Either way, I don’t see the President himself being convicted for the move to an unusually secure server. Unless there is direct evidence such as a written order signed by the President, at worst (or best depending on your viewpoint) I see the high-level staff taking the fall.
According to the executive order there should be clear written instructions from the Director of National Security that guide the use of Special Access Programs. If the server in question is in fact a SAP server, there should be clear written instructions detailing exactly who can put what information in and under what circumstances. If the memorandum(s) in question follow the program, the Director is responsible. If the memorandum(s) in question contradict the SAP instructions, a low-level staffer might be singled out.
Legally speaking, I might agree with the White House position on refusing a subpoena if the House rules do not give the issuer the right to issue the subpoena. Outside of that situation, I don’t think the White House has a leg to stand on.
It is true, the Constitution grants the House of Representatives as a whole the right to impeach the President. It is also true that the same document allows the House of Representatives to determine their own rules. If the rules of the House allow any single member or group of members to issue a subpoena for an impeachment inquiry, without having a formal vote or committee vote about starting the inquiry, then I would say the House as a whole gave their consent when they approved that rule.
Not a lawyer, not a Congressperson, all of the above IMHO.
Perhaps a law that makes public all information about investigations to political candidates. I’m not going to comment on the desirability of such a law, but I think it would at least be constitutional.
A law that targets the Bidens or Trumps specifically violates the Fifth Amendment, in my opinion.
An investigation run by any part of the executive branch of the United States, looking into whatever crime they have a reasonable suspicion that the Bidens perpetrated.
No, specifically I think we would need at the very least articulated probable cause for an investigation for some act that violates U.S. law (or Ukrainian law if we have a law enforcement treaty, which I think we do). That needs to be in place and documented before the President starts an investigation.
Being that Mr. Trump asked Ukraine to start their own investigation, probable cause and the inability to fully investigate without Ukrainian assistance needs to be in place before such a request should be made.
Gorsuch will be interesting. He is pretty focused on separation of powers. That mostly plays out on congressional delegated legislative powers and the executive taking power through rulemaking on vaguely worded legislation.
This case is state vs federal executive so that separation may push him towards not supporting handover. When congressional subpoena cases start hitting though things could be very different. Congress exercising its specifically delegated check on executive power would seem to fit Gorsuchs notion of how the government is supposed to work.
Even if this case goes Trump’s way Gorsuch might telegraph a giant bus coming in follow on cases in his opinion.
Been away a bit, and just wanted to make one more reply before…see end of thread
I thought about this too, but still say that once he won, however unexpected, he could have found a way out so he would not be put into a position that he could be blackmailed.
I agree that he probably cares only about himself and those you mention. However, I do not think he is a sociopath, even though he clearly has issues.
Yes, he is stupid. But what I said above applies here.
I would prefer we not annoy others who are tired of our discussion. Therefore…
…in the interest of not mucking up this thread with this rather complex discussion, I’ve started another one.
Oops, now Breitbart is going to be running the country. Can Breitbart be accessed on TV? If it’s just on the internet, that may hinder some Trumpians from getting their orders.
The upside: if Faux News turns on Donald, they might actually start reporting real news that is happening. Gradually, of course, so the Trumpians aren’t aware that they’re hearing the truth. A girl can dream…
I would have been happy to have appreciated that, but Bill was able to weave his smarmy political comments even into his etymological analyses. Screw Bill Safire.
How is this for a cr-a-a-a-a-a-a-zy idea? This happens, and since Trump no longer has to work at being re-elected, he actually sits down with the Dems and really tries to do something for the country?
But I’m still hoping for my dream election: impeachment happens, Trump is most likely acquitted in the trial but it does enough damage to a few Rep senators who don’t vote against him, such as the Dems end up in control of everything.
Single payer/universal healthcare?
We’ll close the concentration camps?
We’ll end the endless war machine?
College education for all?
We’ll demilitarize law enforcement?
We’ll reconnect worker productivity to worker compensation?
When I was much younger, I thought that political work consisted of criticizing the folks in power as loudly and vociferously as I could. Mission accomplished! I thought.
As I grew older, I realized that such criticism was, and I’m not exaggerating here, completely goddamned pointless. The real political work consisted of getting into the struggle, rolling up my sleeves, and actually doing the work.
It’s a lot harder than standing on the sides and shouting criticisms. I often fall short. But at least it accomplishes something.
Well isn’t that how we got where we are? Appealing to our “leaders” for representation withing the rules of the system? If you think calling out reality is goddamned pointless I refer you to your media machine, which avoids objective reality as a mission.
We as a citizenry have fallen short by “believing in” versus calling out the grand illusion. Calling out what we see is not part of falling short or goddamned pointless when the entire system ruins upon spectacle and illusion. Even now we’ve been conditioned to remind each other to color within the lines the system allows. Thanks anyway.
That’s not at all what I said, and it’s very mildly interesting that you decided to interpret in the way that allows you to continue with your current behavior without considering its efficacy.