Would you still like me to respond to this, in light of [POST=21908809]post #2398[/POST]?
~Max
The inquiry as a whole would be bipartisan, in that members from both sides of the House can participate. And what you call hijacking the process, I might call attempting to vindicate the president. I am on the record saying I would like to establish that the president had no grounds to investigate the Bidens.
~Max
This is a very weird back-and-forth. You offered some defenses of the specific aspects of the letter, which is what I’d asked for. But I assumed you meant them sincerely, not as an attempt at rationalization. I found them unpersuasive, and when I explained why, you explained that you were trying to rationalize the letter, and implied that since the president’s attorneys weren’t crazy, the letter probably wasn’t. When I explained why I also found that reasoning unpersuasive, you’re suggesting my original question was rhetorical.
So let me rephrase: are there aspects of the letter that you find genuinely persuasive, not just in an “I’m trying to figure out an interpretation of the letter that isn’t cuckoo bananas,” but in an, “I genuinely think this is a good point” way? If it’s just those aspects we’ve already discussed, I’m unconvinced by your reasoning.
I’ll also point out that I asked that original question immediately after I read the first three pages of the letter, long before I’d heard the feedback from high-level attorneys and legal professors that the letter makes a mockery of the law.
Yes, I want you to directly respond to what I wrote.
No, see [POST=21908798]post #2397[/POST].
~Max
But the investigation isn’t about whether the President had grounds to investigate the Bidens - even if he did, his direct request for Ukraine to do so, particularly in the context of an apparent quid pro quo and his (illegal) withholding of funds allocated by Congress to Ukraine, are the issues at hand. The Bidens could be guilty as sin (although there’s no evidence that this is so) and Trump still would have committed impeachable offenses.
The way to establish that is twofold:
- The president isn’t in the position to investigate anyone. The FBI and other law enforcement agencies are. If the president thinks someone should be investigated, those agencies have hotlines he can call.
- If there are grounds to investigate the Bidens, the only appropriate witnesses for Congress to call are law enforcement officials. The only time Congress needs to be investigating anyone is in order to conduct oversight of the executive branch. Since Biden is no longer in the executive branch, that’s no longer necessary.
The Representative wants a full House vote on whether to authorize the impeachment inquiry. The Senator said he had not yet seen evidence that the president should be impeached, and would like to see the “facts”.
~Max
Trump wasn’t investigating the Bidens. Really. Trump didn’t ask US intelligence to investigate the Bidens. He wanted Ukraine to do that. That’s all kinds of fucked up.
Yeah - this inquiry is so weird. I’m a lawyer, tho no expert in impeachment. But usually when there is a dispute, even if I think one party’s case weak, I’ll generally hear a minimally plausible argument being made. Or you’ll hear some non-rabidly partisan commentators suggest that there are some legitimate legal issues at stake. Heck, w/ Clinton, you could legitimately discuss what your “definition of is is.”
Now I admit that i have not been anywhere near exhaustive in researching this issue. But it is quite impressive how consistent and extreme the commentary is. Non-rabid folk are describing the voluntary release of incriminating info, and subsequent positions as unprecedented. And the Republican response has no apparent legal basis other than an extremely broad interpretation of Presidential privilege, and simply saying, “I don’t want to.”
Sure, there’s no guarantee how things are going to shake out. But I just wanted to clearly express my impression of how extreme the dynamic seems.
Max or anyone - are there any “non-extreme” commentators whom you believe have supported the President’s actions and subsequent posture?
I’m not sure of the strategy though of not allowing a full house vote. It would definitely make things look a little more legit. Is she afraid of some softness in her caucus?
Did the House conduct a full vote on all the inquiries it held during the Obama administration, or is the Representative asking for something special? Where’s your concern for “fairness” now?
Then surely he would be all for an impeachment inquiry, the purpose of which would be to discover the “facts” and establish whether there was sufficient evidence that the president should be impeached.
I think it’s unfair if, as is alleged, the Republicans aren’t allowed to issue subpoenas, call witnesses, ask questions, or generally participate in the inquiry at all, simply because the Democrats have the majority in the House. I think that violates House rules and precedent.
Whether the subpoenas were legally issued with the authority of the House of Representatives is in dispute.
~Max
I believe the answer has been given more than once already.
I do, to an extent, depending on what you mean by “to go after the Bidens”. I would subpoena the Department of Justice and ask if they had an open investigation on the Bidens before the phone call. If not, I would almost certainly impeach the president, absent some compelling reason provided by him to ask a foreign country to open an investigation of a political rival. If they did have an investigation, I would ask for the reasons. If there aren’t valid reasons, I would impeach the president for abusing his power for political gain.
~Max
Would it be o.k. with you if they were forced to agree that all subpoenas, witnesses, questions etc.pertain to the issue at hand-impeachment?
Does it or doesn’t it? I mean, when the GOP controlled the House it openly and deliberately excluded Democrats from all sorts of things including committee procedures and votes they were legally entitled to participate in. If you want to go by “precedent” the Democrats are already bending over backwards to be scrupulously fair compared to previous House behavior.
The validity of the grounds for that dispute are also in dispute. Just because there are two sides doesn’t mean they are equally weighted (as Dinsdale’s post above demonstrates).
The time to attempt to vindicate the president is during the Senate trial, should it proceed to that point. This is the evidence gathering stage. This is like when the police talk to witnesses and examine evidence and the prosecutor decides whether to pursue charges. You want to short circuit that step. The prosecutor and the police do not need to ask for the defendant or the defense attorney’s permission to gather evidence and interview material witnesses.
The GOP is trying to prevent the process from getting off of the ground. That is their contribution to “bipartisanship”. You are chasing unicorns here waiting for them to legitimately participate in the process in order to give yourself justification to support their efforts of obstruction.
Ask yourself if Obama did this during Benghazi and refused to let Clinton testify. That is what is happening here. We need to put aside political party favoritism and do what is best for our Country. This is the time. If we can’t do that now, then we truly are sunk.
If you would allow them to hijack the impeachment proceeding under the false pretense of “bipartisanship”, then in my opinion you are wrong.
Republicans want to issue subpoenas as a Party, they can win in 2020. That’s the rulez!