I think I get it. Is it like: Russia only a tiny bit interfered when they created Facebook memes?
Really?
This is a summary of the stated US foreign policy towards Ukraine.
Are you saying that if tomorrow morning Donald Trump decides he wants to support Russia in the war against Ukraine and permanently cancel all duly authorized aid to Ukraine and give it to Russia - that’s automatically the new foreign policy, no matter what informed Trumps decision? That if he made that decision because Putin promised the Trump Organization a big contract in exchange for this new policy — that’s hunky-dory because he’s President?
I don’t think so.
Yeah, I imagine most people reading my argument would stop me right there.
What I am saying is that the President does have limits to his authority, specifically he is limited by the Constitution. So if the President directs a person to violate the constitution, that person does not properly have the President’s authorization, because with reference to this particular class of actions, the President has no authority to bestow.
~Max
In addition to what I have said in post #23, I would say the distinction I am making is somewhat similar to that of Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic. “The President” is properly an office, and as a matter of principle the President’s authority can never contradict the Constitution which established that office; any appearance of Presidential authority that contradicts the Constitution is in fact null and void in the eyes of the law. Likewise the person exercising that office, Mr. Donald Trump, only enjoys the privileges and immunities of the office of the President so long as he is exercising the duties of that office.
I believe a very similar theory underpins Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents.
~Max
On defense cross-examination Mr. Trump could choose to represent himself when cross-examining President Trump. Correct?
I’m glad you and I can agree about something. 
~Max
I think if you have a president who acts unconstitutionally you still have a president acting not sme private citizen.
I’m willing to equivocate there. But I would not say that the President has authority of the United States to act unconstitutionally, and that’s ultimately what you need with the Logan Act.
~Max
That kind of seems like you’re going around your tukhus to get to your elbow. If the President is directing people to violate the Constitution, you should direct your impeachment efforts there directly instead of the much looser argument that sending someone overseas to negotiate improperly is somehow an illicit negotiation.
Does this POTUS deserve impeachment, trial, conviction, and removal? Yes. Is sending Giuliani as a personal envoy a guilty offense? In itself, no; but extorting / blackmailing Ukraine to act against DJT’s political rival does justify conviction. That’s a High Crime.
I believe Donald Trump should be impeached for lying to Congress because Bill Clinton was impeached for telling just one lie. Trump has never stopped lying and has definitely lied to Congress.
I hear what you’re saying, but Bill Clinton was under oath when he lied. Trump supporters, and Trump himself know that Trump will never speak a single word under oath, because he is a legendary lying bastard. No worries, The US Senate under Republican rule is here to enable him.
If such a straightforward accusation were lobbed, the President could merely respond by claiming, as Mr. Giuliani currently claims, that Mr. Giuliani was acting as a personal representative of Mr. Donald Trump and therefore did not violate the Constitution. So we are past that point in this line of posts.
I mean, there are plenty of actions the President can take in his personal capacity that would exceed his official authority. Tithing comes to mind (personal funds versus official funds). So does discrimination against protected classes (with regards to friends versus employees). So too when it comes to communications with foreign officials. If the President directed an agent to communicate with foreign officials, it is relevant whether or not that agent represents Mr. President or Mr. Donald Trump, because the agent’s status determines what is or is not allowed.
The posts that prompted this thread implied, and I am paraphrasing to the best of my understanding here, that the President broke a mandatory chain of command by sending a personal lawyer to Ukraine on official business. That implication was prompted in turn by the question of whether I should even entertain the President’s defense arguments: because the President’s defense theory didn’t absolve him from breaking the chain of command, I should be in favor of conviction. So I made a thread where we can pretend the President was actually impeached for sending Mr. Giuliani to Ukraine. I wish the people from that thread would follow me into this one, because I cannot hope to do their arguments justice, but alas! they have not.
~Max
RioRico and Maddodge, thank you for your opinion(s), although I would prefer if we could stick to the specific act of sending Rudy Giuliani to Ukraine.
~Max
I just reread this, and I’m curious. Can you make an argument that it is not only unacceptable for the President to set up “shadow government efforts at odds with official channels”, but worthy of impeachment and removal from office under our current standard of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”?
~Max
Rereading Ravenman’s post for the third time. I think the answer will be no, at least not without the premise that the shadow government efforts are motivated by personal political gain - an abuse of power. And I agree with that.
~Max
So let’s say President Jones gets elected next year. Congress provides money to his Administration and confirms top officials to carry out an agenda that is explained in policy papers, speeches, testimony, press conferences, and so on. If Congress disagrees with that agenda, since they are witting of what it entails, they can stop finding, reject nominees, pass new laws, etc.
But while all that is going on, President Jones turns to his friends and has them do favors of setting up entirely different policies, and having these pals go around to others to promote and effectuate these alternative policies.
For example, maybe the Secretary of State is charged with negotiating a new nuclear arms treaty with Russia; but Jones’ pals pursue an agenda also approved by Jones to convince Russia to develop new nuclear weapons with technologies from a company Jones is invested in. (We can all imagine other scenarios, but just using this as one example.)
I think President Jones has taken measures to undermine the checks and balances in the Constitution by end-running the enumerated powers of each branch in order to make his real policies happen (the ones in the unofficial channels). A clear way to describe this sort of offense is to call it an abuse of power.
DJT did not send Giuliani to Ukraine for trade talks. Had that been his purpose then no problem; Giuliani could do all the envoying he’s capable of. So no, merely sending Giuliani east was not a guilty act. But sending him to deliver threats of coersion, extortion, blackmail, to damage DJT’s domestic political rival, was indeed a High Crime justifying the impeachment process.
Parallel: Walking across the Arizona-Sonora border through a gate at Nogales is not a crime… unless police are after you. IANAL but that’s international flight to escape prosecution, right? It’s the purpose that makes it a crime.
Certainly Congress has the right to threaten the President with various checks on funding, nominations, and domestic legislative goals for concessions in foreign policy. But I do not think Congress is deprived of these rights if the President is opaque about his foreign policies, or chooses to conduct them in secret. They do not have the right to know exactly what and how the President communicates with foreign entities, and there are situations where secrecy or even duplicity could be effective diplomatic tools.
Now, if he willingly deceives Congress to avoid their wrath, especially the Senate, that could be an abuse of power. This seems to be what you are saying President Jones did, but I note that the corrupt intent is an essential element to the crime. If it was a total accident or just plain incompetence that caused the administration to have a secret backchannel - someone forgot to do the press conference - I wouldn’t say that rises to an impeachable offense.
~Max
I get what you are saying, and I think it’s just like what Ravenman is saying. Sending Mr. Giuliani to Ukraine on official business, with corrupt intent, is an abuse of power just like any other actus officialis + mens rea combo.
This line of thought, of course, assumes that sending Mr. Giuliani to Ukraine is in fact an official act and not a personal thing. Which is a reasonable assumption, I might add.
~Max