A Reasoned Case Against Impeachment

[Belk]

List it (you will be the first) and I will address it; but it has to be evidence not what someone thinks, believes, presumes, assumes, was told by someone....real evidence.

Let's concentrate on this first one.

I believe I explained (maybe not) there is something call executive privilege (recoginzed by SCOTUS). Just because congress wants it does not mean they get it. Otherwise the executive is simply an obedient servant of congress and not a co-equal branch. If he defies a court ruling to give it to them then you have obstruction not till then.

So let me get this straight. Your claim is that congress has no power to subpoena anyone in the executive branch? They can operate without any congressional over site?

 

[Bobber]

You may want to brush up on your SCOTUS.

While the Court acknowledged that the principle of executive privilege did exist, the Court would also directly reject President Nixon's claim to an "absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances."

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683 (1974), was a monumental United States Supreme Court case that resulted in a unanimous decision against President Richard Nixon, ordering him to deliver tape recordings and other subpoenaed materials to a federal district court.

So what? It's one of those circumstances that need to be considered but here you have the Dems wanting to impose an obstruction of justice claim on the President before this case was looked at by the courts? Why shouldn't that very thing be considered an abuse of power on their part?

 

[civilwarbuff]

While the Court acknowledged that the principle of executive privilege did exist,

So you are disagreeing with my comment .....how?

 

[civilwarbuff]

So let me get this straight. Your claim is that congress has no power to subpoena anyone in the executive branch? They can operate without any congressional over site?

That is not what I said, sorry if you can't comprehend my statement. I don't know any other way to make it more clear than that. Try reading it again.....

 

[essentialsaltes]

So you are disagreeing with my comment .....how?

"Just because congress wants it does not mean they get it."

Congress wanted the tapes, and they got them.

 

[civilwarbuff]

"Just because congress wants it does not mean they get it."

Congress wanted the tapes, and they got them.

Only after SCOTUS told the admin they had to turn them over. Congress did not get them simply because they demanded them. That is the proper procedure when congress wants to challenge a claim of executive privilege.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Only after SCOTUS told the admin they had to turn them over. Congress did not get them simply because they demanded them. That is the proper procedure

No. This is not the 'proper procedure'. The court ruled that the president was wrong in withholding the documents.

Your crazy ex vandalizes your car, and you catch them doing it.
"You're responsible for paying to fix the damage," you assert.
"Haha, not likely," your ex laughs running away.
You take them to court, and the judge makes them pay.
It was not the court's action that made them liable to fix what they'd done. This is not the 'proper procedure'.

One of the articles drawn up for Nixon's impeachment was that he "failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas."

 

[jardiniere]

No. This is not the 'proper procedure'. The court ruled that the president was wrong in withholding the documents.

Your crazy ex vandalizes your car, and you catch them doing it.
"You're responsible for paying to fix the damage," you assert.
"Haha, not likely," your ex laughs running away.
You take them to court, and the judge makes them pay.
It was not the court's action that made them liable to fix what they'd done. This is not the 'proper procedure'.

One of the articles drawn up for Nixon's impeachment was that he "failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives on April 11, 1974, May 15, 1974, May 30, 1974, and June 24, 1974, and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas."

This is the main issue for me. The President's executive privilege just doesn't extend so far as to tell people to ignore authorized subpoenas by Congress. That it's come to this is suborning the Constitution. Which is against the oath of office the President made. Regardless of what William Barr or the President says, Trump can't "do anything he pleases" as the president. Otherwise, what would be the point of Congressional oversight?

 

[civilwarbuff]

If you want to spin it that way but congress cannot force the president to do anything; the president cannot force congress to do anything. To be able to do so no longer makes them co-equal branches of government. The courts are the arbiter in these cases and they cannot completely take one side against the other without destroying the balance of power between the branches. There are legitimate concerns between both congress and the executive and neither gets to assert their concerns as always supreme; the courts decide that on a case by case basis.
If your crazy ex refuses to pay the damage the courts impose their will on her,.... not you. If a branch of the government refuses to comply with a ruling from the court then the court imposes their will not the other branch......balance of power....

 

[civilwarbuff]

This is the main issue for me. The President's executive privilege just doesn't extend so far as to tell people to ignore authorized subpoenas by Congress.

Then let congress take action thru the courts; if they rule against the president and he refuses to comply: Iron clad impeachment. Unfortunately congress does not want to take the time to do that. For some reason they are in a big hurry.(elections perhaps?)

Regardless of what William Barr or the President says, Trump can't "do anything he pleases" as the president. Otherwise, what would be the point of Congressional oversight?

See previious post.....

 

[essentialsaltes]

If your crazy ex refuses to pay the damage the courts impose their will on her,.... not you.

Maybe, but we all know who's right and who's wrong from the outset.

 

[civilwarbuff]

The President's executive privilege just doesn't extend so far as to tell people to ignore authorized subpoenas by Congress.

That is for the courts to decide, not congress.

Regardless of what William Barr or the President says, Trump can't "do anything he pleases" as the president. Otherwise, what would be the point of Congressional oversight?

#149

 

[Speedwell]

That is for the courts to decide, not congress.

#149

It seems like you are taking the position that Congress has no independent authority to issue subpoenas, but must apply for court orders--so I must have misunderstood you.

 

[civilwarbuff]

It seems like you are taking the position that Congress has no independent authority to issue subpoenas, but must apply for court orders--so I must have misunderstood you.

Yes, you misunderstood me. Let me simplify this:
Congress can issue a subpoena. The executive can contest it based on several reasons (usually executive privilege). Congress can then go to the courts and challenge that refusal and the courts, on a case by case basis, will make a ruling. It the ruling is against the executive and the executive refuses to comply with the ruling they are found in contempt of court, obstructing justice, etc which are then impeachable offenses.
If the executive simply had to comply with anything that congress wanted it to do then the executive would not be an independent co-equal branch of government but simply an extension or servant of congress. Make sense?

 

[Speedwell]

Yes, you misunderstood me. Let me simplify this:
Congress can issue a subpoena. The executive can contest it based on several reasons (usually executive privilege). Congress can then go to the courts and challenge that refusal and the courts, on a case by case basis, will make a ruling. It the ruling is against the executive and the executive refuses to comply with the ruling they are found in contempt of court, obstructing justice, etc which are then impeachable offenses.
If the executive simply had to comply with anything that congress wanted it to do then the executive would not be an independent co-equal branch of government but simply an extension or servant of congress. Make sense?

Well, it's an opinion. That's the trouble with implied powers like oversight--they're hard to delimit. Is there anything in US v. Nixon which would suggest that the courts would have to revisit the question of executive privilege each time an occasion came up?

 

[Belk]

That is not what I said, sorry if you can't comprehend my statement. I don't know any other way to make it more clear than that. Try reading it again.....

This is why I did not want to waste my time. Your statements are in no way clear to me and instead of bothering to explain them you tell me it is my fault for not understanding you.

 

[iluvatar5150]

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.

That's true in theory however all impeachments that have got past the talking point have had charges based on violations of the law. This may be the first time that does not happen. Doesn't look good for the dems to go simply the political route without having evidence of criminal activity....it will look simply like sour grapes (still) over a 3 year old election. Good luck there.....

The Johnson impeachment was ostensibly based on his violation of the Tenure of Office Act, which was, itself, probably unconstitutional, but that was more-or-less a cover for Representatives' objection to Johnson's racist attitudes, terrible and violent rhetoric, and his ceding autonomy back to southern states still trying to oppress black citizens.

 

[Bobber]

This is the main issue for me. The President's executive privilege just doesn't extend so far as to tell people to ignore authorized subpoenas by Congress.

I'd think it'd all depend what they're for. The Supreme court with Nixon didn't find his reservation to hold back was based on diplomatic or national security secrets meaning if they were he would have had right to have the Supreme Court be in agreement with him. And we all know now how the term "national security" has been used in precedent in regard to almost everything under the sun in recent years. I've even heard it used when referring to climate change....a national security issue. I think you are as well asking to come forth testimony about diplomatic issues, obviously it is so why shouldn't it be brought up to the highest court to determine if his executive privilege applies? So does the President have the right to resist the subpoena? Up until the Supreme would would demand him to comply why not? They'd have to review the case.

 

[civilwarbuff]

This is why I did not want to waste my time. Your statements are in no way clear to me and instead of bothering to explain them you tell me it is my fault for not understanding you.

Not sure what was unclear but.....OK.

 

[civilwarbuff]

Well, it's an opinion.

It is not an opinion....it is how the Constituion is designed.

That's the trouble with implied powers like oversight--they're hard to delimit.

The camel and the tent.....so keep him outside.

Is there anything in US v. Nixon which would suggest that the courts would have to revisit the question of executive privilege each time an occasion came up?

It would not be a bad thing for it to be reviewed constantly....to ensure that all branches remain co-equal.