Why We're Moving Forward With Impeachment

[babylonsister]

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/07/why-were-moving-forward-impeachment/594931/?fbclid=IwAR2LNv7LcJwsF0hNhRXD1lMGkk9f-nuePoASB_i62oiSbmkAdLnhVkQZLrU

Why We’re Moving Forward With Impeachment
Our Constitution requires it. Our democracy depends on it.
Jul 26, 2019
Mary Gay Scanlon
Vice Chair of the House Judiciary Committee
David Cicilline
U.S. representative from Rhode Island
Pramila Jayapal
U.S. representative from Washington
Veronica Escobar
U.S. representative from Texas

Three months ago, Special Counsel Robert Mueller completed his investigation into Russian election interference and President Donald Trump’s obstruction of justice. When the redacted report finally became available to Congress and the American people, it painted a damning picture of a corrupt president who welcomed and encouraged an attack on our country, capitalized on it, and then tried to cover up what he had done.

During his press conference announcing the end of his investigation, Mueller pointed out that the Department of Justice believes “the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal-justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing.” He was referring, without using the word, to impeachment—a process by which the U.S. House indicts, and the Senate convicts, a sitting president.

Congress has patiently tried to work within traditional means to get to the bottom of this extraordinary situation. Committees have called witnesses and requested evidence, only to be stonewalled by Trump and his associates. The president’s refusal to comply with the Constitution, statutes, and established congressional oversight defies the rule of law.

Mueller’s testimony before the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees was a watershed moment. At this point, it is up to Congress to act on the evidence of multiple counts of obstruction of justice committed by the president, and to continue our investigation into whether he has committed other high crimes and misdemeanors.

Despite assertions to the contrary by the president and his allies, the special counsel’s report and testimony are not the end of our investigations. We have now filed a petition in court to obtain the grand-jury documents referenced in the special counsel’s report. In that filing, we have made clear that we will utilize our Article I powers to obtain the additional underlying evidence, as well as enforce subpoenas for key witness testimony, and broaden our investigations to include conflicts of interest and financial misconduct.

While many people believe that beginning an impeachment investigation can begin only with a vote of the full House of Representatives, this is not true. Article I authorizes the House Judiciary Committee to begin this process.

As members of the House Judiciary Committee, we understand the gravity of this moment that we find ourselves in. We wake up every morning with the understanding of the oath that binds us as members of Congress, and the trust that our constituents placed in us to uphold that oath. We will move forward with the impeachment process. Our investigation will seriously examine all the evidence as we consider whether to bring articles of impeachment or other remedies under our Article I powers.

Our Constitution requires it. Our democracy depends on it.

[lark]

1. Truth and honor.

It's time to begin the inquiry.

[BlancheSplanchnik]

2. 👏🏾👏🏾👏🏾

[OneBro]

3. What am I missing?

It seems like Democrats could and should have dozens of investigative hearings going on the multitude of crimes and unethical conduct involving Trump and his administration.

[crazytown]

4. You can't have a hearing without witnesses.

The DOJ have blocked all and sundry. That is what this announcement is about.

[watoos]

5. Here's another reason that Dems are moving forward with impeachment,

Democratic Reps are going to get bombarded at town halls with calls for impeachment. Jerry Nadler, a good man, is getting primaried by someone who is pushing impeachment and she is raising a good amount of money.

I listen to media outlets outside of DU, I listen to Sirius radio, and let me tell the good people here at DU, the people who call in to the various programs are 90% - 10% in favor of impeachment. I don't believe any of the polls that cable news puts out, they are propaganda, I believe what the actual people are saying.

I have a theory that Speaker Pelosi is waiting until she gets Trump's taxes before she declares a formal impeachment inquiry. IMO, Democrats should get his taxes, and get them well before the election, this is the Dems best court case. I mean the IRS gave the Nixon committee his taxes the same day they were asked.

[crazytown]

7. There is no need for a formal impeachment inquiry resolution.

The House passed HR 430 on June 11, 2019, which conferred any and all of Article 1 powers on the Judiciary Committee - A motion to establish a formal impeachment inquiry does the same thing. Pelosi got HR 430 through the House without saying Impeachment, but from that time, an impeachment inquiry was underway. As Nancy's daughter said, Mom has cut off your head before you know you're bleeding.

https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212322166

[BlueMTexpat]

10. Unfortunately, too many here

on DU STILL do not "get" this.

[crazytown]

12. I've posted an new OP.

Forget DU, the media and political commentators still haven't got a clue.
https://www.democraticunderground.com/100212322614

[watoos]

11. A wise man once said,

You can't have a hearing without witnesses. A formal impeachment hearing carries more clout with the courts.

Nadler's judiciary committee is still a legislative committee, if I'm wrong I will stand corrected. The courts are more prone to expedite decisions for a judicial committee.

[StarfishSaver]

15. There is no such thing as a "judicial committee" or a "legislative committee"

It's all the same committee - the House Judiciary Committee. And that Committee has different roles and obligations including oversight, legislation and impeachment.

The issue isn't what committee is conducting the proceeding but what the committee is doing and in what role. The House has made clear that the Judiciary Committee is conducting an investigation in pursuit of its Article I authority (i.e., impeachment power), which is separate from its oversight and legislative roles. When it has its Article I hat on, its requests have just as much "clout" - the legal term is that it has "standing" - as any other judicial body to obtain the materials it's seeking.

[crazytown]

16. +1000

[watoos]

19. Sure there is,

If an impeachment committee asks the court to release the grand jury information, and if Jerry Nadler's committee asks the court to release the grand jury information, the court is going to give more weight to an impeachment committee because it is a judicial procedure. Nadler's committee is a legislative committee. Nadler has not said that his committee is an impeachment committee. Can the court release the grand jury info to Nadler's committee, absolutely, he is smart to cite the clause regarding proceedings that may lead to impeachment. I give him credit for trying to get that grand jury info without opening up a formal impeachment inquiry.

An impeachment committee has more standing with the courts than Nadler's judicial committee in requesting the court to release the grand jury information. Bill Barr even admitted that.

[StarfishSaver]

22. Please stop

The more you toss around these word salads of nothingness garnished with gobbledygook of meaningless terms, the more you show how little you know about this.

Just stop.

[spanone]

31. You should inform Congressman Nadler....He's obviously in the dark as how to proceed in the House.

[StarfishSaver]

32. It's not Rep. Nadler who's in the dark. He knows just what he's doing

Those who think they know better than he and the Speaker are another story.

[mahina]

40. Wow. So they will be able to read the redactions and enforce subpoenas?

If so, that’s awesome.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

9. Just in case you missed...update on court re trump taxes

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/07/25/trumps-suit-new-york-tax-returns-another-judge-1621700

Judge Trevor McFadden, a Trump appointee, rejected a bid by Trump lawyer William Consovoy to have McFadden hear both that case and a separate lawsuit by Ways and Means Chairman Richard Neal seeking the president's federal returns.

More at link

[watoos]

14. I watched Nick Ackerman yesterday on TV,

He is one of the Nixon prosecutors. He said it is probably a good move for chairman Neal not to take Trump's state taxes because it could muddy the waters in Dems efforts to get Trump's federal taxes which will be much more revealing.

Nick did laugh heartily at Trump's law suit to try to stop his state taxes from being exposed. Trump's argument is it violates his 1st Amendment rights.

[oldsoftie]

20. How in the world would be a violation of the 1st? I could see an argument for the 4th.

But how is getting his returns violating his free speech? Or are his attys stupid? Or me?

[brutus smith]

6. Agree

[Scarsdale]

8. tRump is going ahead with

another violation of the Emolument Clause by suggesting the world leaders meet at HIS (failing) Doral golf resort in Florida. He merrily goes on his way, breaking every rule, while the gop say nothing. Remember, Clinton was impeached for a personal affair, nothing like this clown is getting away with.

[Martin Eden]

13. Effin A, man!

[Botany]

17. Tweet from Rep. Scanlon

Link to tweet

[usaf-vet]

18. How do we want the historians to write the history of the 2016 election and the illegitimate Trump.

Option 1:

The Democrats whined and made noise about how bad Trump and his band of con men and thieves were destroying our democracy. But never managed to curtail the Trump assault on the Constitution and the country. Trump and his family avoided all punishment and enjoyed the riches they stole from hard-working Americans.

or

Option 2:

The Democrats used every legal means available to them to honor their oaths to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies foreign and domestic. After long legal battles and continuous acts of obstruction by Trump and his co-conspirator including the republican members of Congress. The tide finally turned and the Democrats in the house held impeachment hearings that documented Trump crimes against our democracy. Even though the Senate refused to consider any evidence of Trump's crimes and hold a trial.

Trump's initial downfall came when the voters in the 2020 election voted him out of office. Experts declared that the impeachment hearing was key to Trump's failure to win a second term. On the day that the winner of the 2020 election was sworn in. Trump and his co-conspirators were indicted on multiple counts of crimes against the citizen of the United States.

After long court trials. Trump, his family, and all co-conspirators were found guilty and sentenced to long terms in federal prison. Additionally, under RICO statues the co-conspirators were stripped of all their assets. And in one final act of punishment Trump's immigrant wife was deported from the U.S. and stripped of all legal status. The country "sent her back" to where she came from.

Hey, a guy can dream, right? I chose Option 2.

That is how I hope the historians write the story.

The saga of the treasonous attempts by members of the GOP led by the MAGA "stable genius" with the help of the Russian government tried to destroy our DEMOCRACY.

[oldsoftie]

21. Its a simple point; go ahead & it failing MAY hand trump a victory in '20.

because it WILL be dragged out to go into election season. He can continue yelling "witch hunt". People who dont pay attention may very well see the actions as "they've been after trump since day one" regardless of the facts. And if Nov '20 comes with all that going on & people feel they're doing better than 4 yrs ago, watch out.
But hey, what do I know.

[crazytown]

23. What do you mean by failing?

[oldsoftie]

24. To me, a failure would be Trump remains in office.

Others may see the House passing an impeachment as a success, I dont. Its like fixing the engine but still having no wheels; you've got a car, but it isnt going anywhere

[brutus smith]

25. Doing nothing

And the wait and see approach has worked so well in the past.

[techne7319]

27. It's not about doing nothing...

Its not an impeach or do nothing situation. It’s about using all the evidence as ammo in campaigning for 2020 instead of launching more investigations and inquiries in to the same old activities of Trump. We can do a lot but going down the impeachment road will not play out well in the end. It won’t pass. The energy should be put in winning in 2020.

[ehrnst]

35. That's using common sense and shows an understanding of the process.

That's a real downer for people that need to create a scapegoat.

[techne7319]

38. Please clarify

What is “that” and who’s scapegoating whom?

[ehrnst]

44. If you read the thread, it's pretty obvious.

"That" is facts and sense, as your post displays.

[brutus smith]

47. Nancy's apologist

I know you're smarter than everyone else.

[ehrnst]

48. That's Speaker Pelosi's apologist to you.

I see someone's panties are in a bunch.

[rockfordfile]

42. No we need to continue investigations. The Mueller investigation was half-ass.

[ehrnst]

34. Who is "doing nothing?"

Do tell.

[techne7319]

26. I'm with you...oldsoftie

Despite ALL the evidence the majority of congress does not feel compelled to impeach, nor does the majority of the American people. While impeachment may be democratically responsible action to take, it could easily be political suicide for Dems if it fails. Even if it passes, it could still play out poorly for the Senate will never convict. Continuing to go down this rabbit hole of investigations and inquiries and rehashing the same evidence is losing its luster. I feel we’re in a damned if we do, damned if we don’t situation.

[oldsoftie]

29. I agree.

[ehrnst]

33. So what options are there to remove him, that don't involve Mitch and Pence being on board?

[techne7319]

36. The option...

The best scenario is win in 2020, definitely the presidency and whatever gains we can make in the Senate. Impeachment and even the unrealistic impeachment with conviction will still leave Republicans in charge.

[techne7319]

37. The road of impeachment

The road of impeachment is a dangerous one, in my opinion. The facts are already out there and have been for some time. We don’t have anywhere near the majority of votes in the House for it to pass. It’s unlikely enough minds will be changed during proceedings. It will backfire on Dems. Candidates can still campaign on the evidence and the general disdain of the current administration.

[ehrnst]

45. +1000. But people seem to think that he can "be removed" prior to 2021.

When there isn't any way that doesn't involve the cooperation of McConnell and Pence.

Which means there is no way.

[techne7319]

46. Agreed.

But I feel like this view is in such a minority on this point, at least on DU. I try not to get sucked up in the sensationalism of whatever the buzz story is on MSM either. I’m just a concerned Democrat who would prefer focus be put on elections than some attractive but seemingly unrealistic impeachment strategy.

[oldsoftie]

39. VOTE him out. Its a year away.

[CrispyQ]

28. Who feels like they're doing better than they were four years ago?

My friends & family are fortunate & not flailing economically, but we all certainly see how far our finances are being stretched. His tariffs are hurting middle & lower class Americans. His tax cuts for the rich are hurting middle & lower class Americans. They are shredding the safety net even though it's not being reported, but that's hurting middle & lower class Americans. I don't see how even red America won't feel Don the Con's economy before November of next year. Of course if they can keep the stock market it up, they've convinced a lot of middle class Americans that the market is a good indicator of the overall economy.

No one has a crystal ball & can say for certain how it will go if the House dems impeach or don't impeach. I think the scope of the criminality of this administration demands public exposure & I think the word impeachment will capture the attention of all the people who are not political junkies like most of DU.

[oldsoftie]

30. If i'm going to be honest, I am. And so are most of my friends.

They cover a wide range of income & parts of the country. But its hardly a scientific poll either.

But the odds are that there WILL be a slowdown, at the least, around election time

[Mc Mike]

41. Get him, gang!! GET .... HIM !!!

[SunSeeker]

43. K & R