The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (2 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

 

[RegularChuck]

On what grounds should the US or anyone investigate the Bidens? Hearing that would go a long way towards improving the argument that it was just an investigation of corruption involving the Bidens, instead of just blanket "corruption!" allegations.

I’ve heard people suggest that he’s totally unqualified and makes $50,000 a month so something must fishy.

 

[UncleTrvlingJim]

On what grounds should the US or anyone investigate the Bidens? Hearing that would go a long way towards improving the argument that it was just an investigation of corruption involving the Bidens, instead of just blanket "corruption!" allegations.

Yes, but all we have in the public sphere (that I know of) is Hunter Biden had a job with a Ukrainian company, and Joe Biden had influence on policy dealing with Ukraine. That and the guy that was fired for corruption says he was just about to investigate the company that Hunter worked for. And as we know, no Trump supporter here thinks that's enough evidence to start an investigation into someone. Much less a political opponent by name.

I mean, if that's all it takes, do we start investigating Trump for Kushner's activities with Qatar? How about trademarks with Ivanka? Do we review all the deals his sons are making in foreign countries?

And again, no one has seemed to answer a basic question. Does a potential President Warren have the right to unilaterally pressure a foreign government to publicly launch an investigation into Koch Industries that could hurt their ability to make business deals?

 

[V Chip]

That and the guy that was fired for corruption says he was just about to investigate the company that Hunter worked for. And as we know, no Trump supporter here thinks that's enough evidence to start an investigation into someone. Much less a political opponent by name.

True -- well except for the part about investigating Burisma. Shokin was NOT investigating Burisma, nor was he "about" to. He in fact covered up for Zlochevskiy and his office allowed Zlochevskiy to get $23 million in seized funds moved out of the UK and into Cyprus, where that money effectively disappeared. The investigation was dormant before Shokin arrived and he did nothing at all to pick it up, in fact hurting the investigation by not cooperating with other countries like the UK. So the idea that the firing of Shokin had anything to do with investigating Burisma or an investigation into the Bidens is fantasy. He was fired in large part because he WOULDN'T investigate Burisma.

So I'm still not sure what grounds besides the nepotism angle -- and as you have mentioned, nobody in Congress wants to use that as the basis for someone launching an investigation into "corruption" with no actual evidence other than nepotism since so many have family who feeds at that particular trough.

I found a great timeline that covers the whole Ukraine kerfuffle... very informative.

Timeline: Trump, Giuliani, Bidens, and Ukraine (updated)

A chronology of "Ukrainegate" and the Trump-Giuliani pressure on Ukraine to investigate former Vice President and 2020 presidential candidate Joe Biden.

www.justsecurity.org

 

[Lapaz]

I’ve heard people suggest that he’s totally unqualified and makes $50,000 a month so something must fishy.

Something is fishy with the Trump kids as well. Why doesn't Trump ask China to investigate his kids? The reality is that Hunter Biden and the Trump kids are not a major concern. There are far more corruption problems that need to be investigated in the Ukraine. Any investigation of Biden had no serious value to fight corruption. The only serious value was to Trump's re-election campaign. Allowing presidents to bribe countries to help their re-election is far more dangerous and actual corruption. We need to cleanse the office of the presidency.

 

[brandon]

Do you apply the same standard to information coming from Russian troll farms - or in that case is less information better?

Comparing first-hand testimony of a national security advisor to Facebook propaganda is the epitome of red herring. Try again.

On to the real point - it is not about prohibiting information. John Bolton can talk to anyone he wants, he can write a book if he wants - and he obviously did. So the Orwellian comparison is beyond stupid.

It's about prohibiting information in the situation where it matters - the trial. We already know that the president did everything he's accused of. But the court of public opinion doesn't convict. That evidence needs to be admitted into the trial.

These things have a strong precedential nature to them - you can see it in this impeachment trial where there is a strong argument being made to do it like the Clinton impeachment.

You're right that there's been a strong argument to do this impeachment like the Clinton impeachment. What you left out is how time and time again McConnell has decided, in fact, NOT to do it like the Clinton impeachment trial. While precedent is clearly important in an actual courtroom, in an impeachment trial, the procedures are clearly at the whim of the Senate majority leader.

There have been reasons to believe that this impeachment was being used as a political tool long before questions of Bolton's testimony were at issue. But if (really it is now when) Bolton testifies the precedential nature of that will be basically - impeach the President and then worry about getting the facts in. And/or drag impeachment proceedings out as you prodeuc or "find" evidence that might prove why you impeached the President in the firt place.

So it is your worry then that we are setting a precedent that the House can accuse and impeach and leave it up to the Senate to gather evidence. That might even be a reasonable explanation. But you're leaving out so much valuable context here. The House absolutely WANTED to get Bolton's testimony, but the White House refused to allow him to testify.

Your response would be "well, they should have issued a subpoena and got a court to force the testimony." Except:
1) This would have drug this impeachment situation through the courts for months (and after all, you said you didn't want to drag out impeachment proceedings).
2) That would likely lead to impeachment going well past the election, and
3) Foreign election interference in favor of Trump will clearly not be stopped by Trump, and
4) Voters will be going to the polls without all of the information regarding Trump's crime at their disposal. Thus, even if he is not removed from office via impeachment, it becomes increasingly hard for voters to remove him because they will not have all the facts before the election. And of course there won't be a second impeachment, so we'll just be looking at 4 more undeserved years. And our country can't afford that.

But you knew all of the context before I told you. Which means you don't care about that. You only care that your guy is back in office, regardless of what he did. Shame.

 

[superchuck500]

Something is fishy with the Trump kids as well. Why doesn't Trump ask China to investigate his kids? The reality is that Hunter Biden and the Trump kids are not a major concern. There are far more corruption problems that need to be investigated in the Ukraine. Any investigation of Biden had no serious value to fight corruption. The only serious value was to Trump's re-election campaign. Allowing presidents to bribe countries to help their re-election is far more dangerous and actual corruption. We need to cleanse the office of the presidency.

Giuliani's son is the "White House Sports Liaison"

 

[superchuck500]

They said that because the House hadn't held a formal impeachment vote right? Is that argument based on sound legal ground? Hadn't all the previous impeachments held a formal vote on impeachment?

The process of impeachment requires development of evidence. That process can either be done through a separate investigation (as we saw with Nixon and Clinton) or through the House's oversight power. The House was trying to do that when it noticed admin officials' depositions. White House counsel objected and said they wouldn't show. Bolton, for example, didn't show for his deposition.

Trump and his acolytes insisted that it was all a sham because the House hadn't formally opened an impeachment process. When the House did that, the administration continued to resist - and then after the articles are sent over, they're now saying the House missed its chance.

It can't be all of those things. At least not in the sense that it can be defended as a coherent, objective legal position.

 

[insidejob]

So I'm still not sure what grounds besides the nepotism angle -- and as you have mentioned, nobody in Congress wants to use that as the basis for someone launching an investigation into "corruption" with no actual evidence other than nepotism since so many have family who feeds at that particular trough

I just saw a clip from yesterday where one of the Republicans (some blonde woman who I just saw for the first time) actually made the argument that Hunter Biden being on the board of Burisma was nepotism at best and corruption at worst.

So, yeah, they actually went there. Went there while we've got Barron Trump with nuclear launch codes running around the White House.

It's almost like they think their own poop doesn't stink.

 

[superchuck500]

I mean, I can't even

 

[dtc]

I just saw a clip from yesterday where one of the Republicans (some blonde woman who I just saw for the first time) actually made the argument that Hunter Biden being on the board of Burisma was nepotism at best and corruption at worst.

So, yeah, they actually went there. Went there while we've got Barron Trump with nuclear launch codes running around the White House.

It's almost like they think their own poop doesn't stink.

That was Pam Bondi, former AG for Florida. She was found to have accepted illegal campaign contributions from Trump and dismissed one of the actions against him in Florida so she made it to the President's defense team.

I wonder if being tall and blonde made her credible in her eyes.

 

[Dadsdream]

Went there while we've got Barron Trump with nuclear launch codes running around the White House.

Please provide the link to a factual story that says Trump's son, Barron, is running around the White House with nuclear launch codes.

 

[dtc]

Please provide the link to a factual story that says Trump's son, Barron, is running around the White House with nuclear launch codes.

WND.com

 

[Dadsdream]

WND.com

Blocked. Site is unsafe.

 

[st dude]

The process of impeachment requires development of evidence. That process can either be done through a separate investigation (as we saw with Nixon and Clinton) or through the House's oversight power. The House was trying to do that when it noticed admin officials' depositions. White House counsel objected and said they wouldn't show. Bolton, for example, didn't show for his deposition.

Trump and his acolytes insisted that it was all a sham because the House hadn't formally opened an impeachment process. When the House did that, the administration continued to resist - and then after the articles are sent over, they're now saying the House missed its chance.

It can't be all of those things. At least not in the sense that it can be defended as a coherent, objective legal position.

Chuck, I know how this case would be tried if you, me and Jim E were trying it in front of a good federal judge.

A good judge would hold a pre-trial and help the attorneys agree upon matters not in dispute and enter what we call "stipulations" to shorten the trail and save everyone money and time. By way of example, suppose a McDonalds supply truck rear ended my client and she had a surgery for a back problem, but McDonald's claims the back injury pre-existed the accident.

We could save a lot of time and money by stipulating that the driver was a McDonald's employee, that he had insurance with xyz company and that he rear ended my client. The trial would focus on the narrow issue as to whether the accident was the cause of my client needing a surgery or whether her surgery was due to back problems she had before the accident.

In the impeachment case, the Republicans should have stipulated, or agreed, that Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine to force them to investigate Biden. It has been an enormous waste of taxpayer time and money, and an insult to the intelligence of anyone reasonably considering the facts, to argue Trump did not direct aid be withheld.

The narrow issue of the trial should only be if that action rises to the level of an impeachable offense.

I have lost a great measure of respect for every Republican senator who will not acknowledge Trump withheld aid to investigate the Bidens. I could at least accept the argument if a Senator argued what Trump did was wrong, but not impeachable. I disagree, but that argument does not insult my intelligence.

Now if a Trump supporter on here were to argue that Democrats might act the same way as Republicans are now if it was Obama being impeached for leveraging aid, I think a lot of Democrats would obstruct impeachment of Obama.

But then they would be wrong too. The fact that both sides do do bad things doesn't make it right.

The defense by the Trump team he didn't do it should insult all of our intelligence. The only issue that should be before the Senate is whether what Trump did was so wrong that he should be impeached. No good American should argue its okay for either side to withhold military aid to an ally to get them to investigate a political rival. duh.

 

[insidejob]

That was Pam Bondi, former AG for Florida. She was found to have accepted illegal campaign contributions from Trump and dismissed one of the actions against him in Florida so she made it to the President's defense team.

I wonder if being tall and blonde made her credible in her eyes.

Oh wow. I knew about her about her shenanigans just had never actually seen her before.

I can almost guarantee you that being a tall blonde put her ahead of other, likely more qualified, people to represent him.

 

[insidejob]

Please provide the link to a factual story that says Trump's son, Barron, is running around the White House with nuclear launch codes.

No.

 

[TaylorB]

Chuck, I know how this case would be tried if you, me and Jim E were trying it in front of a good federal judge.

A good judge would hold a pre-trial and help the attorneys agree upon matters not in dispute and enter what we call "stipulations" to shorten the trail and save everyone money and time. By way of example, suppose a McDonalds supply truck rear ended my client and she had a surgery for a back problem, but McDonald's claims the back injury pre-existed the accident.

We could save a lot of time and money by stipulating that the driver was a McDonald's employee, that he had insurance with xyz company and that he rear ended my client. The trial would focus on the narrow issue as to whether the accident was the cause of my client needing a surgery or whether her surgery was due to back problems she had before the accident.

In the impeachment case, the Republicans should have stipulated, or agreed, that Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine to force them to investigate Biden. It has been an enormous waste of taxpayer time and money, and an insult to the intelligence of anyone reasonably considering the facts, to argue Trump did not direct aid be withheld.

The narrow issue of the trial should only be if that action rises to the level of an impeachable offense.

I have lost a great measure of respect for every Republican senator who will not acknowledge Trump withheld aid to investigate the Bidens. I could at least accept the argument if a Senator argued what Trump did was wrong, but not impeachable. I disagree, but that argument dos not insult my intelligence.

Now if a Trump supporter on her were to argue that Democrats might act the same way as Republicans are now if it was Obama being impeached for leveraging aid, I think a lot of Democrats would obstruct impeachment of Obama.

But then they would be wrong too. The fact that both sides do do bad things doesn't make it right.

The defense by the Trump team he didn't do it should insult all of our intelligence. The only issue that should be before the Senate is whether what Trump did was so wrong that he should be impeached. No good American should argue its okay for either side to withhold military aid to an ally to get them to investigate a political rival. duh.

Nearly any federal judge would've already granted motions to compel the deposition testimony of Duffey, Mulvaney, Blair, Bolton, and Trump, would've compelled production of the relevant documents they have withheld, and likely would've already levied sanctions for their non-cooperation. A judge would almost certainly have granted a motion to exclude testimony of the Bidens as irrelevant. By the time of trial, Trump's team likely would've abandoned its frivolous factual defenses, and would instead likely try to demonstrate to the jury how contrite Trump is and how he accepts the consequences of his actions, but arguing that impeachment is too harsh a remedy. If an impartial jury got any sense of the length to which the defense had gone to prevent them from seeing the truth -- and if it were adequately explained to them exactly how Trump used their tax dollars to benefit himself personally -- they would likely reject the plea for leniency and render a harsh verdict.

 

[brandon]

Please provide the link to a factual story that says Trump's son, Barron, is running around the White House with nuclear launch codes.

Sounds like more of that errand running!