Impeach Trump. Now.

[Bricker]

@RTFirefly

That would be good fodder for a bet, or as the subject of a debate.

But you keep using it seemingly in support of your position in this debate.

We’re glad you can model the future so well. I recommend applying your model to the stock market, horse racing, the outcome of major-league games, or some other field where you could cash in on a good model of the future.

I keep making money at PredictIt.

[ganthet]

@Bricker

I think you’re saying that even with such evidence, they might not impeach.

I agree. I mean that such evidence (probable cause of guilt of a federal criminal statute) is a necessary, but not sufficient, condition.

Also, the articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton do not cite to or explicitly mirror federal criminal statutes for obstruction of justice or perjury, though they do use the same “corruptly” modifier for the actions. In particular, one of the items Clinton was impeached for was for “corruptly” allowing his attorney to “make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit” in a federal civil rights action. Another item accused him of “relat[ing] a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness,” which is a pretty far cry from the type of witness tampering obstruction of justice provided in 18 U.S.C. § 1512.

If Congress can make up their own versions of crimes or include things that are in no way criminal acts, then it seems clear that federal criminal statutes provide only a touchstone at best, if at all, for anything in articles of impeachment.

[Bricker]

@ganthet

The articles of impeachment for Nixon that were adopted by the House Judiciary Committee, but were pre-empted from a full House vote by Nixon’s resignation, contained non-criminal acts such as endeavoring to misuse the CIA, “acting personally and through his subordinates and agents, in violation or disregard of the constitutional rights of citizens, authorized and permitted to be maintained a secret investigative unit within the office of the President, financed in part with money derived from campaign contributions, which unlawfully utilized the resources of the Central Intelligence Agency, engaged in covert and unlawful activities, and attempted to prejudice the constitutional right of an accused to a fair trial” (which might be a form of obstruction of justice, but not one based on a federal statute), “in disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering with agencies of the executive branch,” and “He has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee, and the cover-up thereof, and concerning other unlawful activities including those relating to the confirmation of Richard Kleindienst as Attorney General of the United States, the electronic surveillance of private citizens, the break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding, and the campaign financing practices of the Committee to Re-elect the President.”

Those are criminal acts.

See, here’s a pro-tip: when you claim that you’re listing a bunch of non-criminal acts, and you end with “…the break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding,” perhaps maybe you should re-think the strategy.

The articles of impeachment for Andrew Johnson that were approved by the House and submitted to the Senate also included several non-criminal acts, such as removing the Secretary of War without Senate approval, appointing an interim Secretary of War after the Senate voted a resolution declaring the firing to be unlawful, giving the interim Secretary of War the fiscal authority that a confirmed Secretary of War would have, giving an Army General orders with “unlawful intent to violate the Tenure of Office Act,” and giving three speeches with the intent to show disrespect to Congress.

sigh

[Bricker]

@ganthet

Also, the articles of impeachment against Bill Clinton do not cite to or explicitly mirror federal criminal statutes for obstruction of justice or perjury, though they do use the same “corruptly” modifier for the actions. In particular, one of the items Clinton was impeached for was for “corruptly” allowing his attorney to “make false and misleading statements to a Federal judge characterizing an affidavit” in a federal civil rights action. Another item accused him of “relat[ing] a false and misleading account of events relevant to a Federal civil rights action brought against him to a potential witness in that proceeding, in order to corruptly influence the testimony of that witness,” which is a pretty far cry from the type of witness tampering obstruction of justice provided in 18 U.S.C. § 1512.

It tracks nicely with 18 U.S.C. § 1503, however.

Because it was a crime.

[ganthet]

@Bricker

Those are criminal acts.

See, here’s a pro-tip: when you claim that you’re listing a bunch of non-criminal acts, and you end with “…the break-in into the offices of Dr. Lewis Fielding,” perhaps maybe you should re-think the strategy.

What criminal statute covers “misusing the CIA”? What criminal statute covers “he has failed to take care that the laws were faithfully executed by failing to act when he knew or had reason to know that his close subordinates endeavoured to impede and frustrate lawful inquiries by duly constituted executive, judicial and legislative entities concerning the unlawful entry into the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee”? Please cite the specific federal statutes, since your proposition is that violating a federal criminal statute is at least a necessary precondition for bringing a particular article or sub-article of impeachment.

@Bricker

It tracks nicely with 18 U.S.C. § 1503, however.

Because it was a crime.

Except 18 U.S.C. § 1503 covers jurors, grand jurors, or officers of the court, not witnesses. So even this does not “track nicely” with the sub-article holding Clinton responsible for “corruptly allowing” his attorney to make false and misleading statements to a federal judge in characterizing an affidavit. Even if 1503 somehow did apply, it clearly requires causation, not mere allowance. And this still doesn’t address the re-definition in the Articles of witness tampering.

[Richard_Parker]

@Bricker

No, he isn’t saying that; he hasn’t adduced those facts that he knows.

YOU are saying that on his behalf.

I don’t think you’re interpreting his argument accurately (much less charitably), but I’m satisfied that you agree about the difference between explaining why there wouldn’t be more evidence and argument from ignorance.

[ElvisL1ves]

Hell, one of the counts against Andrew Johnson was that he’d made speeches denigrating Congress.

Anyone who doesn’t know Congress can impeach for any damn reason it wants to, and is not bound either by law or precedent, doesn’t belong in this discussion, sorry.

[Ravenman]

@ElvisL1ves

Hell, one of the counts against Andrew Johnson was that he’d made speeches denigrating Congress.

Anyone who doesn’t know Congress can impeach for any damn reason it wants to, and is not bound either by law or precedent, doesn’t belong in this discussion, sorry.

I have always objected to the application of the impeachment power to mean that Congress can trump up anything it wants to in order to dispose of a President. Yes, there is no check and balance on the power (other than elections), but the Constitution says what it says – high crimes and misdemeanors. Whatever charges are laid against a President ought to generally conform to those words.

Does Congress have latitude to interpret those words? Of course. Does that mean that literally every action should be considered to be covered by those words? It should not.

If Clinton had been elected, and Republicans immediately filed impeachment charges because Benghazi Huma Weiner email Foundation Fox News Whitewater pantsuits Comet Pingpong, I’d say that it would be an indefensible abuse of the impeachment power.

[k9bfriender]

@Ravenman

I have always objected to the application of the impeachment power to mean that Congress can trump up anything it wants to in order to dispose of a President. Yes, there is no check and balance on the power (other than elections), but the Constitution says what it says – high crimes and misdemeanors. Whatever charges are laid against a President ought to generally conform to those words.

Does Congress have latitude to interpret those words? Of course. Does that mean that literally every action should be considered to be covered by those words? It should not.

If Clinton had been elected, and Republicans immediately filed impeachment charges because Benghazi Huma Weiner email Foundation Fox News Whitewater pantsuits Comet Pingpong, I’d say that it would be an indefensible abuse of the impeachment power.

The check on impeachment is needing a super majority in the senate.

There were many times when republicans made noises about impeaching obama, but it never happened, not because they couldn’t find a crime to charge him with, for instance trump feels incompetence should be an impeachable offense, but because they knew that getting it through the senate would be impossible.

[enipla]

@k9bfriender

<snip> for instance trump feels incompetence should be an impeachable offense<snip>.

Bwahaahahahhah. Well there we have it then.

Actually, it should work for the application of the 25th.

[John_Mace]

@Ravenman

This is hilarious. Putin says he’s happy to provide Congress with a record of the Trump-Lavrov meeting (if Trump is okay with it). What kind of world are we in where Murderin’ Vladimir has a more open relationship with Congress than the President does?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/17/putin-hand-over-trump-sergey-lavrov-records-238492?lo=ap_a1

And I must add that Marco Rubio’s final comment is also hilarious, in terms of actually being quite funny.

Oh, come on. You don’t think Putin has his own very self-serving reasons from doing this? Oh, and Russian transcript… *is known very unimpeachable source, comrade! * (Pardon the pun).

[CarnalK]

I can see the 25th being more appropriate than impeachment but logistically it is much harder. 1/2 the cabinet plus 2/3 of both Houses have to agree, compared to impeachment which requires only 1/2 of the Representatives and 2/3 of the Senators.

[up_the_junction]

@Ravenman

This is hilarious. Putin says he’s happy to provide Congress with a record of the Trump-Lavrov meeting (if Trump is okay with it). What kind of world are we in where Murderin’ Vladimir has a more open relationship with Congress than the President does?

http://www.politico.com/story/2017/05/17/putin-hand-over-trump-sergey-lavrov-records-238492?lo=ap_a1

And I must add that Marco Rubio’s final comment is also hilarious, in terms of actually being quite funny.

I actually like Putin’s sense of mischief. He can be pretty funny if you read him right.

This reminds me of the hanging chads in Florida and Castro offering to send independent observers.

[Ravenman]

@up_the_junction

I actually like Putin’s sense of mischief. He can be pretty funny if you read him right.

This reminds me of the hanging chads in Florida and Castro offering to send independent observers.

Yes, exactly. His trollery is bigly.

[RTFirefly]

@Ravenman

And I must add that Marco Rubio’s final comment is also hilarious, in terms of actually being quite funny.

[QUOTE=Marco Rubio]
“Well, I wouldn’t put much credibility into whatever Putin’s notes are,” Rubio said on Fox Wednesday morning. “And if it comes in an e-mail, I wouldn’t click on the attachment either, that’s for sure.”
[/QUOTE]
I’m no fan of Rubio, but I’ll admit I chuckled at that.

[Velocity]

Is Trump even aware that, if the 25th is invoked, that he can challenge it by declaring himself competent and fit to preside?

If he doesn’t know…is there a statute of limitations by which he has to make that declaration?

You know where I’m going here…

[Muffin]

@Bricker

I agree. There is no legal requirement that impeachment be based on a criminal code violation.

I argue that there is such a requirement as a matter of political reality.

Is there something in your cites that purports to disprove that claim?

Sure. Have a look at Black III B, which et alli refers to article 10 against Johnson.

Here’s the 10th article of impeachment against Johnson:

ARTICLE X.

That said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, unmindful of the high duties of his office and the dignity and proprieties thereof, and of the harmony and courtesies which ought to exist and be maintained between the executive and legislative branches of the Government of the United States, designing and intending to set aside the rightful authorities and powers of Congress, did attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach the Congress of the United States, and the several branches thereof, to impair and destroy the regard and respect of all the good people of the United States for the Congress and legislative power thereof, (which all officers of the government ought inviolably to preserve and maintain,) and to excite the odium and resentment of all good people of the United States against Congress and the laws by it duly and constitutionally enacted; and in pursuance of his said design and intent, openly and publicly and before divers assemblages of citizens of the United States, convened in divers parts thereof, to meet and receive said Andrew Johnson as the Chief Magistrate of the United States, did, on the 18th day of August, in the year of our Lord 1866, and on divers other days and times, as well before as afterward, make and declare, with a loud voice certain intemperate, inflammatory, and scandalous harangues, and therein utter loud threats and bitter menaces, as well against Congress as the laws of the United States duly enacted thereby, amid the cries, jeers and laughter of the multitudes then assembled in hearing, which are set forth in the several specifications hereinafter written, in substance and effect, that it to say:

Specification First. In this, that at Washington, in the District of Columbia, in the Executive Mansion, to a committee of citizens who called upon the President of the United States, speaking of and concerning the Congress of the United States, heretofore, to wit: On the 18th day of August, in the year of our Lord, 1866, in a loud voice, declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:

"So far as the Executive Department of the government is concerned, the effort has been made to restore the Union, to heal the breach, to pour oil into the wounds which were consequent upon the struggle, and, to speak in a common phrase, to prepare, as the learned and wise physician would, a plaster healing in character and co-extensive with the wound. We thought and we think that we had partially succeeded, but as the work progresses, as reconstruction seemed to be taking place, and the country was becoming reunited, we found a disturbing and moving element opposing it. In alluding to that element it shall go no further than your Convention, and the distinguished gentleman who has delivered the report of the proceedings, I shall make no reference that I do not believe, and the time and the occasion justify.

"We have witnessed in one department of the government every endeavor to prevent the restoration of peace, harmony and union. We have seen hanging upon the verge of the government, as it were, a body called or which assumes to be the Congress of the United States, while in fact it is a Congress of only part of the States. We have seen this Congress pretend to be for the Union, when its every step and act tended to perpetuate disunion and make a disruption of States inevitable.

“We have seen Congress gradually encroach, step by step, upon constitutional rights, and violate day after day, and month after month, fundamental principles of the government. We have seen a Congress that seemed to forget that there was a limit to the sphere and scope of legislation. We have seen a Congress in a minority assume to exercise power which, if allowed to be consummated, would result in despotism or monarchy itself.”

Specification Second. In this, that at Cleveland, in the State of Ohio, heretofore to wit: On the third day of September, in the year of our Lord, 1866, before a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, speaking of and concerning the Congress of the United States, did, in a loud voice, declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:

“I will tell you what I did do? I called upon your Congress that is trying to break up the Government."

---

“In conclusion, beside that Congress had taken much pains to poison the constituents against him, what has Congress done? Have they done anything to restore the union of the States? No: On the contrary, they had done everything to prevent it: and because he stood now where he did when the rebellion commenced, he had been denounced as a traitor. Who had run greater risks or made greater sacrifices than himself? But Congress, factions and domineering, had undertaken to poison
the minds of the American people.”

Specification Third. In this case, that at St. Louis, in the State of Missouri, heretofore to wit: On the 8th day of September, in the year of our Lord 1866, before a public assemblage of citizens and others, said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, speaking of acts concerning the Congress of the United States, did, in a loud voice, declare in substance and effect, among other things, that is to say:

"Go on, perhaps if you had a word or two on the subject of New Orleans you might understand more about it than you do, and if you will go back and ascertain the cause of the riot at New Orleans, perhaps you will not be so prompt in calling out “New Orleans.” If you will take up the riot of New Orleans and trace it back to its source and its immediate cause, you will find out who was responsible for the blood that was shed there. If you will take up the riot at New Orleans and trace it back to the Radical Congress, you will find that the riot at New Orleans was substantially planned. If you will take up the proceedings in their caucuses you will understand that they knew that a convention was to be called which was extinct by its powers having expired; that it was said that the intention was that a new government was to be organized, and on the organization of that government the intention was to enfranchise one portion of the population, called the colored population, and who had been emancipated, and at the same time disfranchise white men. When you design to talk about New Orleans you ought to understand what you are talking about. When you read the speeches that were made, and take up the facts on the Friday and Saturday before that convention sat, you will find that speeches were made incendiary in their character, exciting that portion of the population? the black population? to arm themselves and prepare for the shedding of blood. You will also find that convention did assemble in violation of law, and the intention of that convention was to supersede the organized authorities in the State of Louisiana, which had been organized by the government of the United States, and every man engaged in that rebellion, in the convention, with the intention of superseding and upturning the civil government which had been recognized by the Government of the United States, I say that he was a traitor to the Constitution of the United States, and hence you find that another rebellion was commenced, having its origin in the Radical Congress.

---

"So much for the New Orleans riot. And there was the cause and the origin of the blood that was shed, and every drop of blood that was shed is upon their skirts and they are responsible. I could test this thing a little closer, but will not do it here to-night. But when you talk about the causes and consequences that resulted from proceedings of that kind, perhaps, as I have been introduced here and you have provoked questions of this kind, though it does not provoke me, I will tell you a few wholesome things that have been done by this Radical Congress in connection with New Orleans and the extension of the elective franchise.

" I know that I have been traduced and abused. I know it has come in advance of me here, as elsewhere, that I have attempted to exercise an arbitrary power in resisting laws that were intended to be forced upon the government; that I had exercised that power; that I had abandoned the party that elected me, and that I was a traitor, because I exercised the veto power in attempting, and did arrest for a time, that which was called a “Freedmen’s Bureau” bill. Yes, that I was a traitor. And I have been traduced; I have been slandered; I have been maligned; I have been called Judas Iscariot, and all that. Now, my countrymen, here to-night, it is very easy to indulge in epithets; it is easy to call a man a Judas, and cry out traitor, but when he is called upon to give arguments and facts he is very often found wanting. Judas Iscariot? Judas! There was a Judas, and he was one of the twelve Apostles. O, yes, the twelve Apostles had a Christ, and he never could have had a Judas unless he had twelve Apostles. If I have played the Judas who has been my Christ that I have played the Judas with? Was it Thad. Stevens? Was it Wendell Phillips? Was it Charles Sumner? They are the men that stop and compare themselves with the Savior, and everybody that differs with them in opinion, and tries to stay and arrest their diabolical and nefarious policy is to be denounced as a Judas."

---

"Well, let me say to you, if you will stand by me in this action, if you will stand by me in trying to give the people a fair chance? soldiers and citizens? to participate in these office, God be willing, I will kick them out. I will kick them out just as fast as I can.

“Let me say to you, in concluding, that what I have said is what I intended to say; I was not provoked into this, and care not for their menaces, the taunts and the jeers. I care not for threats, I do not intend to be bullied by enemies, nor erawed by my friends. But, God willing, with your help, I will veto their measures whenever any of them come to me.”

Which said utterances, declarations, threats and harangues, highly censurable in any, are peculiarly indecent and unbecoming in the Chief Magistrate of the United States, by means whereof the said Andrew Johnson has brought the high office of the President of the United States into contempt, ridicule and disgrace, to the great scandal of all good citizens, whereby said Andrew Johnson, President of the United States, did commit, and was then and there guilty of a high misdemeanor in office.

The reality is that if a president shits on congress, shits really really orange and biggly on congress, that president risks being impeached.

[CarnalK]

@Velocity

Is Trump even aware that, if the 25th is invoked, that he can challenge it by declaring himself competent and fit to preside?

If he doesn’t know…is there a statute of limitations by which he has to make that declaration?

You know where I’m going here…

From a simple reading of the amendment, I assume the President has his full term to declare himself fit. All the time limits listed are on the other side.

And no, I don’t know where you’re going with this. And even the lowest of opinion out there of Trump’s intelligence wouldn’t say he can’t understand the clear language of the amendment that says he can challenge his removal.

[RTFirefly]

@CarnalK

I can see the 25th being more appropriate than impeachment but logistically it is much harder. 1/2 the cabinet plus 2/3 of both Houses have to agree, compared to impeachment which requires only 1/2 of the Representatives and 2/3 of the Senators.

I don’t think it’s appropriate until after the issues hanging fire right now are resolved. Was his campaign involved in collusion with the Russians? Did Trump obstruct justice? Does Trump’s having handed over extremely sensitive intel to a hostile power, betraying an ally and its agents in the process, rise to the level of an impeachable offense? Has he used his office, and enabled his daughter and son-in-law, to enrich himself and themselves personally?

These issues should be dealt with through the impeachment process - investigation, debate and deliberation, and votes.

If Trump is still President at the end of that process, and at that time the evidence of his lack of competence is piling up, then it would be appropriate for Vice President Pence to invoke the 25th Amendment.

But using the 25th Amendment as a way of getting Trump out of office while dodging his responsibility for arguably impeachable offenses - no dice. Especially because it’s a way for the GOP to avoid responsibility for the monster they created and fell in line behind.

[Velocity]

@CarnalK

From a simple reading of the amendment, I assume the President has his full term to declare himself fit. All the time limits listed are on the other side.

And no, I don’t know where you’re going with this. And even the lowest of opinion out there of Trump’s intelligence wouldn’t say he can’t understand the clear language of the amendment that says he can challenge his removal.

What I meant was, could Pence invoke the 25th, and then Congress hurriedly vote and confirm Pence’s statement that “Trump is unfit,” before Trump has time to declare himself fit?