Pelosi announces impeachment inquiry

[Anonymous]

There is no ‘quo’:

“Trump did not threaten to withhold U.S. military aid, absent a Ukrainian probe of the Bidens. Though such assets were being withheld at the time, Ukrainian officials were reportedly unaware of this during the July 25 Trump/Zelensky phone call. Zelensky told journalists in Kiev on October 10: [b]“I had no idea the military aid was held up.”[/q] These weapons — which Obama never even offered — arrived not long after Trump and Zelensky conversed. Specifically, Zelensky and Vice President Mike Pence spoke in Warsaw on September 1. Zelensky explained: “And after this meeting, the U.S. unlocked the aid and added $140 million. That’s why there was no blackmail.” As Reuters reported, the Trump administration freed the military assistance to Kiev on September 11, thus bolstering Ukraine’s defenses against Russia and refuting the lie that Trump is a Kremlin stooge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no ‘quo’:

“Trump did not threaten to withhold U.S. military aid, absent a Ukrainian probe of the Bidens. Though such assets were being withheld at the time, Ukrainian officials were reportedly unaware of this during the July 25 Trump/Zelensky phone call. Zelensky told journalists in Kiev on October 10: [b]“I had no idea the military aid was held up.”[/q] These weapons — which Obama never even offered — arrived not long after Trump and Zelensky conversed. Specifically, Zelensky and Vice President Mike Pence spoke in Warsaw on September 1. Zelensky explained: “And after this meeting, the U.S. unlocked the aid and added $140 million. That’s why there was no blackmail.” As Reuters reported, the Trump administration freed the military assistance to Kiev on September 11, thus bolstering Ukraine’s defenses against Russia and refuting the lie that Trump is a Kremlin stooge.

Sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Via Scott Horton

"When drafting the Constitution’s Impeachment Clause, the Framers had a specific historical episode in mind. In 1649 the English House of Commons impeached King Charles I for treason. Charles was alleged to have unlawfully subverted English democracy, and the final article of impeachment charged that he colluded with England’s foreign adversaries in his campaign against his domestic political rivals. Proving that last charge required an inquiry into Charles’s diplomatic communications.

Much of his trial devolved into a tedious debate over whether he could assert the king’s ordinary privileges and immunities. At one point Charles infamously insisted that he was immune from impeachment altogether because “the king can do no wrong.” Charles lost this debate. His personal “Papers and Letters” were all taken as evidence. His secretary was compelled to testify about his negotiations with England’s foreign adversaries.

Within a month of being impeached, Charles was found guilty and beheaded."

This is from an op-Ed in the Wall Street Journal. It’s a really interesting article:
https://www.wsj.com/articles/impeachment-trumps-executive-privilege-ask-george-washington-11571784069

Paywall.

This one is good:
https://www.lawfareblog.com/three-lessons-first-time-head-state-was-impeached

“During the Constitutional Convention debates over the Impeachment Clause, Benjamin Franklin cited the impeachment of Charles Stuart as one of the principal reasons the impeachment process needed to be formalized in the Constitution. And Gouverneur Morris supported the idea, arguing that Congress needed the power to impeach a president for “treachery” and “corrupting his electors.””

WSJ also mentions it was tested during Washington administration as well, where he refused to turn over diplomatic negotiation correspondence, but in his statement, said that the exception would be in an impeachment inquiry, where he would turn over to Congress. Wonderful stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Quinnipiac latest:

- 55% support impeachment, a new peak
- Trump's job approval below 40% for the first time since impeachment
- Only 35% approve of his handling foreign policy
- 56% say he’s mishandling our national security

Even more dramatic than that crest over 50% is that 48% now favor impeachment AND REMOVAL.

Trial by media

So you would rather -- what? -- not give the American people any information about the crimes the President is committing?

That's easy -- watch Fox News. They're not talking about the impeachment process at all.

The constant polling tells me the real goal

The real goal of polling? To find out what people think about things. You’re just figuring this out?

Media pushes a narrative then media constantly polls to see how narrative is polling.

Yes, and Trump pushes the media. He has brilliantly manipulated the media for years.

+1. That and self-promotion are his only talents.

In all fairness he is also one of the greatest tweeters of all time.

The tweeting is self-promoting media manipulation. It’s not a separate talent.

Yes, that is a core component of his manipulation.

Frankly, given what we now know, I think the idea for at least a portion of his tweets comes from Russia. I think it was they who crafted the birtherism and got Donald going with that, for instance.

Yes, Russia is responsible for seeding and amplifying RWNJ conspiracy theories to sow discourse.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no ‘quo’:

“Trump did not threaten to withhold U.S. military aid, absent a Ukrainian probe of the Bidens. Though such assets were being withheld at the time, Ukrainian officials were reportedly unaware of this during the July 25 Trump/Zelensky phone call. Zelensky told journalists in Kiev on October 10: [b]“I had no idea the military aid was held up.”[/q] These weapons — which Obama never even offered — arrived not long after Trump and Zelensky conversed. Specifically, Zelensky and Vice President Mike Pence spoke in Warsaw on September 1. Zelensky explained: “And after this meeting, the U.S. unlocked the aid and added $140 million. That’s why there was no blackmail.” As Reuters reported, the Trump administration freed the military assistance to Kiev on September 11, thus bolstering Ukraine’s defenses against Russia and refuting the lie that Trump is a Kremlin stooge.

Sure.

PP is way behind. Of course they knew the military aid wasn’t there, and why.

https://apnews.com/b048901b635f423db49a10046daaf8a8
(AP) — “More than two months before the phone call that launched the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, Ukraine’s newly elected leader was already worried about pressure from the U.S. president to investigate his Democratic rival Joe Biden.

Volodymyr Zelenskiy gathered a small group of advisers on May 7 in Kyiv for a meeting that was supposed to be about his nation’s energy needs. Instead, the group spent most of the three-hour discussion talking about how to navigate the insistence from Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani for a probe and how to avoid becoming entangled in the American elections, according to three people familiar with the details of the meeting.”

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Madison Debates
Friday July 20, 1787

https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/debates_720.asp

“Mr. DAVIE. If he be not impeachable whilst in office, he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected. He considered this as an essential security for the good behaviour of the Executive.”

“Col. MASON. No point is of more importance than that the right of impeachment should be continued. Shall any man be above Justice? Above all shall that man be above it, who can commit the most extensive injustice? When great crimes were committed he was for punishing the principal as well as the Coadjutors. There had been much debate & difficulty as to the mode of chusing the Executive. He approved of that which had been adopted at first, namely of referring the appointment to the Natl. Legislature. One objection agst. Electors was the danger of their being corrupted by the Candidates; & this furnished a peculiar reason in favor of impeachments whilst in office. Shall the man who has practised corruption & by that means procured his appointment in the first instance, be suffered to escape punishment, by repeating his guilt.”

“Mr. Govr. MORRIS'S opinion had been changed by the arguments used in the discussion. He was now sensible of the necessity of impeachments, if the Executive was to continue for any [FN12] time in office. Our Executive was not like a Magistrate having a life interest, much less like one having an hereditary interest in his office. He may be bribed by a greater interest to betray his trust; and no one would say that we ought to expose ourselves to the danger of seeing the first Magistrate in forign pay, without being able to guard agst. it by displacing him. One would think the King of England well secured agst. bribery. He has as it were a fee simple in the whole Kingdom. Yet Charles II was bribed by Louis XIV. The Executive ought therefore to be impeachable for treachery; Corrupting his electors, and incapacity were other causes of impeachment. For the latter he should be punished not as a man, but as an officer, and punished only by degradation from his office. This Magistrate is not the King but the prime-Minister. The people are the King. When we make him amenable to Justice however we should take care to provide some mode that will not make him dependent on the Legislature.”

Many more great thoughts from our framers. Can’t paste them all.

Wow! Really good stuff in that link. Here's a quote from Ben Franklin - he thought impeachment is necessary in order to protect the life of the Executive. If there was no impeachment process to remove a corrupt Executive, the only recourse would be assassination. And, if killed, the Executive would have no opportunity to clear his name and be acquitted; he would be killed and presumed guilty.

Docr. FRANKLIN was for retaining the clause as favorable to the Executive. History furnishes one example only of a first Magistrate being formally brought to public Justice. Every body cried out agst. this as unconstitutional. What was the practice before this in cases where the chief Magistrate rendered himself obnoxious? Why recourse was had to assassination in wch. he was not only deprived of his life but of the opportunity of vindicating his character. It wd.. be the best way therefore to provide in the Constitution for the regular punishment of the Executive where his misconduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when [FN10] he should be unjustly accused.

Reading this debates its clear that the Founding Fathers were so much more intelligent, well read, and academic than politicians today.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:There is no ‘quo’:

“Trump did not threaten to withhold U.S. military aid, absent a Ukrainian probe of the Bidens. Though such assets were being withheld at the time, Ukrainian officials were reportedly unaware of this during the July 25 Trump/Zelensky phone call. Zelensky told journalists in Kiev on October 10: [b]“I had no idea the military aid was held up.”[/q] These weapons — which Obama never even offered — arrived not long after Trump and Zelensky conversed. Specifically, Zelensky and Vice President Mike Pence spoke in Warsaw on September 1. Zelensky explained: “And after this meeting, the U.S. unlocked the aid and added $140 million. That’s why there was no blackmail.” As Reuters reported, the Trump administration freed the military assistance to Kiev on September 11, thus bolstering Ukraine’s defenses against Russia and refuting the lie that Trump is a Kremlin stooge.

Sure.

PP is way behind. Of course they knew the military aid wasn’t there, and why.

https://apnews.com/b048901b635f423db49a10046daaf8a8
(AP) — “More than two months before the phone call that launched the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump, Ukraine’s newly elected leader was already worried about pressure from the U.S. president to investigate his Democratic rival Joe Biden.

Volodymyr Zelenskiy gathered a small group of advisers on May 7 in Kyiv for a meeting that was supposed to be about his nation’s energy needs. Instead, the group spent most of the three-hour discussion talking about how to navigate the insistence from Trump and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani for a probe and how to avoid becoming entangled in the American elections, according to three people familiar with the details of the meeting.”

And this:

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/us/politics/ukraine-aid-freeze-impeachment.html

Ukraine Knew of Aid Freeze by Early August, Undermining Trump Defense
Top officials were told in early August about the delay of $391 million in security assistance, undercutting a chief argument President Trump has used to deny any quid pro quo.

[Anonymous]

So happy to see other history buffs here. I'm not even a lawyer but I can't get enough Constitutional analysis.

I'm about to re-read these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers

[Anonymous]

For those of you on the right who don't like LawFair blog, try just security. It tilts conservative and does some great analysis with legal citations.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:So happy to see other history buffs here. I'm not even a lawyer but I can't get enough Constitutional analysis.

I'm about to re-read these:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Federalist_Papers

Well not all of them.

[Anonymous]

So now that Lindsay Graham and Mtich McConnell are introducing a Senate Resolution against the Impeachment proceedings (not having yet heard the evidence) perhaps they will need to recuse themselves for pre-judging?

[Anonymous]

Maybe the GOP in the House will support Trump testifying before the committee in open session?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe the GOP in the House will support Trump testifying before the committee in open session?

Or, you know, Giuliani...

[Anonymous]

This opens up a whole bunch of witnesses. Come on down, Commerce Department! You’re the next contestant on The President Is Wrong!

“The White House’s trade representative in late August withdrew a recommendation to restore some of Ukraine’s trade privileges after John Bolton, then-national security adviser, warned him that President Trump probably would oppose any action that benefited the government in Kyiv, according to people briefed on the matter.
The warning to Robert E. Lighthizer came as Trump was withholding $391 million in military aid and security assistance from Ukraine. House Democrats have launched an impeachment inquiry into allegations that the president did so to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate the business activities of former vice president Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden. As part of the inquiry, lawmakers are closely scrutinizing the White House’s actions between July and September.”

https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/white-house-delayed-ukraine-trade-decision-in-august-a-signal-that-us-suspension-of-cooperation-extended-beyond-security-funds/2019/10/24/a42b8992-f67d-11e9-8cf0-4cc99f74d127_story.html

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:There is no ‘quo’:

“Trump did not threaten to withhold U.S. military aid, absent a Ukrainian probe of the Bidens. Though such assets were being withheld at the time, Ukrainian officials were reportedly unaware of this during the July 25 Trump/Zelensky phone call. Zelensky told journalists in Kiev on October 10: [b]“I had no idea the military aid was held up.”[/q] These weapons — which Obama never even offered — arrived not long after Trump and Zelensky conversed. Specifically, Zelensky and Vice President Mike Pence spoke in Warsaw on September 1. Zelensky explained: “And after this meeting, the U.S. unlocked the aid and added $140 million. That’s why there was no blackmail.” As Reuters reported, the Trump administration freed the military assistance to Kiev on September 11, thus bolstering Ukraine’s defenses against Russia and refuting the lie that Trump is a Kremlin stooge.

If would be harder to imagine how Trump wouldn't be a Russian puppetd - he does nothing after his intelligence agencies cite Russian hacking which benefited him, gave Syria to the Russians and yes, he did threaten Ukraine. We're not as simple as you'd like us to be.