The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (5 Viewers)

[Andrus]

By Laura Bassett

After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

“Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

Read the Full Story - InStyle

 

[MT15]

So, while listening to MSNBC I found out that yuyi is correct in that during the last two impeachment inquiries the full House voted and the ranking member of the committee could then issue subpoenas. There is no rule to compel that to take place, though, it’s just a custom. I can see where it could be frustrating to Republicans, though.

I’m guessing that Devin Nunes’ questionable ethical behavior during the Mueller investigation has led to the decision. We shall see if there are requests for subpoenas that are valid and are denied, but it’s something to watch.

 

[buzd]

From Rubio's former General Counsel:

 

[Beach Friends]

So, while listening to MSNBC I found out that yuyi is correct in that during the last two impeachment inquiries the full House voted and the ranking member of the committee could then issue subpoenas. There is no rule to compel that to take place, though, it’s just a custom. I can see where it could be frustrating to Republicans, though.

I’m guessing that Devin Nunes’ questionable ethical behavior during the Mueller investigation has led to the decision. We shall see if there are requests for subpoenas that are valid and are denied, but it’s something to watch.

I don't think it has anything at all to do with Nunes.

I think they want to play on an unlevel playing field for as long as possible, and they don't want to put Democratic congressmen from districts that went for Trump at risk any more than they feel they have to.

BTW, Trey Gowdy has reportedly been retained by Trump as outside counsel. It will be interesting to see if he stays. Nothing worse for an attorney than having a client you can't control.

 

[buzd]

BTW, Trey Gowdy has reportedly been retained by Trump as outside counsel. It will be interesting to see if he stays. Nothing worse for an attorney than having a client you can't control.

Here’s your answer.

 

[MT15]

The fact remains there is nothing to compel a full House vote before beginning an impeachment inquiry. It doesn’t delegitimize the process, at least in any legal way. The Administration is not on solid legal ground with refusing to cooperate and it’s just part of the ongoing obstruction.

Also, the whining about not being able to mount a defense is misplaced, as I understand it. This is the investigative phase, this is not the trial phase. The Republicans out there making these declarations about that point just look ignorant of the Constitution and the law. Or they are acting as puppets of the administration, either way their point isn’t valid.

 

[Lazybones]

Trump gives Congress the middle finger by not letting Sondland testify. From everything I read, he would testify that there was NO qpq.

Trump is not playing along with the dog and pony show. He is MAGA aggressive. This is the type of personality that some of us admire in him over past and current politicians.

 

[yuyi64]

The fact remains there is nothing to compel a full House vote before beginning an impeachment inquiry. It doesn’t delegitimize the process, at least in any legal way. The Administration is not on solid legal ground with refusing to cooperate and it’s just part of the ongoing obstruction.

Also, the whining about not being able to mount a defense is misplaced, as I understand it. This is the investigative phase, this is not the trial phase. The Republicans out there making these declarations about that point just look ignorant of the Constitution and the law. Or they are acting as puppets of the administration, either way their point isn’t valid.

It's not about being "ignorant of the Constitution and the law". Most people familiar with the Constitution (from all sides of the political spectrum) understand that the Constitution does not outline detailed specific steps as to how to conduct an impeachment investigation. Having said that Congress relies heavily on decorum, tradition, and historical precedent when faced with situations where there are no specific rules. This so-called "impeachment inquiry" deviates greatly from historical precedents established by previous impeachment inquiries. During the Clinton and Nixon impeachments the full House voted on whether to initiate an inquiry before the formal investigations began, and both parties were given subpoena powers as well as the accused (and his legal representative) being offered due process. All parties involved were able to sit in closed meetings and witnessed were interviewed by members of both parties as well as the President's legal counsel. A large segment of the voting public will never accept the current inquiry as a true impeachment inquiry because it is being conducted no differently than the many "investigations" that House Committees have undertaken since the mid-term elections. To ignore historical precedent and proceed with what is seen by many as a one-sided politically-motivated investigation is not going to do much to lend credibility and bipartisanship to the investigation. It also doesn't pass the smell test with a lot of voters when the investigation is given to a hyperpartisan committee chair that has zero credibility due to his previous lies and deceptions regarding political opponents, and who then proceeds to invent a fictitious conversation between the two Presidents when the call's transcript was already made public. If the President did indeed commit an impeachable crime let's do this the right way to ensure broad public support for the inquiry and subsequent steps. Let the full House vote on whether to open an impeachment inquiry or not and then use historical precedents as a guide on how to conduct a fair investigation. If you do that I believe a large majority of voters will accept the inquiry as legitimate and eagerly await the complete results of the investigation before the House votes on sending the impeachment to the Senate for trial or not.

 

[buzd]

Congress relies heavily on decorum, tradition, and historical precedent when faced with situations where there are no specific rules.

So does the Presidency. How's that working out?

 

[DJ1BigTymer]

It's not about being "ignorant of the Constitution and the law". Most people familiar with the Constitution (from all sides of the political spectrum) understand that the Constitution does not outline detailed specific steps as to how to conduct an impeachment investigation. Having said that Congress relies heavily on decorum, tradition, and historical precedent when faced with situations where there are no specific rules. This so-called "impeachment inquiry" deviates greatly from historical precedents established by previous impeachment inquiries. During the Clinton and Nixon impeachments the full House voted on whether to initiate an inquiry before the formal investigations began, and both parties were given subpoena powers as well as the accused (and his legal representative) being offered due process. All parties involved were able to sit in closed meetings and witnessed were interviewed by members of both parties as well as the President's legal counsel. A large segment of the voting public will never accept the current inquiry as a true impeachment inquiry because it is being conducted no differently than the many "investigations" that House Committees have undertaken since the mid-term elections. To ignore historical precedent and proceed with what is seen by many as a one-sided politically-motivated investigation is not going to do much to lend credibility and bipartisanship to the investigation. It also doesn't pass the smell test with a lot of voters when the investigation is given to a hyperpartisan committee chair that has zero credibility due to his previous lies and deceptions regarding political opponents, and who then proceeds to invent a fictitious conversation between the two Presidents when the call's transcript was already made public. If the President did indeed commit an impeachable crime let's do this the right way to ensure broad public support for the inquiry and subsequent steps. Let the full House vote on whether to open an impeachment inquiry or not and then use historical precedents as a guide on how to conduct a fair investigation. If you do that I believe a large majority of voters will accept the inquiry as legitimate and eagerly await the complete results of the investigation before the House votes on sending the impeachment to the Senate for trial or not.

And historically, there have been special counsel investigations into the accusations made against POTUS, in this case, congress has taken it upon themselves to conduct the investigation. Would you be in favor of a grand jury handing down criminal indictments without seeing any evidence of a crime? That is exactly what you are asking for from congress, you want them to indict the POTUS without evidence that a crime has been committed.

 

[yuyi64]

Would you be in favor of a grand jury handing down criminal indictments without seeing any evidence of a crime? That is exactly what you are asking for from congress, you want them to indict the POTUS without evidence that a crime has been committed.

Nonsense, that is not what I said. I want the full House to vote on whether to conduct an impeachment inquiry at all and than follow historical precedent in conducting the inquiry if the vote is yes.

 

[yuyi64]

So does the Presidency. How's that working out?

The President is not trying to recall members of Congress through pseudo investigations so the analogy does not apply. If he was encouraging the recall of any member of Congress I would expect him to also use decorum, tradition, and historical precedent as a guide.

 

[Lazybones]

And historically, there have been special counsel investigations into the accusations made against POTUS, in this case, congress has taken it upon themselves to conduct the investigation. Would you be in favor of a grand jury handing down criminal indictments without seeing any evidence of a crime? That is exactly what you are asking for from congress, you want them to indict the POTUS without evidence that a crime has been committed.

“You want to indict the potus without evidence that a crime has been committed”

So many of us think that the mueller investigation was an attempt to “Scooter Libby” Donald Trump. This smells the same way.

If there isn’t evidence of a crime, why is this taking place? Many believe this is happening to again try and get an obstruction charge against Trump. Very disingenuous if you ask me.

Pelosi, “we have to pass the bill so you can find out what’s in it.” This line of thinking must be in her playbook.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Trying to fit this political process into the framework of a legal proceeding is pointless.

Our system of government is designed to be paralyzed unless there is general consensus and the impeachment process is no different.

It is purposely designed to make it nearly impossible for one party to successfully remove someone from office without the consent of a large percentage of the other part(ies).

What we see is a vivid demonstration of the incredible foresight of our founders. This is, quite obviously, a sentence in search of a crime and has been for three years now.

The Democrats know that any impeachment will not result in a conviction in the Senate. They are engaging in this in order to attempt to win the 2020 presidential election. The field of Democrat candidates has serious weaknesses in each of the likely nominees.

It is all just noise meant to mollify the base, dishearten the opposition and peel off enough votes to win with a weak nominee yet to be named.

 

[Lazybones]

Trying to fit this political process into the framework of a legal proceeding is pointless.

Our system of government is designed to be paralyzed unless there is general consensus and the impeachment process is no different.

It is purposely designed to make it nearly impossible for one party to successfully remove someone from office without the consent of a large percentage of the other part(ies).

What we see is a vivid demonstration of the incredible foresight of our founders. This is, quite obviously, a sentence in search of a crime and has been for three years now.

The Democrats know that any impeachment will not result in a conviction in the Senate. They are engaging in this in order to attempt to win the 2020 presidential election. The field of Democrat candidates has serious weaknesses in each of the likely nominees.

It is all just noise meant to mollify the base, dishearten the opposition and peel off enough votes to win with a weak nominee yet to be named.

I am curious. When this turns out to be a failure and Trump wins in 2020, will people realize that they have been hoodwinked the entire time by the media and the democrats in Washington?

I keep hearing about Trump supporters who support him no matter what. It seems as if the opposite is even more true.

 

[Dragon]

Trump gives Congress the middle finger by not letting Sondland testify. From everything I read, he would testify that there was NO qpq.

Trump is not playing along with the dog and pony show. He is MAGA aggressive. This is the type of personality that some of us admire in him over past and current politicians.

He has openly admitted to what the first whistleblower told and you are ok with that? He is completely ignoring the emoluments clause and making a lot of money on the back of the ordinary taxpayers by promoting his businesses at every opportunity. He has openly admitted to sexually assaulting women and that too is ok as long he is "maga" great? He is calling members of congress "traitors" and openly talking about civil war if removed from office - but that too is ok?

Notice EVERY thing I mentioned is factual - not hearsay - not left wing propaganda but his own words and his own actions.

 

[Archies Ghost]

I am curious. When this turns out to be a failure and Trump wins in 2020, will people realize that they have been hoodwinked the entire time by the media and the democrats in Washington?

I keep hearing about Trump supporters who support him no matter what. It seems as if the opposite is even more true.

I am going to go out on a limb and say no.

Both sides cheer both for and against the exact same behaviors depending on the team jersey of the person engaging in the behavior.

The Bush/Obama years are a great example.

I do not think those who are obviously blinded in this manner are capable of realizing that politics is theater

 

[Beach Friends]

The fact remains there is nothing to compel a full House vote before beginning an impeachment inquiry. It doesn’t delegitimize the process, at least in any legal way. The Administration is not on solid legal ground with refusing to cooperate and it’s just part of the ongoing obstruction.

Also, the whining about not being able to mount a defense is misplaced, as I understand it. This is the investigative phase, this is not the trial phase. The Republicans out there making these declarations about that point just look ignorant of the Constitution and the law. Or they are acting as puppets of the administration, either way their point isn’t valid.

This is why I think yuy164's position is superior to your position.

If this happens to a Democratic president down the road I think he could easily remain consistent with his position that there needs to be due process throughout.

On the other hand, I have no doubt that if the GOP was doing this to a Democratic president you would be screaming bloody murder.

 

[Lazybones]

He has openly admitted to what the first whistleblower told and you are ok with that? He is completely ignoring the emoluments clause and making a lot of money on the back of the ordinary taxpayers by promoting his businesses at every opportunity. He has openly admitted to sexually assaulting women and that too is ok as long he is "maga" great? He is calling members of congress "traitors" and openly talking about civil war if removed from office - but that too is ok?

Notice EVERY thing I mentioned is factual - not hearsay - not left wing propaganda but his own words and his own actions.

Your response is exactly what is being said by those that support trump. Because the left in the media doesn’t agree with his actions, they are trying to reverse the results of an election via impeachment.

None of what you described is impeachable. If there is no quid pro quo, what is the impeachable crime? Grabbing a groupies ****** 20 years ago is not impeachable. Every politician uses the office to make money, not saying it’s right, I’m saying it’s not unique.