The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (4 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

 

[Archies Ghost]

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.

There are countless other examples of the exact same behavior in the past.

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.

All international relations are quid pro quo. Its in the definition.

The question is whether or not the "ask" was solely for the political gain of DJT, which it very obviously is not. There is a rather obvious national interest in investigating the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation as well as the very obvious corruption engaged in by the Bidens.

Presidents fairly routinely "ask" foreign powers to help with matters that also happen to help them out politically.

 

[LA - L.A.]

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.

Who told you I was a former debater?

I would enjoy being in a debate, but only those who declare themselves to be Conservative, Moderate, or Liberal will be allowed to participate on the debate forums.

Before coming up with a resolution, first we'd have to come to an agreement on ground rules.

 

[Lazybones]

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.

You didn’t answer the debate question and you didn’t respond to the premise of the posters position. I’m going to move on for betterment of the board.

Offer still stands on the Lincoln/Douglas

 

[Lazybones]

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.


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.

Thanks for being honest. Those who are against trump will always be against him no matter what happens.

 

[Lazybones]

Who told you I was a former debater?

I would enjoy being in a debate, but only those who declare themselves to be Conservative, Moderate, or Liberal will be allowed to participate on the debate forums.

Before coming up with a resolution, first we'd have to come to an agreement on ground rules.

I’ve never done a written debate. I’ve always chased speaker awards. Lol

I’m sure there is a standard format available.

I’m a declared conservative so there that.

 

[MT15]

There are countless other examples of the exact same behavior in the past.


All international relations are quid pro quo. Its in the definition.

The question is whether or not the "ask" was solely for the political gain of DJT, which it very obviously is not. There is a rather obvious national interest in investigating the origins of the Trump-Russia investigation as well as the very obvious corruption engaged in by the Bidens.

Presidents fairly routinely "ask" foreign powers to help with matters that also happen to help them out politically.

That’s the entire crux of the issue and pretty well stated.

You’re being very generous though in giving Trump credit for not having a corrupt intent.

What sort of corruption has Joe Biden engaged in? And how is it different from the Chinese patents that were awarded to Ivanka right after the 2016 election?

What other corruption has Trump worked to root out with the cooperation of other countries, other than that which he has a personal stake in?

Why is Rudy Giuliani involved in this at all?

I’ll hang up and listen.

 

[LA - L.A.]

You didn’t answer the debate question and you didn’t respond to the premise of the posters position. I’m going to move on for betterment of the board.

Offer still stands on the Lincoln/Douglas

I did respond to the premise. My understanding of the poster's position is that they think it's a partisan, unconstitutional overreach. It's not.

I quoted and replied to your question about having a debate before you added it to your post. I've already answered that as well.

 

[Lazybones]

I did respond to the premise. My understanding of the poster's position is that they think it's a partisan, unconstitutional overreach. It's not.

I quoted and replied to your question about having debate before you added it to your post. I've already answered that as well.

Sorry I was a little behind on the debate and I responded again.

The premise was that the founding fathers did not intend one group of people to easily impeach a president. If you addressed this, I didn’t see it.

 

[LA - L.A.]

Thanks for being honest. Those who are against trump will always be against him no matter what happens.

I'm always honest. You seem to misunderstand what I said. I'm not against Trump. Trump openly admitted to something that I think warrants investigation, regardless of what truth that investigation reveals. I'm not against Trump just for the sake of being against Trump.

That's not how I am with anyone.

 

[MT15]

Lazy, I think you may be conflating impeachment with removal from office. Impeachment is a simple majority vote, IIRC, in the House. Removal from office requires the 2/3 vote in the Senate.

Trump will certainly be impeached by the House, IMO

 

[Archies Ghost]

That’s the entire crux of the issue and pretty well stated.

You’re being very generous though in giving Trump credit for not having a corrupt intent.

What sort of corruption has Joe Biden engaged in? And how is it different from the Chinese patents that were awarded to Ivanka right after the 2016 election?

What other corruption has Trump worked to root out with the cooperation of other countries, other than that which he has a personal stake in?

Why is Rudy Giuliani involved in this at all?

I’ll hang up and listen.

In order.

Thanks.

I am a generous person and I don't imagine to be able to divine intent from a memo.

You seem to acknowledged Biden's corruption by equating it to Ivanka's. They were trademarks, not patents and the business receiving them has suspended operations although it will likely resume once DJT is no longer president. So, she is at least keeping up appearances. The Biden's family grift has been in continuous operation before, during, and after his tenure as VP.

I don't know because Adam Schiff has not managed to get anyone to file whistle blower complaints on those other conversations. Believe it or not, most presidential conversations with foreign officials are kept relatively confidential to promote the free exchange of ideas and information, although those days may be over.

You may want to ask Rudy.

 

[LA - L.A.]

I’ve never done a written debate. I’ve always chased speaker awards. Lol

I’m sure there is a standard format available.

I’m a declared conservative so there that.

I've never done a written debate either, well, unless you consider the 1st Aff and flowing a form of written debate.

Since we're bragging, I never chased speaker awards, they chased me. The high point was winning best speaker at a national college championship tournament with maximum speaker points and all first ranks. It's the closest thing in college debate to winning a Heisman. That's the last I'll speak of all that.

It's not just about standard format. It's also about rules and standards regarding evidence citation and personal conduct.

 

[LA - L.A.]

The premise was that the founding fathers did not intend one group of people to easily impeach a president. If you addressed this, I didn’t see it.

Well if that was their actual premise, then things are going as designed. Trump is not being and will not be easily impeached by one group.

 

[yuyi64]

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.

But see therein lies the problem. You read the same call transcript and text messages that I read and yet I and many others reach a very different conclusion as to whether a criminal act occurred or not. The "ask" that you refer to has been practiced longer than you and I have been alive and has never been considered a crime. Presidents have asked foreign countries for help with investigations for a very long time and it's nothing out of the ordinary. The 2020 election is never mentioned in the call or texts so the election fraud claims are weak even if the subject of the investigation happens to be an announced candidate. Being a candidate does not exempt anyone (especially a current or former government official) from being investigated for bribery, extortion, or corruption. As far your "carrots and sticks" examples, those are also long-practiced tactics used by governments throughout history. It doesn't take a genius to figure out that when the leader of a country asks the leader of another country for a favor that cooperation will be rewarded and refusal most likely will not. You may not like the way the President asked for the favor and frankly neither do I, but our dislike of his method does not make it a crime. As others have mentioned quid pro quo is always implied in relationships between governments (and even personal and business relationships), so only disingenous partisans will pretend that Trump is the first President to do this.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

When I can take myself out the immediacy of these types of debates, I find it fascinating how easily we're shaped by our own internal biases and determined sides.

The debate over whether Trump used his office to benefit him personally by seeking a foreign government to politically damage an opponent is one such case. I don't know too many (actually any) Trump supporters who have heard this story and said, "you know what, it's likely he was trying to pressure Ukraine into investigating Biden and publicly announce it, and that's not an appropriate use of his office". Likewise, I don't know too many people who have been vocally against Trump for a while look at this story and say "no, there's nothing really here".

I would think if people came onto this sort of information completely free of a pre-defined narrative, there should be some movement between the two camps. The fact that there isn't shows that there are entrenched biases.

For me, it seems quite simple (but take in mind I've been heavily critical of Trump for a while now). We have a whistleblower who's account has now been backed up by the call record, text messages, and other documentation, as well as now a second whistleblower. The facts show that Trump was pushing Ukraine to investigate Biden, and that he wanted Ukraine to make a public announcement that they were opening an investigation.

The question then, is that an appropriate use of the office of the President. Which basically goes to intent. Was Trump lawfully pursuing corruption, or was he trying to gain political help? It seems far more likely that he's doing for political gain than fighting corruption. If he were fighting corruption, I don't think he'd have his personal lawyer involved. He'd be directing his DOJ to subpoena records from the Obama administration to determine what actions and influence Biden had on the decisions to remove Shurkin. And he wouldn't be interested in a public press release from Ukraine.

Is there enough info to convict him to remove him from office? No, not yet. But I certainly think there's enough probable cause to seek more information out of the White House.

Finally, when forming your opinion, you need to think if you'd be happy with a party you oppose using the power of the White House in the same way. I'm comfortable with the House providing oversight on the White House, I've long been concerned with the sort of unchecked growth of executive power for a while now.

 

[Lazybones]

Lazy, I think you may be conflating impeachment with removal from office. Impeachment is a simple majority vote, IIRC, in the House. Removal from office requires the 2/3 vote in the Senate.

Trump will certainly be impeached by the House, IMO

I would make a friendly wager against that if you want.

 

[Lazybones]

I've never done a written debate either, well, unless you consider the 1st Aff and flowing a form of written debate.

Since we're bragging, I never chased speaker awards, they chased me. The high point was winning best speaker at a national college championship tournament with maximum speaker points and all first ranks. It's the closest thing in college debate to winning a Heisman. That's the last I'll speak of all that.

It's not just about standard format. It's also about rules and standards regarding evidence citation and personal conduct.

I had a couple state championships which were cool. But going to Tunas camp I’m Vermont was the tip of the heap for me. I was a virtual nobody. After that, we went to the round robin in N.Carolina. We got knocked out by Northwestern in the semis. (They crushed us), but Kenny and I were 1 and 2 speakers. He was 1 I was 2.

They called me the disco duck as I ruled the 1 ar.

What tourney? What school? We very well know some of the same peeps.

 

[Beach Friends]

When I can take myself out the immediacy of these types of debates, I find it fascinating how easily we're shaped by our own internal biases and determined sides.

The debate over whether Trump used his office to benefit him personally by seeking a foreign government to politically damage an opponent is one such case. I don't know too many (actually any) Trump supporters who have heard this story and said, "you know what, it's likely he was trying to pressure Ukraine into investigating Biden and publicly announce it, and that's not an appropriate use of his office". Likewise, I don't know too many people who have been vocally against Trump for a while look at this story and say "no, there's nothing really here".

I would think if people came onto this sort of information completely free of a pre-defined narrative, there should be some movement between the two camps. The fact that there isn't shows that there are entrenched biases.

For me, it seems quite simple (but take in mind I've been heavily critical of Trump for a while now). We have a whistleblower who's account has now been backed up by the call record, text messages, and other documentation, as well as now a second whistleblower. The facts show that Trump was pushing Ukraine to investigate Biden, and that he wanted Ukraine to make a public announcement that they were opening an investigation.

The question then, is that an appropriate use of the office of the President. Which basically goes to intent. Was Trump lawfully pursuing corruption, or was he trying to gain political help? It seems far more likely that he's doing for political gain than fighting corruption. If he were fighting corruption, I don't think he'd have his personal lawyer involved. He'd be directing his DOJ to subpoena records from the Obama administration to determine what actions and influence Biden had on the decisions to remove Shurkin. And he wouldn't be interested in a public press release from Ukraine.

Is there enough info to convict him to remove him from office? No, not yet. But I certainly think there's enough probable cause to seek more information out of the White House.

Finally, when forming your opinion, you need to think if you'd be happy with a party you oppose using the power of the White House in the same way. I'm comfortable with the House providing oversight on the White House, I've long been concerned with the sort of unchecked growth of executive power for a while now.

It sounds like you would like to see more of a bipartisan approach to this matter. At the very least, you seem to be interested in reflection on how our biases shape our views on this matter - presumably so that we can overcome those biases.

IMO, a good first step toward those goals would be take steps toward reassuring Trump supporters that the process will be fair and consistent with precedents that have been set in the past.

Does that seem reasonable?