Mega-Thread: Impeachment Proceedings & Inquiry of Trump

[Valeron]

So I'm curious, does the law really matter in the impeachment process? Or is it just going to come down to a vote? From what I've seen the GOP would have to vote for impeachment if they have any backbone. But I'm cynical and I'm also doubtful that Trump wouldn't just get elected again for the next term regardless of the laws he's broken.

This whole process is just fascinating to me and I really don't know how no republicans have spoken up against the president.

I don't think impeachment is really in doubt. What won't happen is removal from office since the Senate will vote on that.

[Endus]

So I'm curious, does the law really matter in the impeachment process? Or is it just going to come down to a vote? From what I've seen the GOP would have to vote for impeachment if they have any backbone. But I'm cynical and I'm also doubtful that Trump wouldn't just get elected again for the next term regardless of the laws he's broken.

This whole process is just fascinating to me and I really don't know how no republicans have spoken up against the president.

It's a straight vote. It's a political matter, not a judicial one. This is one of the big failures of American policy; the President is essentially immune to wrongdoing unless Congress is politically against him. If you cannot get a supermajority in the Senate to agree to remove him from office, Trump could be vivisecting babies on the White House lawn for all to see and that's totally fine and he can just keep cutting open living babies because he's President.

Is that monstrously stupid? Sure. That's the American system, though. Doesn't matter how obviously illegal and harmful the President's actions are, he has carte-blanche immunity while in office. Unless the Senate votes to remove him from that office.

Sure, some people would argue that vivisecting babies is a MASSIVE leap and nobody would ever put up with that from the President, but hey, so is bribery, obstruction of justice, and so forth, and that's where we're actually at. And the President himself said he could murder people and not lose votes, so that's a thing, too.

[Elegiac]

Looks like there's another witness corroborating what Taylor revealed during his testimony regarding Sondland's direct communication with Trump.

A second U.S. embassy staffer in Kyiv overheard a key cellphone call between President Donald Trump and his ambassador to the European Union discussing the need for Ukrainian officials to pursue “investigations,” The Associated Press has learned.

The July 26 call between Trump and Gordon Sondland was first described during testimony Wednesday by William B. Taylor Jr., the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine. Taylor said one of his staffers overhead the call while Sondland was in a restaurant the day after Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy that triggered the House impeachment inquiry.

The second diplomatic staffer also at the table was Suriya Jayanti, a foreign service officer based in Kyiv. A person briefed on what Jayanti overheard spoke to AP on condition of anonymity to discuss a sensitive matter currently under investigation.

Trump on Wednesday said he did not recall the July 26 call.

“No, not at all, not even a little bit,” Trump said.

The staffer Taylor testified about is David Holmes, the political counselor at the embassy in Kyiv, according to an official familiar with the matter who spoke on condition of anonymity.

Again, it would not be surprising to me in the slightest if this administration was conducting calls of that sort on speakerphone in a restaurant.

[Flarelaine]

Luckily that all holds zero legal merit.

Impeachment is a political process, though, not a legal one. And flinging shit is an age-old tradition in political contests, with a proven track record.

[Grapemask]

Luckily that all holds zero legal merit.

True, but it doesn't have to. It just has to keep enough of the population on their side, or at least disinterested, that they can cling to power.

It's part of what bugs me about the leftwingers who insist we need to keep the high ground. Need to stick to the process. Need to do things, basically, exactly as we've done them, in the face of an opposition party that is not behaving the way it always has.

We believed in the rule of law and the general goodness of people in 2016, but we still got Trump, and the same electoral system is in place today that was in place then. Now, his numbers have changed a lot since then, and circumstances today aren't quite the same as what they were then - but that shitnugget of America that got him into office the first time did not cease to exist, especially those who are themselves in office, so something needs to change to combat an evolving trend of misinformation and disinformation. Democrats took a small step yesterday when they actually responded to the silliness the GOP was presenting during the hearing - they need to continue by immediately rebuking it in all of the hearings that follow, too, and they need to dominate media coverage such at the GOP can't warp narratives unchallenged.

[Skroe]

It's a straight vote. It's a political matter, not a judicial one. This is one of the big failures of American policy; the President is essentially immune to wrongdoing unless Congress is politically against him. If you cannot get a supermajority in the Senate to agree to remove him from office, Trump could be vivisecting babies on the White House lawn for all to see and that's totally fine and he can just keep cutting open living babies because he's President.

Is that monstrously stupid? Sure. That's the American system, though. Doesn't matter how obviously illegal and harmful the President's actions are, he has carte-blanche immunity while in office. Unless the Senate votes to remove him from that office.

Sure, some people would argue that vivisecting babies is a MASSIVE leap and nobody would ever put up with that from the President, but hey, so is bribery, obstruction of justice, and so forth, and that's where we're actually at. And the President himself said he could murder people and not lose votes, so that's a thing, too.

And to go with this @Jotaux the manner in which impeachement proceedings are handled are entirely at the discretion of the house and senate as well.

The majority (in this case the Democrats) in the house could have public hearings like they are now. Or do entirely private hearings (like during Watergate). Or they can just flip a coin and decide to impeach or not impeach. The only thing they Constitutionally must produce are "Articles of Impeachment" (basically, an indictment) that the Senate then is responsible for evaluating the veracity of. But how they get to the draft articles -> vote stage is up to them. If Nancy Pelosi wanted to, she could ask a Magic 8-ball. Ridiculous? Sure. But also entirely Constitutional.

The same applies to the Senate too. The Senate will have to decide its procedures. Including what and how many witnesses to call, how many days they sit for it, how time will be allocated. The only thing they must have is a Vote that produces 67 (or 2/3rds majority) Senators to remove the President. They could also hold a majority vote (51 in this case) to dismiss the Articles outright. But aside from that, it's up to them. They could mandate that the articles will be argued through an arm wrestling competition between the House prosecution team and Trump's lawyers... so long as a vote was held to dismiss the charges or whether to remove the President, it too is constitutional.

The problem is largely historic in nature. The founders didn't think that removing the President would be that complicated a process should we get to that stage as a country. There are Presidential elections every 4 years - often enough for the people to render a political judgement on their own (albeit indirectly, through the electoral college). If impeachment and likely removal of a President within those 4 years was to happen, the events would likely have to be so extaordinary as to, in their eyes, make the process relatively simple in nature. Basically they were thinking scenarios where 2/3rds of Senators to vote for removal would be an easy hurdle, and not a hard one, should it get to that stage.

But the Presidency was also a lot weaker then. Since World War II Congress has given more and more power to the President, and the Presidency has occupied an ever more central role in American political life. It is a debasement of the intentions of the Constitution and the manner in which it was practices for 170 years up to that point. There is a reason generally American know Washington, Lincoln, and then only the Presidents in order from FDR through Trump (i.e. the post WWII Presidents). There were other "strong" Presidents (Teddy Roosevelt, Andrew Jackson) and consequential Presidents (Woodrow Wilson, Thomas Jefferson) but until 1945, the office was generally weak. It didn't even have a permanent staff until the 1840s.

Today the Presidency is basically an elected emperor. In the 1990s we almost gave the Presidency a Line Item Veto, which would have allowed the President to selectively veto parts of spending bills after Congress passed them if he disagreed with it but leave the rest in tact. Can you imagine that? It would have given the President de facto legislative power. Democrats and Republicans wanted it. The Supreme Court struck it down as unconstitutional thank god.

But both parties wanted it. This country has gotten VERY conformable with the idea of "one great man" solving its issues, largely because elected officials in the legislature feel like they have no room to compromise without getting targeted by their political flanks.

That is why impeaching and removing Trump is harder than even the near impeachment of Nixon. Because the President of the United States in 2019 is far more imperial than in the 1970s. Because his power is far greater. And rather than just following the rule book in a clinical fashion and elevating the back-up President we ALSO elect (the VP), removing the President has become akin to killing the king.

America is in a very bad way right now.

[Stormspellz]

So I'm curious, does the law really matter in the impeachment process? Or is it just going to come down to a vote? From what I've seen the GOP would have to vote for impeachment if they have any backbone. But I'm cynical and I'm also doubtful that Trump wouldn't just get elected again for the next term regardless of the laws he's broken.

This whole process is just fascinating to me and I really don't know how no republicans have spoken up against the president.

the senate vote isn't a criminal vote, so they could vote remove for any topic or reason once it gets that point, how ever none of them will of course; they all are protecting their personal interests of a golden parachute (as you seen with some many republicans retiring) at best or part of the Trump cult at worse.

[Skroe]

Looks like there's another witness corroborating what Taylor revealed during his testimony regarding Sondland's direct communication with Trump.



Again, it would not be surprising to me in the slightest if this administration was conducting calls of that sort on speakerphone in a restaurant.

Dude, whenever I go out to dinner with my father, and my grandmother or uncle call, he always speaker phones them to talk to them while listening near his ear.

I think you're right. It is ABSOLUTELY the kind of thing these very old fashioned people would do.

[Paranoid Android]

Looks like there's another witness corroborating what Taylor revealed during his testimony regarding Sondland's direct communication with Trump.



Again, it would not be surprising to me in the slightest if this administration was conducting calls of that sort on speakerphone in a restaurant.

An oh btw is I believe Trump communicated on his personal, non-secure, private phone.

So two takes 1) Likely many intelligence agencies (good guys and bad guys) have this recording. It had been reported numerous times Trump refuses to use a secure phone. 2) I would believe they could subpoena Trump's phone records. Now of course they will immediately cry Executive privilege.

[Benggaul]

Gosh, funny how these new rules start popping up when the conversation about impeachment starts talking about opposition strategy and their dispersal of misinformation.

Oh well.

I'm not able to watch today's hearings live but did I read correctly that's it's pretty much all of the principal witnesses? Wonder how the GOP is going to try to attack Vindman live on TV. Veterans are about to get pissed.

[Elegiac]

Dude, whenever I go out to dinner with my father, and my grandmother or uncle call, he always speaker phones them to talk to them while listening near his ear.

I think you're right. It is ABSOLUTELY the kind of thing these very old fashioned people would do.

This also ties into something you mentioned previously about ambassadorships.

I don't think a lot of people quite appreciate this fact, but Gordon Sondland's ambassadorship to the EU is his first and only role in government - he isn't a career civil servant like Taylor or Kent, and that's extremely telling in his conduct. He's completely outclassed by his subordinates by virtue of the fact a lot of these positions in the administration are being stuffed with various Wall Street cronies. More broadly speaking there needs to be significant, statutory reform regarding the qualifications to office for ambassadorships and, in my honest opinion, the cabinet - qualifications beyond contributing to 51 Senatorial reelection funds.

Sondland's only experience is with the private sector, and I fully believe that if the Democrats apply significant enough pressure he will crack.

[smityx]

I was expecting Goebbels to show up at the end and "approve of this message", but thankfully remembered his partially burnt body is still trapped in hell.

Now we have his protege and look alike Steve Miller.

[Rasulis]

Dude, whenever I go out to dinner with my father, and my grandmother or uncle call, he always speaker phones them to talk to them while listening near his ear.

I think you're right. It is ABSOLUTELY the kind of thing these very old fashioned people would do.

Sondland will be back giving testimony next week. We'll see what he is going to say.

[Skroe]

This also ties into something you mentioned previously about ambassadorships.

I don't think a lot of people quite appreciate this fact, but Gordon Sondland's ambassadorship to the EU is his first and only role in government - he isn't a career civil servant like Taylor or Kent, and that's extremely telling in his conduct. He's completely outclassed by his subordinates by virtue of the fact a lot of these positions in the administration are being stuffed with various Wall Street cronies. More broadly speaking there needs to be significant, statutory reform regarding the qualifications to office for ambassadorships and, in my honest opinion, the cabinet - qualifications beyond contributing to 51 Senatorial reelection funds.

Sondland's only experience is with the private sector, and I fully believe that if the Democrats apply significant enough pressure he will crack.

So the thing about this is.... it depends. You might be surprised why.

Historically the US has always had career diplomats be Ambassador to trouble spots. It still mostly does that, though to a lesser degree with Trump. To the places that are trouble spots, we usually send our best fixers. You saw that on display today.

But what about places that are in relatively good shape?

The US Ambassador to the UK, or France, or Germany or Japan doesn't really do much as you might expect. Among America's principle allies, inter-government contacts are so comprehensive that the Ambassador is much more of a ceremonial role. They're their face of the country, but not the negotiator. The countries don't need to go through the embassy to interact with the US.

Because of this, what "good shape" countries desire most in their ambassador is NOT a subject matter expert, but rather someone with a direct line the POTUS's. They want a friend of the President. Someone with his private cellphone number so the Prime Minister can say "it would really big a big help the next time you talk to the President if you could mention that". What they want is a way to skip the bureaucracy and formalities of intergovernmental communication and get a direct line to the guy who decides.

So that's kind of paradoxical in a sense. Would any subject matter expert have a direct line to the POTUS? Probably not. But that is the most valued thing that an ambassador can have in a country that isn't best served by him being a fixer. We saw in Sonland's just revealed calls with the President, he had exactly what I as describing. And Taylor did not.

So there is an argument for both, because both have value to both the US and the country they interact with, and it is a better route to problem solving than just having an all-subject-matter-expert ambassador team. The question I think is "where is subject matter expert appropriate versus not". I think, for example, at this time the Ambassador to the EU needs to be a subject matter expert, and not a Trump donor. The EU is under severe threat from Brexit and Russia, and we need to formalize our trade and regulatory relationship with them to break China's attempts to advance their influence into Europe. Same thing with Brexit. We would have been better served if Obama's ambassador to the UK was a subject matter expert during the Brexit vote. I would say right now the argument does skew more towards needing an expert team deployed globally, but at the same time, some countries may find that less useful.

In short, there is no easy answer to this. I think the solution would be to professionalize certain ambassadorships. The US Ambassadors to China, Russia, Germany, Japan, the EU, and NATO should be professionalized in much the way that the US Ambassador to the UN is (an office considered "first among equals of Ambassadorships").

[cubby]

Sondland will be back giving testimony next week. We'll see what he is going to say.

And now we have a second administration official who overheard the phone conversation re "investigations" between Trump and Sondland.

So that's two witnesses to the call, plus Sondland walking back his testimony and outright saying bribery/extortion happened.

[Pratt]

Here's the thing. GOP voters don't care. They think "even if Trump did it so what?" We're giving Hannity a full year to scream that the Democrats are "corrupt idiots" who look "dumb, bad, stupid, and shallow." House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff? A "congenital liar." (from CNN). No one who lives inside the echo chamber is going to switch their vote because of Ukraine impeachment, and the senate won't remove Trump. If he won't be removed, and no one changes their vote, why even bother? Everyone with their brains turned on already believes Trump is a criminal.

[wunksta]

I hope every time Graham opens his mouth to an interviewer, they just play back clips from the previous impeachment.

[Elegiac]

Why even bother?

Because not answering this clear breach of the law and the Constitution with the ultimate sanction would set the precedent that it's okay to do.

And precedent will be around a lot longer than Trump's Bariatric Scooter Brigade.

- - - Updated - - -

In short, there is no easy answer to this. I think the solution would be to professionalize certain ambassadorships. The US Ambassadors to China, Russia, Germany, Japan, the EU, and NATO should be professionalized in much the way that the US Ambassador to the UN is (an office considered "first among equals of Ambassadorships").

My counterpoint is that after an administration practically broadcasting that the American government is for sale to the highest bidder, it might be politic to consider a stance in which everyone, even our allies, has to play by the book.

[cubby]

Now we have [Joseph Gobbels'] protege and look alike Steve Miller.

That is some seriously simultaneously scary and hysterical shit.

[Skroe]

Here's the thing. GOP voters don't care. They think "even if Trump did it so what?" We're giving Hannity a full year to scream that the Democrats are "corrupt idiots" who look "dumb, bad, stupid, and shallow." House Intelligence Committee chair Adam Schiff? A "congenital liar." (from CNN). No one who lives inside the echo chamber is going to switch their vote because of Ukraine impeachment, and the senate won't remove Trump. If he won't be removed, and no one changes their vote, why even bother? Everyone with their brains turned on already believe Trump is a criminal.

(1) Because we have moral and ethical responsibility to attempt to hold wrong doing accountable. If we don't try, then we only further undermine the rule of law. Not pursuing wrong doing because "conviction is difficult" is every bit as bad as the wrong doing. And opens the door to further acts of wrong doing.

(2) To act as a deterrent against future behavior of this type by future Presidents. Even if he isn't removed, who wants to go through an impeachment process? We are creating a precedent.

(3) We are staking out a historical marker. So our children and grandchildren can know that even if Trump is not convicted by a tribal Republican party, the facts were clear and the majority of Americans were willing to stand up for whats right. We inoculate ourselves from this being a national failure, and instead make it a failure of the Republican party.

(4) To make Republican Senators and Swing-district congressmen have to go on record as excusing Trump's clearly unconstitutional behavior. This may complicate their election chances in 2020, but more broadly will damage their professional reputations and prospects for many years to come. Trying to take a bullet for THIS President is ultimately extremely short sighted for them. But many of them will do it and will pay for it. Where they stood on Trump impeachment will be a key litmus test among the general electorate for years to come, including any with future Senatoral, Gubinatorial or Presidential ambitions. Or any that want to become an Ambassador or become "Secretary of X" in the Cabinet. Democrats will bring it up for decades to come. Think of how the Iraq War and the vote for it damaged countless politicians careers. This will be that, but worse. And they all know it. That is why they dread impeachment.

(5) To damage Trump going into 2020. The best argument Democrats can make to win in 2020 is that Trump is corrupt, self deals, put his own interest infront of the national interest and his very continuing on as President would only serve to undermine the legitimacy of the American system. Democrats are best served by pointing out the comparison of "while Trump advances himself and those of his friends, he is going to fuck up your healthcare and your retirements". Having Trump on record as being impeached, with clear charges of corruption, bribery, witness intimidation and extortion puts the onus on any swing voter thinking of supporting Trump to logic how all of this is not true, in the context of everything else we know about Trump. It's a tall order. Few will do it. It will also make Trump a liability to endangered candidates, and he will avoid campaigning with them, which will sap them of fundraising.

From every angle it is a win for Democrats. Even the timing is perfect. The Trump-Russia investigation wrecked Donald Trump's first 2.5 years in office. He then had a summer where he engaged in these illegalities. Impeachment will consume, by the time its over, the window from September 2019 to probably around early-March 2020. Which will then lead into the election season. Which means Trump will have spent most of his 4 years entirely handcuffed by political and legal peril and otherwise unable to act effectively as President.

Thats why we should bother. Removal isn't in the cards. The faintest of hopes. But that's not the point. This is a cudgel. And Democrats are breaking arms and legs.