You are a treasure in this thread, and I am glad you are shining a light on this problem. Carry on.
Here's a nice breakdown: Constitutional Rights FoundationPlease show me the discussion on English Common law. Unfortunately I missed that. I will consider the evidence.
Like many things in life, I imagine the truth is somewhere in the middle. People are complicated, and I'm not a mind reader.They also wouldn't give up on the actual evidence if it were all about principle. They can't say it is all about principle because it might hurt their candidates, but then not push every option to get at the truth.
Also of note: executive privilege is NOT defined or granted by the Constitution. The Eisenhower administration coined the term, and it was formalized by the courts during the Nixon administration.Once again, the Constitution gives the president executive privilege for just the reason as is taking place right now.
Here's a nice breakdown: Constitutional Rights Foundation
Federalist 65 is the best place to go for a more primary source on the matter as the Founders saw it.
Honestly, you're probably right. However, there are a couple possible lines of reasoning that I can think of:
1. House Democrats were hoping that the obvious obstruction would be enough to lead to Trump's removal and/or convince Americans not to vote for him in 2020.
And that's the case they'll take to the American people. With most of the mainstream media carrying water for the Democratic politicians they can pound out their message 24/7. I don't think though the MS media have near the clout they had in generations past. Now they're just a few voices among manyor convince Americans not to vote for him in 2020.
No testimony except for all of the testimony already given in the House showing his guilt, of course. And a weird set of excuses for why the person claiming it was a perfect call doesn't want the people close to him talking about it.So now we have both sides with a narrative for their voters, but no testimony from those close to the situation.
So you know that the intentions of the president was to find dirt on Biden in case he becomes the Dem candidate for president?
I can appreciate your point, but the way the process was set up in the Constitution, it is the House of Representatives that is to "make the case" for impeachment. The Senate is to pass judgment on the case that the House presents to it.Wouldn't he just say no to the Senate as well if they wanted to call witnesses, requiring the same fight in the courts?
If the goal was truly to hear from the witnesses then a battle in the courts seems the way to obtain the testimony, even if it took a while.
So now we have both sides with a narrative for their voters, but no testimony from those close to the situation.
Wouldn't he just say no to the courts as well?Wouldn't he just say no to the Senate as well if they wanted to call witnesses, requiring the same fight in the courts?
If the goal was truly to hear from the witnesses then a battle in the courts seems the way to obtain the testimony, even if it took a while.
So now we have both sides with a narrative for their voters, but no testimony from those close to the situation.
Not really. The House is supposed to bring the charges, but the Senate is supposed to hold a trial and judge impartially - not appoint itself the defense and not to declare beforehand that they intend to acquit no matter what evidence is presented.I can appreciate your point, but the way the process was set up in the Constitution, it is the House of Representatives that is to "make the case" for impeachment. The Senate is to pass judgment on the case that the House presents to it.
Well, since that has not happened, it doesn't seem like any reply is needed.Not really. The House is supposed to bring the charges, but the Senate is supposed to hold a trial and judge impartially - not appoint itself the defense and not to declare beforehand that they intend to acquit no matter what evidence is presented.
No testimony except for all of the testimony already given in the House showing his guilt, of course. And a weird set of excuses for why the person claiming it was a perfect call doesn't want the people close to him talking about it.
I can appreciate your point, but the way the process was set up in the Constitution, it is the House of Representatives that is to "make the case" for impeachment. The Senate is to pass judgment on the case that the House presents to it.
While it may be true that the claims of the House managers will go unchallenged by witnesses that the President would like to have testify, this still isn't a situation in which he has to prove his innocence. If the House has presented a slip-shod argument and/or the articles that it passed don't indicate that there were any crimes, the Senate has good grounds for simply finding that to be the situation and then voting to exonerate the president.
The relevant portion of Federalist 65 is this:Thank you, I read them both. However, the bulk of the federalist paper was dealing with the appropriateness of the Senate for the task. The portion referencing English common law left as many questions as it answered, as some of the the examples didn't seem applicable.
Maladministration was ruled out by virtue of being too specific, so the fact that it was ruled out simply means that more actions than maladministration should be considered impeachable.I will agree that it looked like it could be more general than a violation of law on the books. But then it also seemed it was not to be just misadministration. That was expressly ruled out.
Personally, I believe that we've seen enough evidence to demonstrate intent. The evidence is largely circumstantial, but enough circumstantial evidence can still be enough to demonstrate intent - especially if those who could refute that circumstantial evidence with their testimony refuse to come forward.The corruption element in this case still hinges on intent. And proof of intent still hinges on the documents and witnesses that speak to the President's mind-set.
For that reason I still would think we need that information. And the courts appear to be the body that would sort out disagreements over ability to summon such.
The courts don't work like that. Anything with as lasting an impact on our country as this would spend years making its way though appeals before finally landing in front of the Supreme Court. There is no way that it would be resolved before the election, which I believe is the primary goal of the House Democrats.If the question of the president not being able to withhold the documents is straight-forward, then I would think it could be somewhat quickly resolved. If it is not straight-forward, then it is hard to argue this constitutes obstruction, as he may have a right to such a defense.
Wouldn't he just say no to the courts as well?
It is one thing for the senators to hear and know that the representatives were obstructed, but quite another when they themselves are obstructed. If it should happen to them, they might be more inclined to vote guilty on obstruction of Congress.
They KNOW what happened--or did not happen.I am arguing the house should have pursued it in the courts. However, the Senate still has the option of trying as well. And they can do so if they want to know what happened.
No, it isn't. Executive privilege, as established by the courts, cannot be exercised in a blanket manner as Trump did.But it's not an illegal obstruction. It's his right under Executive Privilege.
It read to me more like they thought maladministration was ruled out because it would be too low of a standard, and result in a parliamentary vote, overturning the election without sufficient warrant.Hamilton speaks of violations of public trust and injuries to society, not violations of law. The discussion of common law vs civil law isn't really relevant aside from the fact that English common law is the source of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors." As the article I linked pointed out, the common denominator in all cases where an official was charged with "high crimes and misdemeanors," was an abuse of public trust. I would argue that Trump's actions with regards to Ukraine rise to that level.
Maladministration was ruled out by virtue of being too specific, so the fact that it was ruled out simply means that more actions than maladministration should be considered impeachable.
Personally, I believe that we've seen enough evidence to demonstrate intent. The evidence is largely circumstantial, but enough circumstantial evidence can still be enough to demonstrate intent - especially if those who could refute that circumstantial evidence with their testimony refuse to come forward.
The courts don't work like that. Anything with as lasting an impact on our country as this would spend years making its way though appeals before finally landing in front of the Supreme Court. There is no way that it would be resolved before the election, which I believe is the primary goal of the House Democrats.
They KNOW what happened--or did not happen.
What the House wanted was to present a sketchy indictment and then force the Senate to start all over from scratch in order to make this charade be so drawn-out that it remains unsettled even into primary season and, hopefully, up to the time of the national nominating conventions. It could then be front and center as part of their campaigning.
In no wise should the Senate fall for that.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?