org

A months-long investigation of the Trump Organization’s business partners in India, conducted in collaboration with The Investigative Fund and reporters at the Indian daily newspaper The Hindu, uncovered a long history of lawsuits, police inquiries, and government investigations that contain evidence of potential bribery, fraud, intimidation, illegal land acquisition, tax evasion, and money laundering. Moreover, the Trump Organization’s ties to these partners leave it potentially vulnerable to violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the 1977 law that prohibits U.S. companies or their business partners from bribing, or unduly influencing, foreign officials to advance a business deal. ​

​

How Trump’s Business Partnerships in India Are Undermining the Presidency

Political corruption and the art of the deal

newrepublic.com

​

In the final months of the Obama administration, Walmart was under pressure from federal officials to pay nearly $1 billion and accept a guilty plea to resolve a foreign bribery investigation.....Federal prosecutors and the Securities and Exchange Commission have yet to charge Walmart​

​

​

Across the corporate landscape, the Trump administration has presided over a sharp decline in financial penalties against banks and big companies accused of malfeasance, according to analyses of government data and interviews with more than 60 former and current federal officials. ​

​

​

• A 62 percent drop in penalties imposed and illicit profits ordered returned by the S.E.C., to $1.9 billion under the Trump administration from $5 billion under the Obama administration;​

​

• A 72 percent decline in corporate penalties from the Justice Department’s criminal prosecutions, to $3.93 billion from $14.15 billion, and a similar percent drop in civil penalties against financial institutions, to $7.4 billion;​

​

• A lighter touch toward the banking industry, with the S.E.C. ordering banks to pay $1.7 billion during the Obama period, nearly four times as much as in the Trump era, and Mr. Trump’s Justice Department bringing 17 such cases, compared with 71.​

​

Trump Administration Spares Corporate Wrongdoers Billions in Penalties (Published 2018)

Punishment of banks and big companies accused of malfeasance has declined precipitously since the Obama era.

www.nytimes.com

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Additional Stories:

Trump and GOP killed an energy anti-corruption rule for no good reason, advocates say

Republicans and industry groups said an anti-corruption regulation disadvantaged U.S. drillers, but European and Canadian firms follow similar rules.

www.cnbc.com

Donald Trump’s Worst Deal

The President helped build a hotel in Azerbaijan that appears to be a corrupt operation engineered by oligarchs tied to Iran’s Revolutionary Guard.

www.newyorker.com

 

[RobF]

I don’t know man, seems like a stretch to me. Why would they have done this so early in the game?

Off the top of my head:

Because the leverage and opportunity were available now.
Because damaging Biden now could be more effective than trying to damage him later if he's the only alternative to Trump. To put it another way, "His son is being investigated," might have been enough to lose him the Democratic nomination now, when people have other Democratic alternatives, but could be considerably less effective when the only alternative is Trump.
Additionally, forcing Ukraine to announce an investigation into Trump's political rival effectively makes them shift their own interests to align with Trump's re-election, which could be something.

But while it's interesting to speculate, it's largely besides the point. The action is improper regardless of whether you can think of reasons for it or not. Someone committing a crime for idiotic reasons isn't committing any less of a crime than someone committing the same crime for solid (if immoral) reasons.

Gosh the more I read about Biden Jr, he is a piece of work. How immoral do you have to be to bed you dead brothers wife? Ughhh

Ooh, I know this one! It's "not as immoral as you have to be to commit adultery with a porn actress just a few months after your son was born."

I'm not saying you're making this argument - you may have just been mentioning that apropos of nothing - but the argument that Biden Jr is a 'piece of work' with the implication that it's reasonable to suspect him of shenanigans which should be investigated really jars coming from people also making the argument that Trump, who by the standards offered is far more of a 'piece of work' than Biden Jr, shouldn't be investigated and it's all just 'witch hunts'.

 

[Lazybones]

Off the top of my head:

Because the leverage and opportunity were available now.
Because damaging Biden now could be more effective than trying to damage him later if he's the only alternative to Trump. To put it another way, "His son is being investigated," might have been enough to lose him the Democratic nomination now, when people have other Democratic alternatives, but could be considerably less effective when the only alternative is Trump.
Additionally, forcing Ukraine to announce an investigation into Trump's political rival effectively makes them shift their own interests to align with Trump's re-election, which could be something.

But while it's interesting to speculate, it's largely besides the point. The action is improper regardless of whether you can think of reasons for it or not. Someone committing a crime for idiotic reasons isn't committing any less of a crime than someone committing the same crime for solid (if immoral) reasons.


Ooh, I know this one! It's "not as immoral as you have to be to commit adultery with a porn actress just a few months after your son was born."

I'm not saying you're making this argument - you may have just been mentioning that apropos of nothing - but the argument that Biden Jr is a 'piece of work' with the implication that it's reasonable to suspect him of shenanigans which should be investigated really jars coming from people also making the argument that Trump, who by the standards offered is far more of a 'piece of work' than Biden Jr, shouldn't be investigated and it's all just 'witch hunts'.

FYI, I wasn’t making that argument. I read it and glossed over him being a coke abuser and womanizer, until crosswatt brought it up. Then I looked it up and WOW what a price of horse dung.

not making a comparison, but I would rather a guy cheat on his wife with a prostitute (though I think thy is is a mortal sin) than bedding your dead brothers wife. That’s just weird.

 

[insidejob]

Which is why these theories are so absurd, because they require an active ignorance of key context in order to make sense. Joe Biden’s position actually removed an impediment that was not interested in investigating Burisma for one that ended up doing so.

I just don't understand why this is always conveniently left out of the opposing argument in support of Trump.

 

[crosswatt]

I wasn’t aware of the DOJ investigating Biden. I couldn’t find anything on this (though I didn’t search with vigor). I did find where there is a questionably 900k payment time Old Joe from a Ukrainian oligarch. (I’m not saying this so true as I don’t know, just what’s being said).

What I did find was something I knew yet it didn’t register with me. Your point of the Bidens being investigated and being cleared by DOJ. Wasn’t Trump cleared by the DOJ pertaining to the Ukraine claims?

there was one article that I read but I thought said that the doj and investigated them during the Obama presidency, but I don't know exactly where that was, so that was the main reason I chalk it up to my own memory as opposed to a sourcible citation or article.

I do know that the DNC and the Obama campaign vetted it fully before they named Biden as their running mate. Because it was already a rumor before the 2008 elections.

the fact of the matter is that I don't really care if the Biden's did something dirty. In fact, I'm sure somewhere along the line they did. I would love for them to be investigated fully, and for there to be something found criminal, and then we put the justice. And then do the same with the current first family. And the Obamas and the Clintons for that matter. Illegal actions on other people's part does not absolve the current president's illegalities. And I'm not sure why people think it should.

 

[Archies Ghost]

usatoday.com/in-depth/news/world/2019/10/10/trumps-biden-ukraine-natural-gas-conspiracy-theory-false-but-alive/3851728002/

Also, John Solomon (who has been covering the Biden stuff for a bit) says that it's not true.

The Financial Times provided some excellent material with regard to the extent of Hunter Biden's influence peddling.

Hunter Biden’s web of interests

His ties span the globe and raise questions about the overlap of business and politics

www.ft.com

Hunter Biden’s business interests often show up in unexpected places. Now, they are at the centre of the biggest political crisis of the Trump presidency and the fourth impeachment inquiry in US history. The son of Joe Biden, former vice-president and 2020 presidential candidate, Hunter Biden’s business ties are under scrutiny after Donald Trump leaned on the president of Ukraine to investigate his activities in the country. Mr Trump has also publicly called on China to investigate the Bidens.

The Ukraine revelations have led House Democrats to open an impeachment inquiry against the president, but the nature of Hunter Biden’s business dealings in Ukraine, China and further afield raise questions about potential conflicts of interest while his father was in office.

In addition to his ties to Ukraine through Burisma, the scandal-plagued gas company, and politically connected business ventures in the US, public records show that Hunter Biden still sits on the board of BHR Partners, a private investment fund backed by a number of Chinese state entities including Bank of China, China Postal Savings Bank and China Development Bank.

 

[Lazybones]

there was one article that I read but I thought said that the doj and investigated them during the Obama presidency, but I don't know exactly where that was, so that was the main reason I chalk it up to my own memory as opposed to a sourcible citation or article.

I do know that the DNC and the Obama campaign vetted it fully before they named Biden as their running mate. Because it was already a rumor before the 2008 elections.

the fact of the matter is that I don't really care if the Biden's did something dirty. In fact, I'm sure somewhere along the line they did. I would love for them to be investigated fully, and for there to be something found criminal, and then we put the justice. And then do the same with the current first family. And the Obamas and the Clintons for that matter. Illegal actions on other people's part does not absolve the current president's illegalities. And I'm not sure why people think it should.

I dont disagree with you. I guess I was asking if the DOJ investigated Biden and called it good and they also investigated trump and called it good. Why the opposing positions on the impeachment? If we take the DOJ’s word in Biden, why not on trump?

 

[JimEverett]

Maybe I’m being obtuse, but I’m not following that logic. The whistleblower said that multiple people have told them that they are concerned that the President improperly pressured Ukraine to investigate a political rival. Since then we’ve heard that multiple people have testified that they are concerned that the President improperly pressured Ukraine to investigate a political rival.

Walk me through this, let’s say it’s Biden’s drinking buddy that is the whistleblower, how does that alter the testimony we’ve heard? Or to be more precise the opening statements that have been released.

One possibility, there can be others of course, is that a defense can paint the initial complaint as driving the story so to speak. ITs why politicians, corporations, prosecutors, even high profile criminal defendants, etc., talk about "Getting out in front of the story."

Isn’t one of the most valuable tools of a free press the ability to develop anonymous sources to keep a check on the State?

Absolutely. But he or she did not go to the press.

If the press starts outing whistleblower’s don’t you think that will prevent future people from risking their career to prevent corruption?

Possibly. But why should the press be concerned about that in a matter as big as the impeachment of a President? Even more so if there is evidence of a partisan motive?

Now you seem to be going over the top. Trump is part of the state. A free press is not beholden to the state to exact retribution on someone reporting corruption.

I don't think it is over the top at all.
I don't agree at all with Trump that this is a witch hunt or a political show trial or whatever - there is a legitimate basis for inquiry and investigation. BUT - withholding the name of the person who essentially created the narrative that is the basis for the investigation, and thereby hiding any potential political motivation strikes me as tending more to a show trial than an open and transparent move to remove a sitting a President.

Why did the NYT withhold the identity of the whistleblower but mention he is a CIA analyst? To me, it seems like there was an attempt to add credibility to his claim. Why else would they do it? So they added credibility to his claim but refuse to release information that might call into question a political motivation for his claim?

 

[Dadsdream]

"House Republicans must have nothing to do with Shifty's rendition of those interviews. He is a proven liar, leaker & freak who is really the one who should be impeached!" DJT tweet.

I do believe this is going to get even nastier than the Kavanaugh hearing.

Trump signals alarm as Democrats’ public impeachment push accelerates | CNN Politics

Democrats have launched a critical new phase of their impeachment investigation by releasing first transcripts of witness depositions as they seek to build a public case that President Donald Trump abused his power in a rogue foreign policy operation in Ukraine.

www.cnn.com

 

[crosswatt]

I dont disagree with you. I guess I was asking if the DOJ investigated Biden and called it good and they also investigated trump and called it good. Why the opposing positions on the impeachment? If we take the DOJ’s word in Biden, why not on trump?

I think it would be a scope of investigation type thing. like what was investigated and to what extent.

Personally I would also have some questions concerning the motivation. Where I think that Eric Holder would have had a lot less skin in the game to clear Joe Biden than Barr does Trump. I think Holder would have certainly fallen on his sword for Obama, in similar fashion, but I just don't think that that level of loyalty and self-sacrifice would ever extend to a vice president.

 

[superchuck500]

Some deposition/Interview transcripts being released.