The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (7 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

 

[yuyi64]

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.

Correct. The Founding Fathers made the impeachment of the President a multi-step process for a very good reason. They did not want the removal of an elected President to be a simple unilateral process that could be conveniently and covertly handled by one party who could determine on its own what is an impeachable crime and what isn't. Impeachment is a very serious matter for the nation and should be considered only after all of the people's representatives in the House have had a chance to debate the merits of the charge and voted on whether to proceed with the inquiry or not. All Presidents regardless of party affiliation should be afforded due process in such a serious matter and I would make the same assertion even if the President in power were a Democrat or Independent. It shouldn't matter how we feel about Trump, Obama, Clinton, or any President. Smooth transitions of power require voters to have faith in the electoral process, and impeachment attempts without fairness and objectivity will not be viewed favorably by any voter other than blind partisans consumed by hate or political opportunity.

 

[LA - L.A.]

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.

Seeking campaign assistance from a foreign government is a crime. It's a violation of federal election laws. Violation of any law falls under "high crimes and misdemeanors." What Trump did is an impeachable offense.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Correct. The Founding Fathers made the impeachment of the President a multi-step process for a very good reason. They did not want the removal of an elected President to be a simple unilateral process that could be conveniently and covertly handled by one party...

Most of the founding fathers were opposed to having political parties, so this assessment is less than accurate right from the start.

 

[Lazybones]

Seeking campaign assistance from a foreign government is a crime. It's a violation of federal election laws. Violation of any law falls under "high crimes and misdemeanors." What Trump did is an impeachable offense.

The problem is that you are coming to a conclusion that isn’t there. There was no quid pro quo.

If this turns out the same way the mueller circus did, are you going to reevaluate the Democrats and their tactics?

 

[Lazybones]

Most of the founding fathers were opposed to having political parties, so this assessment is less than accurate right from the start.

That’s a very weak argument. The shape of government has changed a bit, but the sentiment is the same. If he would have said “group of people” instead of “party”, would you have even responded? Or was this an attempt to derail the conversation because it isn’t the popular narrative?

 

[JRad]

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.

This isn't a dog and pony show, he's obstructing the process put in place to keep the executive branch in check. For someone who promised to be transparent and has nothing to hide, Trump sure seems to have a big issue with being transparent. If Sondland was going to say everything was above board, then what's the big deal?

 

[Archies Ghost]

This isn't a dog and pony show, he's obstructing the process put in place to keep the executive branch in check. For someone who promised to be transparent and has nothing to hide, Trump sure seems to have a big issue with being transparent. If Sondland was going to say everything was above board, then what's the big deal?

A little perspective on why we are where we are...

Our Constitution Is Clear on Powers, and We Really Should Read It | National Review

A defense of the powers of those in elected office, as set under the U.S. Constitution; ESPN loses its voice covering the NBA’s dispute with China.

www.nationalreview.com

When Holder defied Congress, a lot of people cheered. When Congress held him in contempt, a lot of people thought Holder should wear it as a badge of pride.

A Wired headline declared, “Holder Held in Contempt of Congress, Which Means Almost Nothing.” Admittedly, a big reason for the lack of consequence was the fact that the executive branch official in charge of enforcing contempt of Congress against Attorney General Eric Holder was . . . Attorney General Eric Holder. (“Officer! Arrest that man looking at you in mirror!”)

Back then, we could have had a broad bipartisan consensus that even the biggest, dumbest partisan hack is entitled to the full powers and authorities of the office. We could have all agreed that even if a committee chairman has a bigger axe to grind than Paul Bunyan, that didn’t make compliance with requests for documents, subpoenas, or testimony optional. We could have agreed that congressional oversight of the executive branch was an important tool against bad decisions, corruption, and coverups, and that because of its importance, oversight by a lawmaker we thought was too partisan was still better than brazen disregard and defiance of that oversight.

But congressional Democrats and their allies in the media didn’t make that choice. They established the argument that some defiance of Congressional subpoenas is okay, as long as the executive branch believes that the Congressional investigators are being unfair. And now, here we are.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The problem is that you are coming to a conclusion that isn’t there. There was no quid pro quo.

I think the problem is that bribery is being confused with seeking campaign assistance from a foreign government. Illegally seeking campaign assistance from a foreign government does not require a "something for something" component. That's only required with bribery. Trump asking the Ukrainian president to investigate a potential political rival in an upcoming election is a clear and definite violation of election law. Trump openly admitted and provided evidence that he violated election law.

If this turns out the same way the mueller circus did, are you going to reevaluate the Democrats and their tactics?

First, in my opinion the Mueller's investigation was important and necessary. I don't share the opinion that it was a circus. I think the final outcome of Mueller's findings still remain to be seen.

Second, I think the current investigations being conducted by the House are important and necessary. I don't share the opinion that it's simply partisan tactics. Partisan tactics are part of the dynamic, but for me it's not a partisan issue.

So my answer is no, the outcome will not change my mind about the importance and necessity of investigating Trump.

 

[wardorican]

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 Disagree. I think Pelosi only allowed this because it is a clear example of abuse of power, quid pro quo, etc. The other stuff, while criminal, was set us as a "can the president actually obstruct justice", and other gray arguments.

If anything, it really will hurt the democratic primary and overshadow their spotlight. They need to get voters excited to show up, and that doesn't exactly do that. And as we all are seeing and figures, this just further entrenches many of Trumps supporters.

I think there is a sense that this actually comes down to congresses duty.

 

[MT15]

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.

There is no rule to compel that vote anymore. This inquiry is totally valid and constitutional.
If the tables were turned Republicans would do exactly as the Democrats have done and the Democrats would be complaining all over the place about it.

Try to not get caught up in partisan bickering. Both parties are capable of ignoring precedent if they think they can get away with it.

There is nothing illegitimate about the inquiry. Let’s just get to the facts, which seems to be a sticking point for the administration right now.

 

[MT15]

The problem is that you are coming to a conclusion that isn’t there. There was no quid pro quo.

If this turns out the same way the mueller circus did, are you going to reevaluate the Democrats and their tactics?

There doesn’t have to be a quid pro quo to meet the bar of it being a criminal offense. The “ask” is the criminal act.

There was absolutely a quid pro quo, though. In fact there were two. There was a carrot (the WH visit) and a stick (the military aid). The text messages make that pretty clear.

 

[LA - L.A.]

That’s a very weak argument. The shape of government has changed a bit, but the sentiment is the same. If he would have said “group of people” instead of “party”, would you have even responded? Or was this an attempt to derail the conversation because it isn’t the popular narrative?

A factually accurate point is never a weak argument. If one is going to rely on the the mindset of the founding fathers as the foundation of their argument, then one needs to accurately understand the mindset of the founding fathers.

There is nothing about the current impeachment investigations that runs afoul of the Constitution or the intentions of the founding fathers. Trying to frame it as a unconstitutional partisan overreach is factually inaccurate. Invoking the founding fathers in the way that compounds the factual inaccuracy.

I responded to what the poster wrote, not what they might have wrote. I don't see how discussing the topic of impeachment can in any way derail a thread discussing the topic of impeachment.

I don't know if this poster's premise is popular or not, but I do know that it is factually inaccurate.

 

[Lazybones]

There doesn’t have to be a quid pro quo to meet the bar of it being a criminal offense. The “ask” is the criminal act.

There was absolutely a quid pro quo, though. In fact there were two. There was a carrot (the WH visit) and a stick (the military aid). The text messages make that pretty clear.

If it was that simple, why do t we have a vote?

 

[Lazybones]

A factually accurate point is never a weak argument. If one is going to rely on the the mindset of the founding fathers as the foundation of their argument, then one needs to accurately understand the mindset of the founding fathers.

There is nothing about the current impeachment investigations that runs afoul of the Constitution or the intentions of the founding fathers. Trying to frame it as a unconstitutional partisan overreach is factually inaccurate. Invoking the founding fathers in the way that compounds the factual inaccuracy.

I responded to what the poster wrote, not what they might have wrote. I don't see how discussing the topic of impeachment can in any way derail a thread discussing the topic of impeachment.

I don't know if this poster's premise is popular or not, but I do know that it is factually inaccurate.

Ok, I’m waiting for you to discuss his narrative instead of picking up one word. Ready, set, go!

I’m told you were a former debater. So am I. Why don’t we set up a debate in the forum. We can come together and write a resolution. It would be a good start.

Man Lincoln/Douglas gets me excited.

 

[LA - L.A.]

A little perspective on why we are where we are...

We're here because Trump admitted he violated campaign laws by asking the Ukrainian to announce they were investigating a potential political rival in an upcoming election.

The full Holder story is that the House went to court to force Holder to release some of the documents he refused to hand over.

The same process will happen with the Trump administration.

 

[MT15]

If it was that simple, why do t we have a vote?

Because there is nothing that compels such a vote. The Republicans would be doing the exact same thing if the tables were turned.

You’re paying attention to the noise and ignoring the signal, IMO. It’s easy to do.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Ok, I’m waiting for you to discuss his narrative instead of picking up one word. Ready, set, go!

What's the purpose of "Ready, set, go!"

I already responded to the entirety of the premise. Please reread what I wrote and you just quoted.

 

[Lazybones]

Because there is nothing that compels such a vote. The Republicans would be doing the exact same thing if the tables were turned.

You’re paying attention to the noise and ignoring the signal, IMO. It’s easy to do.

Maybe I wasn’t clear. If it is as simple as you stated, this should be open and shut. Correct?