Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry

[_MeDotOrg]

Things could happen rapidly from this point. There will be several areas of investigation (six committees). There could be evidence and testimony that until now has been legally stymied that could be expedited in an impeachment inquiry (Don McGahn comes to mind). . . Just how well the Democrats have planned for this moment will be seen in the next couple of days.

At this exact moment in time, there is a confluence different forces: The President says he releasing a transcript of his conversation with Zelensky at the same time he continues to fight against the release of the whistleblower report to Congress.

At the same time, this event seems to be the last straw for many Dems in purple districts. For a long time now, I think the only question has been when, not if.
With Nixon and Clinton, you pretty much knew where the investigations were going. Trump's Presidency is a uniquely target-rich environment, with the Stormy Daniel's payoff, emoluments clause, obstruction of justice in the Russia investigation, and using the Presidential office and the funds of the United States for his personal political gain in Ukraine. It's difficult to imagine what the final document could look like.

I'm reluctant to include video links, but listen to 1 minute of Former Republican David Jolley, talking about the concerns of the Framers beyond criminal wrongdoing in impeachment.

And so begins the 3rd serious impeachment inquiry since 1974.

[_subgenius]

Things could happen rapidly from this point. ...

would you be as amused as the rest of us when a search of this board's threads reveal how many times you have posted this statement in regards to Trump?

Because trust me...people are laughing at this point.

[_Some Schmo]

It's so long overdue, it's almost hard to take it seriously. I want to say "better late than never" but I'm not sure that's true in this case.

At the very least, it'll likely drive the douche bag nuts, so there's that.

[_subgenius]

oh! this thread...

[_Some Schmo]

One might reasonably ask, "Why now?" given the fact that Congress has had ample cause to impeach from pretty much day 1.

I heard someone offer the opinion that this Ukraine scandal was cut and dry and easy for the American people to understand.

Given everything Trump's already done and the difficulty level involved in understanding his crimes and misdemeanors already publicly known, I highly doubt this one is easy enough for his base to understand. They either won't understand, or won't care about the crime if they do (pretending it isn't a crime in the first place - it'll be resurrected as criminal once a Democrat is caught doing it).

This country certainly is divided, between people who care about facts and the law and people who care about BS and their own selfish, destructive, treasonous party.

[_Res Ipsa]

I think the why now is pretty obvious. Mr. “No collusion” has been caught red-handed colluding with a foreign leader to influence an election. In fact, he was caught initiating the collusion. It’s flat out illegal. And it’s exactly what Pelosi has been saying would justify impeachment in the context of the Russia investigation.

This isn’t one of his kids saying “I love it” in response to alleged campaign dirt. This is the President of the United States abusing the power of the presidency to coerce the leader of a foreign country to initiate a phony investigation against his biggest threat to re-election. I’m a little cautious when it comes to impeachment, but this is clear evidence of abuse of presidential powers. And the President has admitted to the facts constituting that abuse. Impeachment is the only check on abuse of presidential powers, and so it is time to impeach.

[_Some Schmo]

I think the why now is pretty obvious. Mr. “No collusion” has been caught red-handed colluding with a foreign leader to influence an election. In fact, he was caught initiating the collusion. It’s flat out illegal. And it’s exactly what Pelosi has been saying would justify impeachment in the context of the Russia investigation.

Well, I certainly understand why this is a particularly egregious offense, but we've had countless of these before. He's been obstructing Congress in plain view. He's an unindicted co-conspirator in a campaign finance violation. We saw him obstruct the Mueller investigation. We've got the military staying in his resorts. He called white supremacists "fine people." Etc etc etc ad nauseam. The list goes on and on.

It feels just a little to me like the roulette wheel ball finally settled on a random number, and all bets are off.

[_Res Ipsa]

I think the why now is pretty obvious. Mr. “No collusion” has been caught red-handed colluding with a foreign leader to influence an election. In fact, he was caught initiating the collusion. It’s flat out illegal. And it’s exactly what Pelosi has been saying would justify impeachment in the context of the Russia investigation.

Well, I certainly understand why this is a particularly egregious offense, but we've had countless of these before. He's been obstructing Congress in plain view. He's an unindicted co-conspirator in a campaign finance violation. We saw him obstruct the Mueller investigation. We've got the military staying in his resorts. He called white supremacists "fine people." Etc etc etc ad nauseam. The list goes on and on.

It feels just a little to me like the roulette wheel ball finally settled on a random number, and all bets are off.

Yeah, I can understand your frustration. But, in my opinion, Trump’s “both side” statement should not be an impeachable offense. He’s actually not an unindicted co-conspirator, because there no indicted conspirators. The independent counsel did not find sufficient evidence of a conspiracy. Lots of legal beagles may disagree with that, but my recollection is that a conspiracy requires two things: an agreement to perform certain conduct that breaks the law and a substantial step toward performing the agreement. In the case of Trump, I don’t see the agreement. And if you think agreeing to receive information from a foreign source is sufficient for a criminal conspiracy, then you’ve just convicted the Clinton campaign, because the Steele dossier is exactly information from a foreign source that was solicited for use in a political campaign. So, the Russian conspiracy issue, to me, is not a good ground for impeachment based on what we know.

Obstruction of justice is a better case for impeachment, in my opinion, because it arguably involves abuse of the president’s power. But it does involve some tricky issues that the Constitution just doesn’t address. In my opinion, impeaching based on obstruction of justice is weak when the evidence of an underlying crime is weak. Watergate was clearly obstruction because Nixon ordered the CIA to interfere with the FBI’s investigation of a crime. So, while I agree that there were grounds for impeachment based on obstruction, using that as the primary basis would give the Rs a good chance of painting the impeachment as sore losers trying to undo an election that they lost.

The Ukraine scandal is much different. This wasn’t a candidate saying “I’m listening” when someone says “I have dirt on your opponent.” This is the President of the United States caught red-handed using his authority as president to pressure a foreign leader to manufacture a phony investigation targeting his biggest obstacle to re-election. And on top of that, breaking the law to try and cover it up. And the president can’t work the refs for two years like he did with the Russia investigation because he’s already admitted the essential conduct.

Watergate was a legitimate use of the impeachment power, in my opinion, because it involved abuse of the powers and office of the president. Whitewater was a political stunt that had nothing to do with abuse of presidential power. It turned the impeachment power into cheap political stunt. Overturning the results of a democratic election should be a serious matter and not a routine procedure when the President and the Congress are of different parties. I think it’s a good thing that Pelosi kept her powder dry until a strong, clear case emerged before launching the constitutional equivalent of nuclear war.

[_Jersey Girl]

He's on a live press conference right now in case anyone wasn't aware and wants to give it a listen.

[_Some Schmo]

Yeah, I can understand your frustration. But, in my opinion, Trump’s “both side” statement should not be an impeachable offense.

Agreed. That shouldn't have been on that list.

He’s actually not an unindicted co-conspirator, because there no indicted conspirators.

I was referring to the crime for which Michael Cohen is in prison, not the Russia conspiracy.

To your overall point, I understand and respect the caution to impeach. I just think that in this case, it's been too much of a good thing.

The entire Trump presidency reminds me of the old Simpsons episode where the one guy goes nuts because nobody else seems to recognize just how much of a fuck-up Homer really is, and if they do, they don't care.

The difference is that in real life, the fuck-up is President (and not as decent as Homer Simpson, frankly). Another difference is I'm not the only one who recognizes what a fuck-up Trump is, thankfully... otherwise, I'd go nuts too.