The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (3 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

 

[wardorican]

But the Courts will not take 8 months to rule. There will be an expedited process given the impeachment inquiry.

In your scenario - what is the damage done from being where we are now - in late January vs. being in the same place come early to mid-March? Further, assuming the Democrats are correct - there is also the factor of having a relatively weak impeachment case v. having a much stronger case.

I'm not up on every lawsuit from congress in the courts now, but, this is what I found.

Judge Hears Final Arguments in Case Over Impeachment Subpoenas (Published 2019)

House lawyers sought to dismiss as moot a lawsuit brought by a former Trump adviser, but his lawyers asked a federal judge to rule anyway on his duty to comply with a House subpoena.

www.nytimes.com

Case ruling

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/kupperman-house-memo.pdf

Because this case is moot, this Court should not consider DOJ’s argument that the President may assert absolute immunity to prevent Kupperman from complying with the nowwithdrawn subpoena. But if the Court were to consider that argument, the Court should reject it for the same reasons another judge of this Court rejected the same argument earlier this week. See Comm. on the Judiciary v. McGahn, — F. Supp. 3d —, No. 19-cv-2379 (KBJ), 2019 WL 6312011, at *34-46 (D.D.C. Nov. 25, 2019), appeal filed, No. 19-5331 (D.C. Cir.).

Presidential aides—and Presidents themselves—have testified before Congress throughout our Nation’s history, and the Supreme Court and the D.C. Circuit have repeatedly rejected claims to absolute Presidential immunity. DOJ’s arguments with respect to Kupperman—who no longer works in the White House and who served as Acting National Security Advisor for only ten days—are far weaker than the immunity claims that courts have already rejected. Courts have repeatedly refused to authorize the Executive to be the sole judge of its own privilege, recognizing that the case-by-case application of settled privilege doctrines adequately protects Executive autonomy. The same reasoning compels the same result here.

Allowing the President to thwart Congressional inquiries would upend the separation of powers and impair Congress in the performance of its constitutional functions. The “power of inquiry—with process to enforce it—is an essential and appropriate auxiliary to the legislative Case 1:19-cv-03224-RJL Document 47 Filed 11/27/19 Page 7 of 30 2 function.” McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135, 174 (1927). That power is at its peak when the House is exercising its “sole Power of Impeachment.” U.S. Const., Art. I, § 2, cl. 5. It is inconceivable that the same Constitution that gives the House the power to impeach a sitting President requires the House to exercise that power with anything but comprehensive information about the President’s misconduct. A President with unchecked power to obstruct his own impeachment by preventing individuals with relevant information from speaking to Congress would be a President who is above the law.

He was subpoena'd on Oct 25th. So, ok, basically they gave up on arguing the case, both sides, and a ruling was made Nov 27th. So, 1 month.

The McGhan case..

House Judiciary Committee v. McGahn: Executive power or executive privilege | Brookings

Rick Lempert writes that the DOJ argued that the Judiciary Committee did not have standing to sue over Don McGahn's subpoena, and also that the courts don't have a role in resolving subpoena disputes between the executive branch and Congress. Judge Katanji Brown Jackson rejected these arguments.

www.brookings.edu

Having decided that the House committee could bring the suit and that the court had the power to resolve it, Judge Jackson made relatively short work of the DOJ claim that a privilege existed which gave the president’s close aides immunity from responding to subpoenas. She also made it clear, however, that in appearing and giving testimony, McGahn might be able to invoke other privileges to avoid responding to particular questions without risking being cited for contempt of Congress.

Now, McGahn is a bit of a different case as it was an impeachment inquiry, not proceedings, he skipped a May comittee subpoena, they sued in August, the case was argued in October, and the ruling was Nov 19th. It was appealed, and the appeals process started Jan 3rd. And nothing has happened since that day.

Now, would they appeal to the SCOTUS? And that's just to show up. Then, they show up, claim immunity on all kinds of stuff, or make other claims.. back to court.. back to appeals.. back to SCOTUS.

Kupperman also appealed his case. https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/36/212284/04517581168.pdf but it was Mooted. He just wanted to make sure he couldn't be hit for contempt.

So, one guy has taken 2 months, and that's because the only appealed question was mooted.

The other, has taken about 5 months and still hasn't been ruled on appeals.

So, one set of court cases, just to appear.. another set likely to answer particular questions or provide documents... so, 3 plus 3, at best by your math? and they probably wouldn't have pushed until nov 20th or so, when rulings first started coming in. So, March, then June for actual testimony compelled? At the "fast pace". Then you want impeachment proceedings to finalize in June/July? So, the Senate can do a trial in July/August? It's that cutting it a bit close?

 

[Beach Friends]

So, I'm prett


So, you think we should investigate everyone who has a family member making money with a company that does business in an area that the official has some jurisdiction or influence over?

I’ve said multiple times that I think those sorts of connections are inappropriate and would support rules to prevent that, to crickets from the conservatives.

No, I think it is obvious why the White House would want to call Hunter Biden. The President is accused of asking for an investigation into the Biden's when supposedly the Biden's were not engaged in any corruption. If you were defending the POTUS wouldn't you want the opportunity to show there was in fact corruption that should be investigated?

If your answer to that question is "no" then I can only guess you have not really thought of it from that perspective.

 

[wardorican]

No, I think it is obvious why the White House would want to call Hunter Biden. The President is accused of asking for an investigation into the Biden's when supposedly the Biden's were not engaged in any corruption. If you were defending the POTUS wouldn't you want the opportunity to show there was in fact corruption that should be investigated?

If your answer to that question is "no" then I can only guess you have not really thought of it from that perspective.

Wouldn't you ask the DOJ or FBI to have done that? Then they could show that they were asking questions and considering looking into it. That would be sufficient. You don't need to bring in Hunter. Actually, bringing him in doesn't accomplish anything. You can show legitimate government activity, by having legitimate government agencies to show department memo's, e-mails, investigations.

Simple.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

No, I think it is obvious why the White House would want to call Hunter Biden. The President is accused of asking for an investigation into the Biden's when supposedly the Biden's were not engaged in any corruption. If you were defending the POTUS wouldn't you want the opportunity to show there was in fact corruption that should be investigated?

If your answer to that question is "no" then I can only guess you have not really thought of it from that perspective.

I think if I were defending the President I would lay out the evidence they were using to justify an investigation, and show the documentation of the processes they were following to ensure that the investigation was not arbitrary. The issue is, can the President arbitrarily decide to order investigations into people with no standards set - and more importantly do so in a way to materially harm the subject of their investigation.

Do you think the President can order an investigation into anyone they feel like with no standard or due process?

So, that's how the President should defend himself in my opinion. He should lay out the information he was working with, show how he made sure he was following normal standards of investigative processes, and go from there. Because if there was a non-arbitrary process for determining that it was necessary to investigate Biden, then even if Biden is shown to be innocent, then the investigation was still fine.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Oh, and I have thought about it from that perspective. Take for example Kushner's dealings with Qatar. He was supposedly denied a bailout from Qatar, he then pushed for support for the Saudi and UAE led blockade of Qatar, and then shockingly Kushner was bailed out by Qatar backed money.

So, pretty shady -- however, it's just a series of correlated events. Nothing in there is explicitly illegal. So, again, it's another example of why I think we should have rules for the types of investments our higher level officials have, there isn't enough evidence to launch a criminal investigation. Now, if there's some other piece of evidence that comes out that directly links each of those events, and some other evidence that Kushner made some sort of promise to Qatar in exchange for the bailout, then we can start an investigation.

 

[Beach Friends]

I think if I were defending the President I would lay out the evidence they were using to justify an investigation, and show the documentation of the processes they were following to ensure that the investigation was not arbitrary. The issue is, can the President arbitrarily decide to order investigations into people with no standards set - and more importantly do so in a way to materially harm the subject of their investigation.

Do you think the President can order an investigation into anyone they feel like with no standard or due process?

So, that's how the President should defend himself in my opinion. He should lay out the information he was working with, show how he made sure he was following normal standards of investigative processes, and go from there. Because if there was a non-arbitrary process for determining that it was necessary to investigate Biden, then even if Biden is shown to be innocent, then the investigation was still fine.

I don't think it matters, I think there are more than a few Senators, on both sides of the aisle, who don't want to go down the rabbit hole of relatives of politicians being on the gravy train of skimming foreign aide. Yeah, I think that's what the Biden's were doing but I don't think they are the only ones.

And before anyone says, "but that's not illlegal," let's think about how much comfort we should take in that given the fact that the very people who have decided no legislation is needed are the same ones who benefit from these schemes.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

I don't think it matters, I think there are more than a few Senators, on both sides of the aisle, who don't want to go down the rabbit hole of relatives of politicians being on the gravy train of skimming foreign aide. Yeah, I think that's what the Biden's were doing but I don't think they are the only ones.

And before anyone says, "but that's not illlegal," let's think about how much comfort we should take in that given the fact that the very people who have decided no legislation is needed are the same ones who benefit from these schemes.

I don't disagree with any of that, but I also don't think you can say that was Trump's motivation to clean it up either, considering he and his family are also doing it. I find it really weird that people are looking to Trump to clean up "soft corruption" when he's actively doing it right now. That seems like an odd hope.

 

[not2rich]

I don't disagree with any of that, but I also don't think you can say that was Trump's motivation to clean it up either, considering he and his family are also doing it. I find it really weird that people are looking to Trump to clean up "soft corruption" when he's actively doing it right now. That seems like an odd hope.

It's just tribalism. The same people rationalizing or deflecting from Trump's conduct now would, in a different reality, be losing their minds if a President HRC had done the same thing against a prospective R candidate.

 

[Beach Friends]

It's just tribalism. The same people rationalizing or deflecting from Trump's conduct now would, in a different reality, be losing their minds if a President HRC had done the same thing against a prospective R candidate.

It's strange to post that in response to a post that was in response to my post, which was anything but tribalism. I'm pointing the finger at both parties for their go to Congress and get rich schemes.

Having said that, yes part of it is tribalism. I think that the ultra woke politics of the time have left us with a field of Democratic candidates that I think would be horrible for the nation. Trump provides us with the best choice for keeping them out of the WH.

And don't fool yourself, your opinion of all this would be different if a Democrat occupied the WH.

 

[JimEverett]

[/QUOTE]

I'm not up on every lawsuit from congress in the courts now, but, this is what I found.

Judge Hears Final Arguments in Case Over Impeachment Subpoenas (Published 2019)

House lawyers sought to dismiss as moot a lawsuit brought by a former Trump adviser, but his lawyers asked a federal judge to rule anyway on his duty to comply with a House subpoena.

www.nytimes.com

Case ruling

https://www.courthousenews.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/kupperman-house-memo.pdf

He was subpoena'd on Oct 25th. So, ok, basically they gave up on arguing the case, both sides, and a ruling was made Nov 27th. So, 1 month.

The McGhan case..

House Judiciary Committee v. McGahn: Executive power or executive privilege | Brookings

Rick Lempert writes that the DOJ argued that the Judiciary Committee did not have standing to sue over Don McGahn's subpoena, and also that the courts don't have a role in resolving subpoena disputes between the executive branch and Congress. Judge Katanji Brown Jackson rejected these arguments.

www.brookings.edu

Now, McGahn is a bit of a different case as it was an impeachment inquiry, not proceedings, he skipped a May comittee subpoena, they sued in August, the case was argued in October, and the ruling was Nov 19th. It was appealed, and the appeals process started Jan 3rd. And nothing has happened since that day.

Now, would they appeal to the SCOTUS? And that's just to show up. Then, they show up, claim immunity on all kinds of stuff, or make other claims.. back to court.. back to appeals.. back to SCOTUS.

Kupperman also appealed his case. https://pacer-documents.s3.amazonaws.com/36/212284/04517581168.pdf but it was Mooted. He just wanted to make sure he couldn't be hit for contempt.

So, one guy has taken 2 months, and that's because the only appealed question was mooted.

The other, has taken about 5 months and still hasn't been ruled on appeals.

So, one set of court cases, just to appear.. another set likely to answer particular questions or provide documents... so, 3 plus 3, at best by your math? and they probably wouldn't have pushed until nov 20th or so, when rulings first started coming in. So, March, then June for actual testimony compelled? At the "fast pace". Then you want impeachment proceedings to finalize in June/July? So, the Senate can do a trial in July/August? It's that cutting it a bit close?

The Kupperman case was fast tracked due to it being part of an impeachment inquiry - it proves my point.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/local/public-safety/us-judge-fast-tracks-hearing-over-house-impeachment-subpoena-to-ex-trump-deputy-national-security-adviser-charles-kupperman/2019/11/04/5606e5bc-ff3e-11e9-8bab-0fc209e065a8_story.html

The problem with that suit is that the Democratic-controlled House told the Judge that it would not call Kupperman as a witness - and thus made the case moot. Hence the article you posted. The Democrats do not think it is worthwhile to interrogate Kupperman.

The McGahn case is one that deals with a subpoena issued in April - long before the impeachment inquiry. It is not part of the impeachment inquiry and thus would not be fast tracked. It is similar to the Obama Administration's ignoring of subpoenas in the "Fast and Furious" inquiry. Had Republicans instituted impeachment proceedings at that time - due to ignoring subpoenas - then those issues may have been fast-tracked - same with had Democrats believed there was Obstruction of Justice issue resulting from the Mueller investigation.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

Having said that, yes part of it is tribalism. I think that the ultra woke politics of the time have left us with a field of Democratic candidates that I think would be horrible for the nation. Trump provides us with the best choice for keeping them out of the WH.

So, this is probably not the thread for this, but it is something I want to explore further. I don't think the candidates remaining are all that "woke". And I don't know what you think will happen if they're elected.

My favorite candidate remaining is Amy Klobuchar. What do you think would happen if she were president?

Let's say Trump gets through this unscathed and more popular. Do you think this opens the door to allowing the White House to use foreign governments to announce investigations into their enemies in order to damage them? I don't think this will happen a lot, there has to be a confluence of opportunity and motive, but I think if this is considered allowable, it will happen again. And not just against other politicians, but anyone the President wants to hurt -- think Warren and Sanders going after Koch Industries (note I have no idea if they would, but if this is established as being legal, or at least with a standard of proof so high as to be meaningless, then I can see it happening).

And don't fool yourself, your opinion of all this would be different if a Democrat occupied the WH.

I suspect if a Democrat were in office there would be a lot overlooking of behavior or rationalization, sure. But it also seems to me that when a Democrat is caught doing something smarmy, they usually apologize and promise not to do it again (often while looking for some other scheme). And then we all forget about it. I prefer that to basically the "F you" we get out of the White House now.

 

[Archies Ghost]

The ridiculousness of this impeachment was brightly highlighted by Adam Schiff yesterday.

In the process, he points out how much he is relying on misinformation and ignorance to move this thing forward.

The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that we can fight Russia over there so we don’t have to fight Russia here.

'So We Don't Have to Fight Russia Over Here': Schiff Delivers Powerful Statement to Senators in Trump Impeachment Trial

House Intelligence Chair and Lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff delivered powerful remarks to the U.S. Senate on Wednesday, summing up why what President Donald Trump did – extorting Ukraine – was so damaging to both Ukraine and the U.S. Schiff reminded the Senators who will decide the fate of...

www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com

We are required to be ignorant of the actual state of the Russian military, the Russian economy, Russian internal politics, the fact that the first lethal military aid to Ukraine was provided by Trump and how the United States, under a past administration, failed to uphold obligations to the Ukraine that has resulted in Ukraine fighting Russia "over there".

Its pretty ballsy to take failed Democrat foreign policy and twist it into a cause for removal of a president.

Adam Schiff is not dumb so he must believe the majority of the people he is addressing with this nonsense ARE that dumb.

I have faith that enough of us are not this ignorant, this petty to finally put down this silly impeachment. I do worry that, absent a massive repudiation in November, the Democrats will being doing this all again, as often as possible.

 

[samiam5211]

No, I think it is obvious why the White House would want to call Hunter Biden. The President is accused of asking for an investigation into the Biden's when supposedly the Biden's were not engaged in any corruption. If you were defending the POTUS wouldn't you want the opportunity to show there was in fact corruption that should be investigated?

If your answer to that question is "no" then I can only guess you have not really thought of it from that perspective.

It doesn't matter if the Biden's are guilty or not, at least not with regard to impeachment. Not one bit.

You can't really list any reason that you think it matters either.

 

[SaintForLife]

Can you point out in a law or the constitution where expedited Supreme Court review is written? It isn’t guaranteed. What is to say they get it and the senate stalls the impeachment till after the election. Lots of if and buts.

It took 3 months for the Supreme Court to rule on Nixon's impeachment.

 

[SaintForLife]

The ridiculousness of this impeachment was brightly highlighted by Adam Schiff yesterday.

In the process, he points out how much he is relying on misinformation and ignorance to move this thing forward.

'So We Don't Have to Fight Russia Over Here': Schiff Delivers Powerful Statement to Senators in Trump Impeachment Trial

House Intelligence Chair and Lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff delivered powerful remarks to the U.S. Senate on Wednesday, summing up why what President Donald Trump did – extorting Ukraine – was so damaging to both Ukraine and the U.S. Schiff reminded the Senators who will decide the fate of...

www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com

We are required to be ignorant of the actual state of the Russian military, the Russian economy, Russian internal politics, the fact that the first lethal military aid to Ukraine was provided by Trump and how the United States, under a past administration, failed to uphold obligations to the Ukraine that has resulted in Ukraine fighting Russia "over there".

Its pretty ballsy to take failed Democrat foreign policy and twist it into a cause for removal of a president.

Adam Schiff is not dumb so he must believe the majority of the people he is addressing with this nonsense ARE that dumb.

I have faith that enough of us are not this ignorant, this petty to finally put down this silly impeachment. I do worry that, absent a massive repudiation in November, the Democrats will being doing this all again, as often as possible.

Schiff has been proven a liar after Russiagate. I remember how he insinuated many times that he had seen the secret evidence that Trump was working with Russia only to claim it was in plain sight all along after the Mueller Report.

I also remember his Memo in response to the Nunes memo. Schiff's memo was complete BS and Nunes memo turned out to be true.

Schiff had long claimed that there was collusion between Trump and Russia. It's funny that he hasn't mentioned a word of it during his comments recently as impeachment manager because he was lying about that as well.

The contradiction in this headline says it all and further exposes the Democrats flimsy case. 1) The evidence is overwhelming. 2) We need more evidence to make our case


Schiff also claimed the FISA process was fine. Another lie.

Schiff also said the whistleblower would testify. He also said we haven't spoke to the whistleblower. Not quite. I'm noticing a pattern.

Schiff had to do a parody because even he realized his argument was weak.

His claim about giving aide to Ukraine so we don't have to fight Russia over here is ridiculous.

But wait, this one has to top that doozy:


But still after all that many in the media and on the left love Schiff.

 

[Archies Ghost]

Fear of November 2020 is why all of this is happening.

What started in November 2016 as an overwhelming desire to overturn an election result has become a desperate attempt to prevent re-election.

When that fails we will get treated to 4 more years of endless impeachment inquiries unless the House goes R.

On the bright side, while the D house is busy bamboozling their base, they aren't working on legislation and are harming their own electoral prospects.

One of the likely unintended consequences of Democrats constantly painting our elections as controlled by the Russkies is that D voters, more likely to believe this nonsense, will be less motivated to vote.

 

[samiam5211]

Fear of November 2020 is why all of this is happening.

What started in November 2016 as an overwhelming desire to overturn an election result has become a desperate attempt to prevent re-election.

When that fails we will get treated to 4 more years of endless impeachment inquiries unless the House goes R.

On the bright side, while the D house is busy bamboozling their base, they aren't working on legislation and are harming their own electoral prospects.

One of the likely unintended consequences of Democrats constantly painting our elections as controlled by the Russkies is that D voters, more likely to believe this nonsense, will be less motivated to vote.

You have to be in absolute denial of the facts to believe what you posted here.

I'm sure you will just tell me i'm in denial, without actually reviewing the facts.

 

[Archies Ghost]

You have to be in absolute denial of the facts to believe what you posted here.

I'm sure you will just tell me i'm in denial, without actually reviewing the facts.

I am fully cognizant of the "facts". Trump was not impeached for his alleged misdeeds.

The articles of impeachment prove that.

The articles submitted could be submitted against any president.

Its obvious this is an election strategy, a very desperate one.

If Trump is guilty, he should have been impeached directly on the issue and evidence.

He wasn't.