US House Speaker Announces Formal Impeachment Inquiry

[The spartan]

Evidence is starting to emerge that Biden received $900,000 from Burisma.

What does that have to do with the legalities surrounding what the POTUS can and cannot do?

[Cope]

What does that have to do with the legalities surrounding what the POTUS can and cannot do?

As already explained (on multiple occasions) the existence of evidence that Biden may have acted improperly in Ukraine vindicates the President's request to have his connections with Burisma investigated. Good luck convincing anyone that Trump committed an offence against his office for merely requesting an inquiry into someone who actually did have corrupt dealings.

[Ludicus]

Democrats should stop wasting time and efforts to impeach Trump.

Politically Uncorrected: Five Myths that Matter | BCTV

-----

Evidence is starting to emerge that Biden received $900,000 from Burisma.

https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...-ukrainian-mp/

Why am I not surprised?...

[The spartan]

As already explained (on multiple occasions) the existence of evidence that Biden may have acted improperly in Ukraine vindicates the President's request to have his connections with Burisma investigated. Good luck convincing anyone that Trump committed an offence against his office for merely requesting an inquiry into someone who actually did have corrupt dealings.

Two things:
1) As explained (on multiple occasions) the guilt of Biden doesn't really have anything to do with presidential abuses of power. This is like saying that police are allowed to raid a property for evidence without a warrant as long as they can retroactively prove there were illegal substances there. Nor is the charge leveled at Trump that he can't inquire about potentially corrupt dealings of Biden; but that he isn't allowed to (as POTUS and running candidate) ask a foreign government for help with that. Biden's guilt or lack thereof doesn't change that rule.

2) If you are just trying to prove any "legitimate" reason why Trump would have to investigate (which would be his DOJ's job, not his and another foreign leader's), you brought that up pages ago. Why are you still hammering on points about Biden as if this info has any impact on Trump's impeachment inquiry? It couldn't be to *gasp* move the conversation away from Trump, now would it? The best defense is a good offense, as they say.

[Cope]

Two things:
1) As explained (on multiple occasions) the guilt of Biden doesn't really have anything to do with presidential abuses of power. This is like saying that police are allowed to raid a property for evidence without a warrant as long as they can retroactively prove there were illegal substances there. Nor is the charge leveled at Trump that he can't inquire about potentially corrupt dealings of Biden; but that he isn't allowed to (as POTUS) ask a foreign government for help with that.

2) If you are just trying to prove any "legitimate" reason why Trump would have to investigate (which would be his DOJ's job, not his and another foreign leader's), you brought that up pages ago. Why are you still hammering on points about Biden as if this info has anything to do with Trump's impeachment inquiry? It couldn't be to *gasp* move the conversation away from Trump, now would it? The best defense is a good offense, as they say.

The President is entitled to ask a foreign leader to "look into" matters involving American citizens which occurred in said leader's country. This theory that only the DoJ could make such a request is irrelevant nonsense. As well we all know, Schiff et al. would simply have accused the President of attempting to appropriate the department for his own political gain if someone from the DoJ had made the request on his behalf. In fact I'm quite sure that some people have already made that very argument in this thread.

The more evidence that emerges which indicates that the Biden acted improperly, the easier it becomes to make the case that Trump was justified in his request to Zelensky. As I said, the more guilty Biden looks, the more vindicated Trump is.

[Katsumoto]

In regards to the earlier question whether the House needs to take a vote to start impeachment, here is a good article:

Is it constitutionally acceptable for the House speaker to initiate an impeachment “by means of nothing more than a press conference”? In short, yes.

The constitutional text on this issue is spare. The Constitution simply says that the House has the sole power of impeachment. Ultimately, if the House wants to impeach someone, it needs to muster a simple majority in support of articles of impeachment that can be presented to the Senate. How the House gets there is entirely up to the chamber itself to determine. There is no constitutional requirement that the House take two successful votes on impeachment, one to authorize some kind of inquiry and one to ratify whatever emerges from that inquiry. An impeachment inquiry is not “invalid” because there has been no vote to formally launch it, and any eventual impeachment would not be “invalid” because the process that led to it did not feature a floor vote authorizing a specific inquiry.
__

Cipollone accuses the Democratic majority in the House of seeking to “overturn” the presidential election through a “highly partisan and unconstitutional effort,” but the House Democrats cannot “overturn the popular will of the voters,” as House Judiciary Chair Jerrold Nadler put it back when a president of his party was threatened with impeachment. Impeachment is the beginning of a constitutional process, not the end. If a democratically elected president is to be displaced from office, it will only be as a result of a bipartisan supermajority of senators voting to do so after a trial. If the House could by itself and by majority vote oust a president, then there would be good reason to demand a robust process before reaching that decision. If the Democrats held it within their power to remove a sitting president, then there would be good reason to object to a partisan process that did not give a fair hearing to the other side. But as Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has been sure to point out, the Democrats do not have it within their power to remove the people’s choice of a president without Republican cooperation.

Impeachment has frequently been analogized to a grand jury indictment, and the analogy is informative here. The House is a prosecutorial body in an impeachment context. The House members themselves must decide what steps they think are necessary to satisfy themselves that a particular impeachment is warranted and to prepare a credible case that can be argued in the Senate, where the defense will have an opportunity to poke holes in it. It might be prudent for the House to create a more robust adversarial proceeding in order to help the House members themselves assess the strength of the case, but any such process is for the benefit of informing the House, not protecting the accused from a possible impeachment. A federal officer has no particular right not to be impeached, and the bar for impeachment is consequently set low.

The Senate trial, by contrast, provides an opportunity for an accused officer to mount a robust defense, plead his or her case, and seek total vindication. The procedural bar for a Senate conviction is set high. There, the House can have no expectation of a sympathetic hearing and the defendant can make use of the fact that a bipartisan supermajority in the upper chamber will almost always be necessary to remove him or her from office. It might not be possible to impeach a ham sandwich in the House, but the accused has no expectation of a fair or bipartisan hearing in the lower chamber.

https://www.lawfareblog.com/must-hou...chment-inquiry

[Ludicus]

Let's keep in mind that impeachment is a political process. "Ultimately, the American people decide what is or isn't impeachable with Article II of the constitution acting as not much more than a legal prop in their decision-making" (see previous post, link). A Republican-led Senate will never impeach Trump.
Do Americans Support Impeaching Trump? | FiveThirtyEight

As you can see below, Democrats are strongly in favor of impeachment, Republicans are strongly opposed and independents hover somewhere in between.

[B. W.]

Talk about a conflict of interest, Schiff should recuse himself. Not only that, but now it seems that Pelosi's family had financial interests in Ukrainian energy. All of this begs the question, why is this "inquiry" being handled by the intelligence committee instead of the judicial oversight committee where it should be handled?

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog...ite_house.html

[alhoon]

There's one more voice adding to the chorus of "Impeach!"
Trump himself.

Yes, Trump (in what is a hilarious typo) said "Impeach the Pres"
It is rare to find someone asking to be impeached.
(I think he wanted to write "Impeach the Press")

[B. W.]

I'm starting to wonder just how many Democrats were on the take for Ukrainian money. Now Democratic senators are revealed to have taken big bucks from the Ukraine:

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...aine_cash.html

No wonder the Dems want this inquiry held in secret hearings.

[The spartan]

The President is entitled to ask a foreign leader to "look into" matters involving American citizens which occurred in said leader's country. This theory that only the DoJ could make such a request is irrelevant nonsense.

Not when it is about a campaign opponent, he's not, for reasons I hoped would be obvious. That's why, you know, former Presidents didn't do this. I guess Trump is just that good at 3D chess?

The more evidence that emerges which indicates that the Biden acted improperly, the easier it becomes to make the case that Trump was justified in his request to Zelensky. As I said, the more guilty Biden looks, the more vindicated Trump is.

Not really, no, that's not how checks on power work. You can't abuse a power and then retroactively make it a not abuse of power because it resulted in something. Again, this is like saying police are allowed to raid a residence without a warrant as long as they can point to something illegal they found on the premises.

I'm starting to wonder just how many Democrats were on the take for Ukrainian money. Now Democratic senators are revealed to have taken big bucks from the Ukraine:


No wonder the Dems want this inquiry held in secret hearings.

Keep pumping that propaganda well as hard as you can. Whatever it takes to draw heat off the bogey.

You still haven't answered my question either: should Trump suspend Congress if Pelosi doesn't stop her coup attempt?

[Katsumoto]

I'm starting to wonder just how many Democrats were on the take for Ukrainian money. Now Democratic senators are revealed to have taken big bucks from the Ukraine:

https://www.americanthinker.com/arti...aine_cash.html

No wonder the Dems want this inquiry held in secret hearings.

Trump does bad thing, Dems (hypothetically) do bad thing, now Trump no longer have done bad thing? Make sense perfect.

[Ludicus]

New poll has Warren leading Biden ahead of next Democratic debate ...

The new poll also found that voters are almost evenly divided over whether President Donald Trump should be impeached, with 46 percent saying he should be impeached and removed from office and 48 percent saying he should not be impeached.

----
Hunter Biden told ABC,

I won't work directly for any foreign entities when dad becomes president

In fact , that would not be necessary. Every US President Who Gave A Family Member A High-Up ... - Ranker

[tgoodenow]

If Democrats truly believed in impeachment they would take a vote for it. What a crock

[Coughdrop addict]

Trump does bad thing, Dems (hypothetically) do bad thing, now Trump no longer have done bad thing? Make sense perfect.

When you were a kid telling your parents "But they did it too!" got you out of trouble didn't it? I'm sure most of us have gotten out of a speeding ticket by pointing out to the officer issuing it that other people have sped before. And we can all point to many famous legal cases where the defendant was set free immediately upon stating that other people have committed crimes.

/s

[B. W.]

Not when it is about a campaign opponent, he's not, for reasons I hoped would be obvious. That's why, you know, former Presidents didn't do this. I guess Trump is just that good at 3D chess?

Not really, no, that's not how checks on power work. You can't abuse a power and then retroactively make it a not abuse of power because it resulted in something. Again, this is like saying police are allowed to raid a residence without a warrant as long as they can point to something illegal they found on the premises.



Keep pumping that propaganda well as hard as you can. Whatever it takes to draw heat off the bogey.

You still haven't answered my question either: should Trump suspend Congress if Pelosi doesn't stop her coup attempt?

Former presidents have done much the same, including Obama.

As to your question, it is just plain silly. I didn't answer it so as not to make you look foolish, but since you insist I'll have to break the news to you that the President can't suspend Congress. That's outside his authority.

Trump does bad thing, Dems (hypothetically) do bad thing, now Trump no longer have done bad thing? Make sense perfect.

Except the evidence coming out against Dems is documentary evidence, not just accusations as in the case of Trump. It really looks like the Dems were hip deep in nefarious dealings and are anxious to get rid of Trump before it all comes to light. Remember, if Hillary had been elected we wouldn't know about Joe Biden and his son's corrupt activities in Ukraine.

[Katsumoto]

Gotcha. A transcript, a video and multiple testimonies to Congress are 'accusations', but an article from American Thinker is 'documentary evidence'.

[JP226]

Gotcha. A transcript, a video and multiple testimonies to Congress are 'accusations', but an article from American Thinker is 'documentary evidence'.

Lol, Katsumoto thinks hearsay, Schiffs interpretation of a transcript, and the testimony of a political surrogate are somehow evidence. You can’t legally serve on a jury, correct?

Also, I’ve yet to see any actual intent of Trump to swing an election. I have seen him go after a corrupt network that politicians were using to enrich themselves and families. Surely you don’t think that abusing a third world country for pure greed like that is okay do you?

[Love Mountain]

Lol, Katsumoto thinks hearsay, Schiffs interpretation of a transcript, and the testimony of a political surrogate are somehow evidence. You can’t legally serve on a jury, correct?

Also, I’ve yet to see any actual intent of Trump to swing an election. I have seen him go after a corrupt network that politicians were using to enrich themselves and families. Surely you don’t think that abusing a third world country for pure greed like that is okay do you?

The irony and Trump's lack of self-awareness here is delicious. Seeing Trump supporters regurgitate it is hilarious. I really don't know who to laugh at more, Trump, or the people who swore fealty to him.

[Katsumoto]

Lol, Katsumoto thinks hearsay, Schiffs interpretation of a transcript, and the testimony of a political surrogate are somehow evidence. You can’t legally serve on a jury, correct?

Also, I’ve yet to see any actual intent of Trump to swing an election. I have seen him go after a corrupt network that politicians were using to enrich themselves and families. Surely you don’t think that abusing a third world country for pure greed like that is okay do you?

I have no idea what you're trying to get at but it seems stupid.