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

  • Watermelon
    replied
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Watermelon
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    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?
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Watermelon
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Except "abuse of power" is not a crime in and of itself; it is, rather, a description of crimes. One could say, "The President committed crimes X, Y, and Z which together are an abuse of power," and that could be a viable argument, but "abuse of power" on its own without specifying actual crimes doesn't work.

    Trump's legal team touched on this point in a recent press conference:

    "With regard to the first article of impeachment, we are going to assert that they must be rejected because the — and it relates to the first article of impeachment — it fails on its face to state an impeachable offense. It alleges no crimes at all, let alone high crimes and misdemeanors, as required by the Constitution. In fact, it does not allege any violation of law whatsoever. We assert that the House Democrats’ abuse of power claim would do lasting damage to the separation of powers under the United States Constitution.

    "We then get into some very specific allegations, regarding the phone call itself, as it relates to this abuse of power claim. I will tell you this: We will address both the April 21st and July 25th phone calls. We will be making it very clear what President Zelensky said, as well as what the President of the United States said on those calls. We will again reiterate that the House record establishes that President Zelensky and his top aides have never said there was a quid pro quo situation, as that issue came up.

    "And remember: This case started — first it was going to be quid pro quo. Actually, first it would be extortion, then bribery, then quid pro quo, then it becomes abuse of power — with the word “quid pro quo” never showing up in the actual articles of impeachment."

    https://theconservativetreehouse.com...house-counsel/
    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?

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    The evidence is either overwhelming, or it isn't. Your argument above suggests that it isn't. Earlier you claimed that it is. Pick one.
    Nothing gets in that you don't want getting in, does it, MM?

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
    The reason for the more evidence is basically for the American people so that they won't be fooled by the spin when the republican Senate aquits a lawless criminal president. It may also cause some vulnerable politically expediant republicans to convict.
    The evidence is either overwhelming, or it isn't. Your argument above suggests that it isn't. Earlier you claimed that it is. Pick one.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Right, the evidence is so "overwhelming" that the Democrats are begging the Senate to call more witnesses in order to plug the gaping holes in their case.
    The reason for the more evidence is basically for the American people so that they won't be fooled by the spin when the republican Senate aquits a lawless criminal president. It may also cause some vulnerable politically expediant republicans to convict.

    Leave a comment:


  • Sam
    replied
    WSJ article out about Lev Parnas' rise in Trump circles thanks to a large supply of third-party money and foreign connections:

    Source: Lev Parnas Paid His Way Into Donald Trump’s Orbit. Rebecca Ballhaus, Aruna Viswanatha and Alex Leary. WSJ.com. 2020.01.19

    With Mr. Giuliani, Mr. Parnas flew higher still. He and Mr. Fruman ramped up their efforts to arrange meetings for Mr. Giuliani with key Ukrainian officials in their quest to get Kyiv to announce investigations into alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. election by Ukrainian officials—a largely unsubstantiated theory embraced by the president and some congressional Republicans—and into the role Mr. Biden’s son, Hunter, played on the board of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings.

    The pair were also on a mission of their own in Ukraine: to broker a deal to sell U.S. liquefied natural gas to the country. In a meeting with a top official at Ukraine’s state oil-and-gas company, Messrs. Parnas and Fruman cited their alleged access to Mr. Trump. The deal didn’t materialize, another unsuccessful attempt by the pair to use their connections to bolster their business prospects.


    Their push for investigations in Ukraine gave Mr. Parnas fodder to bond with high-level Trump associates, according to documents released by the House committees. He traded texts with Tommy Hicks Jr., who in early 2019 was named co-chairman of the Republican National Committee. Mr. Hicks, a close friend of Mr. Trump Jr., didn’t respond to a request for comment.


    In March, an official at America First Policies, AFA’s nonprofit arm, solicited Mr. Parnas’s suggestions on what Mr. Trump Jr. should tweet about issues in Ukraine, according to texts released by the House. Mr. Parnas sent the official an article about calls to remove the ambassador to Ukraine, which Mr. Trump Jr. tweeted. His spokesman declined to comment.


    Mr. Giuliani has denied knowing about the two highest-level Ukrainian meetings Messrs. Parnas and Fruman attended: one in February with then-President Petro Poroshenko, and one the following May with a top aide to the incoming president, Volodymyr Zelensky. Mr. Parnas said he relayed to both men that favorable U.S. treatment was at risk if they didn’t announce the sought-after investigations.


    Messrs. Giuliani and Parnas were in close contact in the days surrounding both meetings: The two men called or tried to call each other nearly 40 times the week of the February meeting, a person familiar with the matter said. On the day of the May meeting, Mr. Giuliani called Mr. Parnas twice, and Mr. Parnas called him three times the next day, the person said, adding that they exchanged hundreds of calls over the course of that week.

    © Copyright Original Source



    Giuliani, remember, represented to both the New York Times and the Zelensky administration in May that he was seeking these investigations with Trump's full knowledge and consent.

    --Sam

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by JimLamebrain View Post
    And yes, there is overwhelming evidence to support those charges.
    Right, the evidence is so "overwhelming" that the Democrats are begging the Senate to call more witnesses in order to plug the gaping holes in their case.

    Leave a comment:


  • Mountain Man
    replied
    Originally posted by DivineOb View Post
    I was under the impression he was invoking 'absolute immunity', not executive privilege (correct me if I'm wrong).
    I forget the particulars why this argument even came up, but it was something along the lines of even if there was clear evidence of a crime (the extreme example given was a president murdering someone in broad daylight), a president could not be charged while in office. Of course in that case where the evidence is clear and irrefutable, Congress would be able to quickly and unanimously vote to impeach and remove, and then it would become a civil matter. In the present case, however, the evidence is vague and inconclusive to the point that the articles of impeachment don't even name a specific crime for which the President is being impeached.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Neither of those charges are specified in the articles of impeachment, and there is certainly no evidence to support those charges anyway.
    They are not named as such, though they are defined in the articles, because the actual name for those charges in an impeachment trial is "abuse of power." And yes, there is overwhelming evidence to support those charges.
    As for "obstruction of Congress", that's not a crime, either. There is not a single law in the entire US code called "obstruction of Congress". The issue is whether or not the President properly invoked executive privilege, an action to which he is legally entitled and therefore cannot be construed as obstruction.
    Again, this is not a normal trial, it's an impeachment, so the obstruction of justice taking place is the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, not a DOJ inquiry, thus the obstruction of Congress which is the institution to which the president is susceptible to justice.

    Leave a comment:


  • DivineOb
    replied
    Originally posted by Mountain Man View Post
    Neither of those charges are specified in the articles of impeachment, and there is certainly no evidence to support those charges anyway.

    As for "obstruction of Congress", that's not a crime, either. There is not a single law in the entire US code called "obstruction of Congress". The issue is whether or not the President properly invoked executive privilege, an action to which he is legally entitled and therefore cannot be construed as obstruction.
    I was under the impression he was invoking 'absolute immunity', not executive privilege (correct me if I'm wrong).

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by CivilDiscourse, Today, 07:13 AM
5 responses
28 views
0 likes
Last Post CivilDiscourse  
Started by shunyadragon, Yesterday, 10:50 PM
0 responses
94 views
1 like
Last Post LiconaFan97  
Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 08:47 AM
5 responses
55 views
0 likes
Last Post Ronson
by Ronson
 
Started by LiconaFan97, 12-01-2020, 11:56 PM
36 responses
301 views
1 like
Last Post oxmixmudd  
Started by mikewhitney, 12-01-2020, 08:39 PM
2 responses
27 views
0 likes
Last Post mikewhitney  
Working...
X