A Reasoned Case Against Impeachment

[civilwarbuff]

....no. It is missing a useful comma, but no, the sentence by hank cannot be interpreted as saying Katyal was the Republican's attorney. Take a deep breath and slow down just a bit.

I am just fine but some others seem to have their knickers in a knot....

 

[jardiniere]

I am quite aware of that....but the reasons for the impeachment are wrong. To proceed this route without substantiated evidence is simply wrong and lowers the bar to a level that the democrats are going to come to regret one day. Ask Schumer about the 'nuclear option' he went to even against McConnell's strong protest.

There is more evidence here of wrongdoing than there was for Clinton's screw up. And for me, the obstruction of witnesses on the part of the executive branch is more than enough evidence that something serious has to be done---there really is no actual, "executive privlege" that allows the President to override/obstruct an investigation of the executive branch by Congress in an official capacity of investigation. It's what the Congress is for-they would be derelict in their duties not to investigate the possible use of government money to bribe a foreign government to profit the President.

 

[civilwarbuff]

And for me, the obstruction of witnesses on the part of the executive branch is more than enough evidence that something serious has to be done---there really is no actual, "executive privlege" that allows the President to override/obstruct an investigation of the executive branch by Congress in an official capacity of investigation.

Obama did the same for the Fast and Furious investigation....And there is legal basis for executive privilege:
The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon in the context of a subpoena emanating from the judiciary, instead of emanating from Congress.[3] The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a "sufficient showing" that the "presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case". Chief Justice Warren Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.[3] Regarding requests from Congress (instead of from the courts) for executive branch information, as of a 2014 study by the Congressional Research Service,[4] only two federal court cases had addressed the merits of executive privilege in such a context, and neither of those cases reached the Supreme Court.[5]
Wiki

Congress is too quick to issue subpoenas based on political considerations instead of true official considerations. No branch of government can be trusted with that amount of unrestrained power and authority. The 1868 impeachment of President Johnson is an excellent case in point

 

[jardiniere]

Obama did the same for the Fast and Furious investigation....And there is legal basis for executive privilege:
The Supreme Court confirmed the legitimacy of this doctrine in United States v. Nixon in the context of a subpoena emanating from the judiciary, instead of emanating from Congress.[3] The Court held that there is a qualified privilege, which once invoked, creates a presumption of privilege, and the party seeking the documents must then make a "sufficient showing" that the "presidential material" is "essential to the justice of the case". Chief Justice Warren Burger further stated that executive privilege would most effectively apply when the oversight of the executive would impair that branch's national security concerns.[3] Regarding requests from Congress (instead of from the courts) for executive branch information, as of a 2014 study by the Congressional Research Service,[4] only two federal court cases had addressed the merits of executive privilege in such a context, and neither of those cases reached the Supreme Court.[5]
Wiki

Congress is too quick to issue subpoenas based on political considerations instead of true official considerations. No branch of government can be trusted with that amount of unrestrained power and authority. The 1868 impeachment of President Johnson is an excellent case in point

Nothing here but your opinion that Congress is doing this impeachment act for political purposes. I contend rather, that is is to practice law to a standard of upholding the Constitution. Even the attorney for the Republicans on the committee knows that there is an impeachable offense in the President's actions (1). The obstruction of denying witnesses by the President is what is holding back full factual investigation of that impeachable act. That will also likely be part of the articles of impeachment.


(1)"Indeed, I have previously stated that a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven."

 

[civilwarbuff]

(1)"Indeed, I have previously stated that a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven."

My bolding...
It is made as a theoretical statement, not a statement of conclusion about Trump. I believe you are taking that way out of context.

Nothing here but your opinion that Congress is doing this impeachment act for political purposes. I contend rather, that is is to practice law to a standard of upholding the Constitution.

Even when unable to provide substantiated evidence? That bar is not just low it is buried underground.

The obstruction of denying witnesses by the President is what is holding back full factual investigation of that impeachable act. That will also likely be part of the articles of impeachment.

You claimed that executive privilege does not exist and I pointed out that yes, indeed it does.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Nothing here but your opinion that Congress is doing this impeachment act for political purposes.

Oh, BTW you are aware that impeachment is a political process but all past impeachments have been based on criminal charges with evidence to substantiate those charges. That is why I say this is being done for political purposes.

 

[wing2000]

I am quite aware of that....but the reasons for the impeachment are wrong. To proceed this route without substantiated evidence is simply wrong and lowers the bar to a level that the democrats are going to come to regret one day. Ask Schumer about the 'nuclear option' he went to even against McConnell's strong protest.

...we disagree on the strength of the evidence. If you want to dismiss career foreign service and NSC staff testimony--that's on you. Sonland understood the premise of his work. Guiliani obviously did by his actions. And there has been no testimony to date that would provide a logical alternative explanation for the POTUS stating "Can you do us a favor, though?".

If any other President had sent his personal lawyer to a foreign country to dig up dirt on a political opponent I would support their impeachment.

 

[civilwarbuff]

And there has been no testimony to date that would provide a logical alternative explanation for the POTUS stating "Can you do us a favor, though?".

When you follow that conversation through he also states that the Attorney General will be in contact with the Ukrainian officials about what he (Trump) is wanting....does not really sound much like a quid pro quo there does it?

 

[civilwarbuff]

Sonland understood the premise of his work.

And Sondland testified that he 'presumed' that is what Trump wanted....again, no substantiated evidence.

If any other President had sent his personal lawyer to a foreign country to dig up dirt on a political opponent I would support their impeachment.

Really?....What law does that violate?

 

[wing2000]

When you follow that conversation through he also states that the Attorney General will be in contact with the Ukrainian officials about what he (Trump) is wanting....does not really sound much like a quid pro quo there does it?

...do you really want to go there? Get to the bottom of crowdstrike? And the AG had no knowledge on the topic...

 

[wing2000]

Really?....What law does that violate?

That's the who point: A law does not need to be broken to try a President for impeachment. Using one's executive power for one's political benefit is an abuse of power. Our founders created impeachment for political crimes such as this....

 

[mark46]

Such a fast-tracking process exists. I don't think that the Supreme Court would be accept such a request.

From the Mueller Report investigation, the Democrats took White House counsel McGhan to court - that process has taken months so far....and is now under appeal. Trump knows very well that he can run out the clock on the court cases. Pelosi knows this as well. Ironically, Trump is all for accelerating the process...apparently both Trump and Pelosi are seeking to have this process rapped up in January.....

IMO, there should be a process whereby the House can take cases such as this directly to the Supreme Court for a more timely decision.

 

[mark46]

....people have been dismissed from their leadership jobs for much less.

There has been one impeachment since the 90's. The federal court justice had admitted to several cases of bribery. BTW, the prosecutor in the Senate was Schiff and the defense attorney was Turley.

 

[mark46]

That's the who point: A law does not need to be broken to try a President for impeachment. Using one's executive power for one's political benefit is an abuse of power. Our founders created impeachment for political crimes such as this....

1) When was the last time anyone was impeached with any breaking of the law?

2) As an aside, I believe that it is illegal to ask a foreign government for help in a campaign.

 

[wing2000]

1) When was the last time anyone was impeached with any breaking of the law?

2) As an aside, I believe that it is illegal to ask a foreign government for help in a campaign.

Of the three impeachments in our 243 year history? None. When was the last time a President abused his power in this way?

[agreed, campaign finance law might have been broken...however, the greater danger IMO, is the President using his executive power for his own political benefit. Presidents have immense power....]

 

[mark46]

I didn't limit impeachments to presidential impeachments. The constitution provision applies to others that can be impeached by Congress.

Lots of president have used executive power for their own [political benefit. That's pretty normal.

And yes, I agree that Trump has committed many impeachable offenses.

Of the three impeachments in our 243 year history? None. When was the last time a President abused his power in this way?

[agreed, campaign finance law might have been broken...however, the greater danger IMO, is the President using his executive power for his own political benefit. Presidents have immense power....]

 

[Arcangl86]

I didn't limit impeachments to presidential impeachments. The constitution provision applies to others that can be impeached by Congress.

Lots of president have used executive power for their own [political benefit. That's pretty normal.

And yes, I agree that Trump has committed many impeachable offenses.

An actual impeachment? 1933. But there was an inquiry into Justice Douglas over a failure to recuse himself in some cases. That was in 1970.

 

[mark46]

List of Individuals Impeached by the House of Representatives | US House of Representatives: History, Art & Archives

 

[mark46]

I didn't limit impeachments to presidential impeachments. The constitution provision applies to others that can be impeached by Congress.

Lots of president have used executive power for their own [political benefit. That's pretty normal.

And yes, I agree that Trump has committed many impeachable offenses.


MY POINT
was that sometimes one of the Articles does not include a crime. However, I believe that impeachments (almost) always include a crime as at least one of the Articles. This make the Democratic claim seem disingenuous. No, impeachable behavior does not have to be against the law. HOWEVER, all the recent, and perhaps all of the impeachments have included criminal behavior as at least one of the articles.

FINALLY, I ignore the nonsense by Barr than the president cannot break the law.

 

[jardiniere]

My bolding...
It is made as a theoretical statement, not a statement of conclusion about Trump. I believe you are taking that way out of context.

I didn't say it was a conclusion. I am pointing out that the case as it is described, if proven factual, is an impeachable offense, and the attorney recognizes it as such.

Even when unable to provide substantiated evidence? That bar is not just low it is buried underground.

They can't prove because the President is preventing discovery of evidence, not because they are remiss in the facts about the case. Even the President said he asked Ukraine to proclaim an investigation into the Bidens.

You claimed that executive privilege does not exist and I pointed out that yes, indeed it does.

No, it really doesn't exist to as a way to not cooperate with the duty of Congress to investigate possible wrongdoing.