Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Well that one, soliciting foreign interference in our elections, in our governance, is a big one, one that the Founders had in mind when they wrote the clause.
    I'd also say that obstructing impeachment investigations using executive privilege is also a significant abuse of power. Executive privilege is to protect confidential communication deemed vital for national security reasons not to prevent investigations into personal misconduct. Even then, impeachment should be the one process that it can't be hidden from. US v Nixon held that executive privilege can't be absolute as it would restrict the proper exercise of judicial power to gather information. Its the same reasoning used to conclude that impeachment power becomes impotent if executive privilege is allowed to prevent access to information.

    Comment


    • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
      I'd also say that obstructing impeachment investigations using executive privilege is also a significant abuse of power. Executive privilege is to protect confidential communication deemed vital for national security reasons not to prevent investigations into personal misconduct. Even then, impeachment should be the one process that it can't be hidden from. US v Nixon held that executive privilege can't be absolute as it would restrict the proper exercise of judicial power to gather information. Its the same reasoning used to conclude that impeachment power becomes impotent if executive privilege is allowed to prevent access to information.
      Executive privilege is no reason to obstruct a witness from testifying. One can both testify and use executive privilege under questioning if necessary. That's why claiming executive privilege as the reason for blocking testimony, and documents, is obstruction of justice/congress. So yes I would agree that claiming exectutive privilege can be an abuse of power, and in this case, that's exactly what it is.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
        Abuse of power should be considered in the same context as crime in that if a violation of law can be considered a crime; a violation of authority can be considered an abuse of power. Just like crime, abuse of power covers a broad range of actions that can be considered trivial to severe. Someone using the authority of their position to get out of a parking ticket is an abuse of power as is conditioning the direction of public policy on a personal benefit.

        The question is how severe would a presidents abuse of power have to be before it will be impeachable?
        If we're going by the Constitution, impeachment is exclusively reserved for actual crimes. Per your examples, the problem is not "abuse of power" in and of itself but the fact that the person in question is using his position of authority to get away with breaking the law. When it comes to Trump, he broke no laws, so there's nothing to hang an "abuse of power" accusation on.
        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
        Than a fool in the eyes of God


        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

        Comment


        • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
          I'd also say that obstructing impeachment investigations using executive privilege is also a significant abuse of power. Executive privilege is to protect confidential communication deemed vital for national security reasons not to prevent investigations into personal misconduct. Even then, impeachment should be the one process that it can't be hidden from. US v Nixon held that executive privilege can't be absolute as it would restrict the proper exercise of judicial power to gather information. Its the same reasoning used to conclude that impeachment power becomes impotent if executive privilege is allowed to prevent access to information.
          It's a question of legal sufficiency. If the House was investigating an actual crime instead of going on a fishing expedition, and if they had voted as a body to give the proper committee the authority to issue subpoenas, then they would have had everything they needed to overcome executive privilege.
          Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
          But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
          Than a fool in the eyes of God


          From "Fools Gold" by Petra

          Comment


          • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
            If we're going by the Constitution, impeachment is exclusively reserved for actual crimes. Per your examples, the problem is not "abuse of power" in and of itself but the fact that the person in question is using his position of authority to get away with breaking the law. When it comes to Trump, he broke no laws, so there's nothing to hang an "abuse of power" accusation on.
            I understand that’s what you believe, but it seems the vast majority of the legal community, including Alan Dershowitz, would disagree.

            If a president was to fire every executive official and replace them with pornstars would that be impeachable?

            Comment


            • Trump’s ship of fools:


              Trump has found the one constitutional “expert” who will take such a position, however: Harvard professor emeritus and frequent Fox News guest Alan Dershowitz, whom Trump added to his defense team last week. “Criminal-like conduct is required” in order for a president to be impeached, Dershowitz now claims, to the puzzlement of pretty much everyone who knows anything about this topic.

              Since hypocrisy is something of a job requirement for working for Trump, Dershowitz is naturally on video making exactly the opposite argument in 1998. “It certainly doesn’t have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty,” he said at the time.
              WaPo
              “I think God, in creating man, somewhat overestimated his ability.” ― Oscar Wilde
              “And if there were a God, I think it very unlikely that He would have such an uneasy vanity as to be offended by those who doubt His existence” ― Bertrand Russell
              “not all there” - you know who you are

              Comment


              • Originally posted by Watermelon View Post
                I understand that’s what you believe, but it seems the vast majority of the legal community, including Alan Dershowitz, would disagree.

                If a president was to fire every executive official and replace them with pornstars would that be impeachable?
                Is it a crime to appoint porn stars to official positions?
                Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                Than a fool in the eyes of God


                From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                  Is it a crime to appoint porn stars to official positions?
                  Andrew Johnson wasn't impeached for violating criminal law, he was impeached, by a vote of 35 -19, for "abuse of power."

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
                    Andrew Johnson wasn't impeached for violating criminal law, he was impeached, by a vote of 35 -19, for "abuse of power."
                    Johnson's impeachment is also widely regarded as a textbook example of how not to do it.

                    The argument for “abuse of power” is flimsy and draws on the worst possible precedent. Left-wing legal scholar Cass Sunstein, a former Obama administration official, actually argued in his 2017 book Impeachment: A Citizen’s Guide that “abuse of power” is an impossibly broad standard: “Almost every American president has, on more than one occasion, passed the bounds of his power, in the sense that his administration has done something that it is not lawfully entitled to do.” The House Judiciary Committee staff, prepared entirely by Democrats, cites Sunstein’s book but ignores that passage. Similarly, the staff report ignored liberal legal scholar Jonathan Turley, who testified before the committee last week that its “abuse of power” standard would apply to every president.

                    Worse, Democrats on the Judiciary Committee actually cite the impeachment of Andrew Johnson — which is widely regarded as a mistake — in arguing that Congress ought to impeach presidents on the basis of “illegitimate motives,” even if their actions are legally permissible.

                    ...

                    Johnson was impeached by the House by a runaway Republican majority and acquitted in the Senate by one vote.

                    The Johnson precedent has been a cautionary tale for over 150 years, a prime example of what Congress ought not to do. Yet Democrats, with their forthcoming article of impeachment on “abuse of power,” are invoking the Johnson precedent as a positive inspiration.

                    https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2...n-impeachment/
                    Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                    But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                    Than a fool in the eyes of God


                    From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                      Is it a crime to appoint porn stars to official positions?
                      Does one want a president who appoints porn stars to official positions, it would be inappropriate and unacceptable? To quote Alan Dershowitz in 1998: a president could be impeached even if they were not accused of a crime. "It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty, you don't need a technical crime,” he said.

                      https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/20/p...uct/index.html

                      Trump certainly is somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to US liberty. Among other things by extorting a foreign leader to interfere in the US elections.
                      “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Tassmoron View Post
                        ...extorting a foreign leader to interfere in the US elections.
                        That never happened.

                        As for Dershorwitz, his position hasn't changed. From the CNN link, but buried at the very bottom of the article where you obviously didn't notice: "You need criminal-type behavior akin to treason and bribery. It doesn't have to be a technical crime because at the time that the framers wrote the constitution there was no criminal code."
                        Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                        But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                        Than a fool in the eyes of God


                        From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
                          That never happened.

                          As for Dershorwitz, his position hasn't changed. From the CNN link, but buried at the very bottom of the article where you obviously didn't notice: "You need criminal-type behavior akin to treason and bribery. It doesn't have to be a technical crime because at the time that the framers wrote the constitution there was no criminal code."
                          Actually - it did. And it is as obvious as the sun in the desert except to those as who choose not to see it.

                          More importantly, you focus on the idea that if the framers didn't mention a specific lawless act, or the criminal code does not detail a specific act as a crime, it can't be impeachable. But at the heart of every element mentioned in the constitution is a lawless leader that abuses his power as president. It is impossible to mention in a document every possible abuse of power that would be impeachable, but we are given examples of the same. And one of those examples is bribery. Blackmail is not mentioned, but blackmail is an especially heinous form of bribery, and it is basically what the president has done to Ukraine. He has said to them - you announce an investigation on Biden, or I will refuse to allow this country to help you fight off the Russian invasion. That investigation on Biden serves no purpose but to benefit the president in the upcoming election and has serious negative national security implications. The President has put his own personal gain over the best interests of the nation.

                          There is no more serious abuse of power than that, no more abusive form of bribery than that. You are playing a legalistic game in an attempt to excuse extreme excess at the peril of the nation.

                          How can you in good conscience ally yourself in this way MM?
                          Last edited by oxmixmudd; 01-21-2020, 08:36 AM.
                          He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me."

                          "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets"

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by oxmixmudd View Post
                            Actually - it did. And it is as obvious as the sun in the desert except to those as who choose not to see it.

                            More importantly, you focus on the idea that if the framers didn't mention a specific lawless act, or the criminal code does not detail a specific act as a crime, it can't be impeachable. But at the heart of every element mentioned in the constitution is a lawless leader that abuses his power as president. It is impossible to mention in a document every possible abuse of power that would be impeachable, but we are given examples of the same. And one of those examples is bribery. Blackmail is not mentioned, but blackmail is an especially heinous form of bribery, and it is basically what the president has done to Ukraine. He has said to them - you announce an investigation on Biden, or I will refuse to allow this country to help you fight off the Russian invasion. That investigation on Biden serves no purpose but to benefit the president in the upcoming election and has serious negative national security implications. The President has put his own personal gain over the best interests of the nation.

                            There is no more serious abuse of power than that, no more abusive form of bribery than that. You are playing a legalistic game in an attempt to excuse extreme excess at the peril of the nation.

                            How can you in good conscience ally yourself in this way MM?
                            Your description of events is about as accurate as Shifty Schiff's "dramatisation" of the phonecall.
                            Some may call me foolish, and some may call me odd
                            But I'd rather be a fool in the eyes of man
                            Than a fool in the eyes of God


                            From "Fools Gold" by Petra

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              Does one want a president who appoints porn stars to official positions, ...
                              How about if we have a governor who was credibly accused of rape and battery, and yet gets elected POTUS? I think we should be able to impeach anyone who supported him or admits to voting for him, and revoke their voting rights.
                              Geislerminian Antinomian Kenotic Charispneumaticostal Gender Mutualist-Egalitarian.

                              Beige Nationalist.

                              "Everybody is somebody's heretic."

                              Social Justice is usually the opposite of actual justice.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by firstfloor View Post
                                For the umpteenth time, it’s bribery.
                                No. Since when do you bribe someone by withholding money?

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by CivilDiscourse, Yesterday, 07:13 AM
                                11 responses
                                87 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post CivilDiscourse  
                                Started by shunyadragon, 12-02-2020, 10:50 PM
                                26 responses
                                161 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 12-02-2020, 08:47 AM
                                5 responses
                                58 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Ronson
                                by Ronson
                                 
                                Started by LiconaFan97, 12-01-2020, 11:56 PM
                                51 responses
                                325 views
                                1 like
                                Last Post oxmixmudd  
                                Started by mikewhitney, 12-01-2020, 08:39 PM
                                2 responses
                                28 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post mikewhitney  
                                Working...
                                X