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

 

[Lazybones]

If you want to view it from the perspective of the right thing to do in the process of impeachment then the senate should because they want the truth. Even if you feel the house didn’t do their job correctly, the expectation is the senate should be impartial and in search of the truth, not acting as the defense team.

Your questions seem to relevant if you view it from the perspective of Democrats versus Republicans.

are you insinuating that the house didn’t want the truth? What if McConnell says, “we are not calling witnesses, because the Executive branch will block them and drag it out in the courts.”

Would that be acceptable to you?

 

[Archies Ghost]

Beach, I have a proposal for you and Archie and DD and Saintforlife and for any others on here who support Trump. It would really help me understand where you guys are coming from and I see so many dance around the issue. I am hoping Jim E will play along to as I am confused where Jim stands on this.

My proposal comes with a quid pro quo. Here it is. I ask three questions related to the impeachment and you guys give me simple straight forward answers. Here is the quid pro quo. Ask me three impeachment related questions and I will give straight answers back.


Here goes:

1) Do you think more probably than not Trump intentionally caused aid to Ukraine to be delayed?

2) Do you think he did that to force Ukraine to investigate Biden?

3) Assuming answers to 1 and 2 are yes, do you think this is wrong to do (which is a different question as to if its impeachable)?


The reason I ask these questions is because I find most Trump supporters tend to dance around these fundamental questions. As stated in my previous post, I can understand the point of view some might have that squeezing the Ukrainians is politics as usual and not impeachable. I don't agree, but I get it. I do not see how anyone believes Trump was not withholding aid.

Please answer these questions. I promise quid pro quo in answering questions you guys have.

1. Yes. The delay is in the record.
2. Yes.
3. No.

 

[RegularChuck]

are you insinuating that the house didn’t want the truth? What if McConnell says, “we are not calling witnesses, because the Executive branch will block them and drag it out in the courts.”

Would that be acceptable to you?

No, I’m just going along with your line of reasoning. Whats done in the house is done, whether we think they did a good job or not. Now it’s the senate’s duty to do their job. I think the senate should do their best job to evaluate the truth. Like I said earlier, their job is to be impartial, not be the defense.

Do you want the senate to do their duty impartially or do you want them to play a childish game of “we don’t think you put in that much effort, so we won’t either”? Because then, when does it stop? Someone needs to step up.

 

[SaintForLife]

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.

If the country in question who is receiving the aid is reportedly one of the most corrupt countries in the world, why would the Biden's Ukraine corruption be immune from questions/information/investigation? Does one being a political opponent give them immunity from any possible investigations?

 

[JimEverett]

So your concern is more about procedural preservation than having the senators make a decision based on all available information.

I think good procedure is how you arrive at truth in these situations. It is how you avoid having a National SEcurity Directo at the time in question who was not even subpoenaed in the impeachment suddenly turn into the hottest witness in a fiercely charged environment while he is promoting his book.

 

[st dude]

1. Yes. The delay is in the record.
2. Yes.
3. No.

Fair enough, thanks for an honest answer. So you know that a foundation of the Republican defense has been that Trump did not case the aid to be withheld and tie it to investigating Biden. Trump denies it as well. Do you not feel they are insulting your intelligence with this defense?

Early on, months ago, some republican senators were quoted as saying no quid pro quo and that had there been quid pro quo, that would be upsetting to them. Now that quid pro quo is obvious, they are falling back to its no big deal.

Meanwhile most of the senate defense is attacking the democrats for claiming Trump caused military aid to be delayed. Its obvious he did, right?

That doesn't bother you? Not that he delayed the aid, you answered that by saying no to number 3. Does it bother you that a large group of senators claim it didn't happen?

 

[st dude]

I think good procedure is how you arrive at truth in these situations. It is how you avoid having a National SEcurity Directo at the time in question who was not even subpoenaed in the impeachment suddenly turn into the hottest witness in a fiercely charged environment while he is promoting his book.

Jim, could you answer the questions posed to Archie. I know you to be a bright guy and I am totally confused as to where you stand on the issue of what Trump did. I'll answer any question you have in case you are confused where I stand.

 

[coldseat]

So the impeachment was an invalid impeachment given that the argument is that we need witnesses who were never subpoenaed in the Impeachment to prove that impeachment was valid?

That's a ludicrous statement. The Impeachment is a valid Impeachment. It was voted on and passed in the House, therefore it is valid.

This argument over witnesses is so freaking stupid it insults every bodies intelligence. If a witness has pertinent (keyword) information to offer to the impeachment charges, then they should be called. Period.

That does not mean the Senate is "making the case for the House", as has been repeated ad nauseam by the right. That doesn't even make any logical sense. This whole fight of witnesses in the Senate just shows how broken the legislature (and all of government) is right now.

 

[Lazybones]

No, I’m just going along with your line of reasoning. Whats done in the house is done, whether we think they did a good job or not. Now it’s the senate’s duty to do their job. I think the senate should do their best job to evaluate the truth. Like I said earlier, their job is to be impartial, not be the defense.

Do you want the senate to do their duty impartially or do you want them to play a childish game of “we don’t think you put in that much effort, so we won’t either”? Because then, when does it stop? Someone needs to step up.

where is the repudiation of schiff. why did the house file articles of impeachment if they were not willing to fight a few court battles?Was it because the whole process was a political ploy to right the wrong of the 2016 election?

You didn’t answer the question, are you ok with McConnell saying they are but calling witnesses because they are not willing to fight the courts?

 

[RobF]

So your concern is more about procedural preservation than having the senators make a decision based on all available information.

It's not even that, is it? The Senate has considered evidence the House didn't in previous impeachments, right?

 

[JimEverett]

Also, if there was a national interest, why not go through regular diplomatic channels?


That's a ludicrous statement. The Impeachment is a valid Impeachment. It was voted on and passed in the House, therefore it is valid.

This argument over witnesses is so freaking stupid it insults every bodies intelligence. If a witness has pertinent (keyword) information to offer to the impeachment charges, then they should be called. Period.

That does not mean the Senate is "making the case for the House", as has been repeated ad nauseam by the right. That doesn't even make any logical sense. This whole fight of witnesses in the Senate just shows how broken the legislature (and all of government) is right now.

Your argument only makes sense if you believe there is a lower threshold for impeachment than there is for removal. I do not see how such a possibility exists.

 

[JimEverett]

It's not even that, is it? The Senate has considered evidence the House didn't in previous impeachments, right?

The Clinton impeachment was different from this one. There the Impeachment relied on the record generated by Ken Starr - his report and the Grand Jury testimony. All 3 Senate witnesses were interviewed by Starr's team under oath, and I believe all 3 testified in the Grand Jury. So all 3 had testimony as part of the record that the House voted on.

I am not sure of the Johnson impeachment.

 

[insidejob]

It's not even that, is it? The Senate has considered evidence the House didn't in previous impeachments, right?

Of course they did.

 

[Beach Friends]

So your concern is more about procedural preservation than having the senators make a decision based on all available information.

For me, the process is far more important than Bolton's testimony. It's not even close.

 

[V Chip]

If the country in question who is receiving the aid is reportedly one of the most corrupt countries in the world, why would the Biden's Ukraine corruption be immune from questions/information/investigation? Does one being a political opponent give them immunity from any possible investigations?

But again, what would you investigate him for? What crime or corruption can he be accused of? The fact that his son has a job with a company there? Or is there something more that hasn't been brought forward?

 

[coldseat]

Your argument only makes sense if you believe there is a lower threshold for impeachment than there is for removal. I do not see how such a possibility exists.

I think the threshold for removal is the Senate's responsibility.

I think the threshold for Impeachment is the House's responsibility.

I believe in what the constitution sates.

I also believe the House made it's case and doesn't really need to call any additional witnesses, but since Republicans keep insisting on direct witness testimony from the 1st person, principle actor (which we already had 1st person testimony, btw it just wasn't a principle actor) because they can't be bothered to add 2 + 2, then call the damn witness.

I'm also making an argument from a position that is assuming Republicans in the Senate would be doing what's actually right and seeking an impartial verdict. And not just trying to navigate the road to the end verdict of acquittal (which is what they're doing). Since they're actually doing the ladder, we keep getting these ridiculous arguments. I just wish people wouldn't support them.

 

[JimEverett]

Beach, I have a proposal for you and Archie and DD and Saintforlife and for any others on here who support Trump. It would really help me understand where you guys are coming from and I see so many dance around the issue. I am hoping Jim E will play along to as I am confused where Jim stands on this.

My proposal comes with a quid pro quo. Here it is. I ask three questions related to the impeachment and you guys give me simple straight forward answers. Here is the quid pro quo. Ask me three impeachment related questions and I will give straight answers back.


Here goes:

1) Do you think more probably than not Trump intentionally caused aid to Ukraine to be delayed?

2) Do you think he did that to force Ukraine to investigate Biden?

3) Assuming answers to 1 and 2 are yes, do you think this is wrong to do (which is a different question as to if its impeachable)?


The reason I ask these questions is because I find most Trump supporters tend to dance around these fundamental questions. As stated in my previous post, I can understand the point of view some might have that squeezing the Ukrainians is politics as usual and not impeachable. I don't agree, but I get it. I do not see how anyone believes Trump was not withholding aid.

Please answer these questions. I promise quid pro quo in answering questions you guys have.

1. Yes
2. Yes
3. Yes

 

[samiam5211]

For me, the process is far more important than Bolton's testimony. It's not even close.

The process was established by this senate.

The next time a president is impeached, that senate will set up the process.

There isn’t any process to preserve.