SoylentNews

Trump Impeachment: House Votes to Formalise Inquiry

posted by martyb on Friday November 01 2019, @02:18PM   
from the Red-Queen-Race dept.

An Anonymous Coward writes:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-50246324

"The US House of Representatives has passed a resolution to formally proceed with the impeachment inquiry against President Donald Trump.

The measure details how the inquiry will move into a more public phase. It was not a vote on whether the president should be removed from office.

This was the first test of support in the Democratic-controlled House for the impeachment process.

The White House condemned the vote, which passed along party lines.

Only two Democrats - representing districts that Mr Trump won handily in 2016 - voted against the resolution, along with all Republicans, for a total count of 232 in favour and 196 against."

---

Original Submission

• Such Investigations Have Never Been Done In Public Such Investigations Have Never Been Done In Public (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @02:15AM (1 child)

  by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 02 2019, @02:15AM (#914911)

  That the evidence gathering was behind closed doors wasn't the problem. That's standard investigative procedure. But if they were really trying to determine the truth, why not allow republicans to call witnesses? A real investigation looks for evidence that both supports and undermines the allegations. Then you try to build a case and determine if there's enough of one to justify a formal accusation/impeachment.

  As has been *repeatedly* stated, the current inquiry is akin to Ken Starr's investigation of Clinton back in 1998. I don't recall Starr bringing "defense" lawyers into the investigative process. In fact, Starr wasn't even tasked with policing Clinton's sex life. What's more, Clinton was only allowed a lawyer inside the *investigation* when he brought one when testifying before a grand jury.

  What's more, if you've *ever* been deposed (whether a criminal or civil case), you'll know that even if you do have a lawyer, they can only advise you as to whether or not to answer specific questions. I've been deposed and can confirm this from my own experience.

  Rather, there were allegations of financial improprieties for which no evidence was ever found. In fact, the "impeachable" offense "committed" by Clinton was one of stupidity and a desire to keep legal (Lewinski was over 18, despite the creepiness of Clinton's actions) behavior that had exactly *zero* to do with the functioning of the administration and/or the alleged (and never found) financial misdeeds/mismanagement that led to the appointment of the special counsel. In fact, while I didn't support Clinton's lying about his sexual activity, it seems relatively minor compared with the raft of dubious activities (across the entire government -- e.g., soon you'll have more toxic metals [nytimes.com] in your drinking water, the credibility of the US has been compromised repeatedly, etc., etc., etc.).

  The Trump administration has not (as the Clinton administration did) done its job in appointing an investigative team to look at the allegations deemed credible by Trump appointees.

  Once the *investigative* phase is complete, the "defense" will have *much more* access to evidence and witnesses than a defendant in a criminal case does.

  The weepy claims of "secret" hearings (R's are both present and allowed to ask questions of the witnesses even now), and "illegitimate" investigations are ridiculous on their faces.

  Let's gather the facts and let the chips fall where they may. There will be plenty of time for the administration and its lawyers to review all the facts, call and question witnesses, and make their case based on the evidence. But the R's don't seem to want the facts to come out. In fact, they have attempted to derail this investigation despite the fact that allegations (deemed credible by *Trump* appointees) posit that administration officials have jeopardized American national interests in favor of partisan political interests.

  Is that true? Let's get all the facts and get this all out into the open (which is what yesterday's vote created the process for doing so) and let everyone make their arguments and let the people decide. What's wrong with that?

  Parent

  Starting Score:	0		points
  Moderation		+3
  Informative=3, Total=3
  Extra 'Informative' Modifier		0
  Total Score:		3

• Re:Such Investigations Have Never Been Done In Pub (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 04 2019, @07:17PM

  by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 04 2019, @07:17PM (#915847)

  Agree 100%.... EXCEPT.... The Soviet Union was very much known for trying to employ "honeytraps," that is, turn someone to their advantage by blackmailing them with illicit sexual materials that would (for example) cause humiliation such to resign or (more actively) cause a forced revocation of security clearance and/or firing.

  Rumors swirl about this today, and I don't give a damn about them.

  The point is, hell yes a President's sex life is fair game.... IF that can be used to destablize the public trust in a government when the games played become public. AND the deal about the Impeachment WAS NOT that Clinton necessarily just played around with Lewinsky (although that's fair game). The deal was Perjury to a Grand Jury - he lied under oath about saying no such relations took place by trying to slickly play with words.

  If that was grounds for impeachment.... then this sure as hell is. (And not saying you were commenting on that, either).

  Parent