Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics' started by JoeNation, Dec 10, 2019.
Abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Andrew Johnson faced 14 if I recall correctly...
And Trump thought he was the greatest. Geesh!
You know, I don't really have much to say because this has been such a dragged out and arguing now on behalf of the president would be beating a dead horse, "the die is cast"
This will turn into the same "nothing burger" as the whole Russian collusion Mueller fiasco. The democrats are hitching themselves to a horse that will run them right off the cliff. It isn't POTUS that is making the US look like a bunch of nincompoops.
I believe the left has forgotten how badly the Clinton impeachment went for the republicans on the subsequent election cycle.
At least one of the charges is an open and shut case. Trump, by refusing to abide by congressional subpoenas, by refusing to turnover documents, by forbidding administration officials to testify, is pretty much obstructing Congress. There is no disputing that fact.
On the other charge, if Trump was really innocent, he could have released the entire tape of the phone call that several high-level witnesses testified to under oath and cleared himself if he was actually innocent of course. He has the tape of the phone call lock in a top secret server that he claims was perfect but for some reason refuses to allow congress to hear it even in a closed door hearing. His own chief of staff said after describing Trump's quid pro quo that it happens all of the time and we should "get over it." Trump himself could testify like both Hillary and Bill Clinton did but he won't. He has thrown a blanket no cooperation gauntlet over the entire investigation. Does that sound like an innocent person to you?
There are just too many witnesses with corroborating stories to not be believed. There are too many phone records, too many emails that align with the charges against Trump. Anyone that can even begin to argue that Trump doesn't lie as easily as he breathes, is delusional. The man is the king of lies. Why would anyone ever believe anything he said?
You know that y'all are offering up the same defense of Trump that the Republicans in Congress are? ZERO!
The Democrats have provided witness after witness to bolster their claims. The Republicans? Not so much.
In case ya ain’t noticed..... The nation isn’t exactly on the edge of its seats...... Just sayin’.
It just seems like there isn't a cogent anti-impeachment argument coming from anywhere on the Right. A lot of dismissiveness but no real substantive rebuttals. Is that because there are none?
Lindsey Graham R- SC as the Chairman of Senate Judiciary claims that the Impeachment is a sham and having testimony in the Senate would do nothing but add to the hoax impeachment.
How convenient. If you have no defense to offer, just condemn the process. I am completely unsure why all criminals just don't call their charges a sham and a hoax and just refuse to participate?
No, it’s not an open and shut case. According Professor Alan Dershowitz, Congress has the right to request testimony and documents, but it does not have the right to get them. If the Executive branch refuses to provide the requested information it is up to the third branch of the government, the Judiciary, to decide if Congress gets it. If the courts say that the president must turn over that information, and he refuses, then you have a case for impeachment. The Democrats did not take this to court, so that impeachment article has no bearing.
Look at it this way. Some aspects of the what the Executive Branch does have to be discussed and sometimes implemented out of the public eye. If the Congress had access to every document, policy discussion or strategy, the president would be seriously hampered. Therefore a third party, the Judiciary, is involved in the process.
Dershowitz is merely one opinion. Most legal scholars give congress the upper hand.
'Obstruction of Congress:' Trump's stonewalling becomes basis for impeachment
WASHINGTON – President Donald Trump is a big fan of the Constitution's Article II, which lays out the powers of the presidency. In his words, expressed in July, it gives him "the right to do whatever I want."
That interpretation led to another Article II on Tuesday: the second article of impeachment unveiled by the House Judiciary Committee, charging Trump with obstruction of Congress.
The document is both sweeping and specific. It accuses Trump of directing "the unprecedented, categorical and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas.” It lists four federal agencies and nine administration officials, including acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, for following Trump's lead.
“In the history of the republic," it reads, "no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate ‘high crimes and misdemeanors.'"
It's a strikingly simple dispute, easy for Americans to understand, which was one reason Democrats added it to their case against Trump's efforts to solicit political help from Ukraine. They say he must comply with congressional subpoenas for documents and testimony. He says the impeachment investigation violates his constitutional rights.
Most legal scholars and impeachment experts say Congress has the upper hand in this fight:
Congressional committees have the power to issue subpoenas for testimony and documents, and presidents are not immune from answering the call.
“Anybody subpoenaed by Congress is required to comply because that has the force of law,” said Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina School of Law. "I think it's going to be very hard to rebut."
A president can assert executive privilege to withhold information in the public interest, which usually leads to separation-of-powers battles in court.
"The president has the constitutional power to assert a privilege," said Josh Blackman, a law professor at South Texas College of Law in Houston.
The Nixon example
Contempt of Congress was Article III of President Richard Nixon's impeachment. He was accused of failing "without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas."
That article passed the House Judiciary Committee 21-17, making it the most narrowly approved of three articles of impeachment that ultimately led to Nixon's 1974 resignation.
“Going this route reflects the similarity between what President Trump is currently doing and what the Articles of Impeachment approved against President Nixon charged him with," Gerhardt said.
The response chosen by Trump and his White House counsel, Pat Cipollone, may have given Democrats no choice but to include the obstruction charge. In a series of letters, he told congressional committees the president and his aides would not comply with what he called a "partisan inquiry."
The president, Cipollone wrote in October, "cannot allow your constitutionally illegitimate proceedings to distract him and those in the executive branch from their work on behalf of the American people."
"No other president has ever stonewalled Congress entirely when it comes to impeachment," Harvard Law School professor Noah Feldman wrote for Bloomberg Opinion. "Even Richard Nixon, who famously withheld evidence and was, therefore, facing impeachment for obstruction of Congress, allowed some executive branch witnesses to testify and provided some documents to Congress."
Going to court
What's different this time is that Democrats are not trying to enforce their subpoenas by going to court, where the battle could last for months. They want a House impeachment and a Senate trial – even one that they lose – wrapped up early in the 2020 election year.
When the fight has landed in court, Trump has lost – such as when federal District Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson last month rejected claims of absolute immunity and ruled that former White House counsel Don McGahn must testify before Congress.
"Presidents are not kings," Jackson wrote. "This means they do not have subjects, bound by loyalty or blood, whose destiny they are entitled to control."
Stressing a pattern
House Democratic leaders made a decision not to tack on additional articles of impeachment, such as bribery or obstruction of justice. But they made a point to stress Trump's alleged pattern of abuse.
"These articles perfectly charge the gravest possible crimes against the Constitution and stress that the conduct charged was 'consistent with' the president’s 'previous invitations of foreign interference' and 'previous efforts' to obstruct justice," Harvard Law School professor Laurence Tribe tweeted.
Though I may disagree with the substance, that article and your posting of it was well constructed.
I do have to say I am a bit confused. Mind you, I readily admit that my busy life doesn’t allow me to focus on news as much as I would like. But where is the “quid pro quo” in the articles of impeachment?
It is described in the articles through the specific actions Trump engaged in. They don't call it a quid pro quo. I think Democrats wanted to make it as clear as possible for the public.
BTW Trump's lawyers are arguing that a president cannot be investigated for any reason. I think we call that a king.
I would agree that that claim by the White House is not true. Source?
The Atlantic probably has the fairest most balance analysis of the claims, retractions, and clarifications of the case Trump's lawyers are making. Like everything else in legalese, it is more complicated than just a straight out claim of total immunity. As long as you don't cherry pick any one sentence and consider the entirety of the article, you'll generally have a better understanding of the complexities of the case.