The Trump Impeachment Inquiry

[asahi]

@UltraVires

But is that enough to remove a president from office?

It won’t be, but it should be, yes. The justification is there, if that’s what you’re asking.

@UltraVires

I’m having trouble with the inference after inference after inference to arrive at the conclusion that those on the left seem to see as obvious.

Interesting how different witnesses report the same information. I believe that’s called corroboration, is it not? Interesting how a recently released email essentially corroborates what the president denies. Shit, UV, we don’t even need inferences when Rudy G and the president himself have already admitted to withholding money in exchange for investigating corruption - not even corruption generally but about one specific subject: his possible political opponent in an upcoming election. I mean, no - just, no. Don’t even -

@UltraVires

And I further believe that the reason that you all believe it is so obvious stems from your previous dislike of Trump

Yes, I dislike people who invite foreign powers to undermine our elections, who obstruct justice, and who operate as though they are above the law.

@UltraVires

I just don’t see the evidence in that call nor do I think a third party’s interpretation of the call is controlling or even relevant.

Don’t see? Don’t want to see?

[EasyPhil]

@Aspenglow

Start here. (Wikipedia) The facts around this are also available in the Mueller Report and many other sources using your Google skills.

What investigation began in April 2016?

[Aspenglow]

@EasyPhil

What investigation began in April 2016?

The investigation into Russian interference with the 2016 election and their collusion with the Trump campaign that became the subject of the Mueller Report. Do not assert that the Mueller Report did not find collusion. That’s a lie. There are many, many instances of collusion shown in the report between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Over 100, as anyone who has actually read the report is aware.

What Mueller found was there was not a legal conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians. Different thing. Collusion and conspiracy are not interchangeable terms.

[John_Stamos_Left_Ear]

@cmosdes

I thought the post was more wit than a debatable topic. The smiley face and “checkmate, mate” made it seem like you were being more tongue in cheek than serious. Sorry for not addressing it.

Are you saying you want to discuss the merits of impeaching someone who has taken an oath of office and then tells even a single lie?

There’s precedent for that with Bill Clinton lying about his blow job.

Are you saying you want to claim that Trump has told "a single lie? Because we’re not talking a hypothetical, we’re talking an actual person and an actual impeachment.

And speaking of that, if it is your contention that if a “single lie” is not impeachable (which your incredulity seems to suggest), are all lies created equal? Because it was decided that lying over a blow job was impeachable, had Clinton lied over something else - something possibly dealing with national security or congressional oversight - would that “single lie” be just as bad as about a blow job?

I anxiously await your response unless you’ve decided to let everyone else win, in which case I want you to congratulate me on my win.

[Moriarty]

@EasyPhil

Executive Privilege

I see that your legal acumen derives from Wikipedia.

In the real world, when the Supreme Court considered the concept of Executive Privilege, they ruled against the President in holding that he had to comply with the subpoena.

@US v. Nixon

…However, neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances. The President’s need for complete candor and objectivity from advisers calls for great deference from the courts. However, when the privilege depends solely on the broad, undifferentiated claim of public interest in the confidentiality of such conversations, a confrontation with other values arises. Absent a claim of need to protect military, diplomatic, or sensitive national security secrets, we find it difficult to accept the argument that even the very important interest in confidentiality of Presidential communications is significantly diminished by production of such material for in camera inspection with all the protection that a district court will be obliged to provide…
No case of the Court, however, has extended this high degree of deference to a President’s generalized interest in confidentiality. Nowhere in the Constitution, as we have noted earlier, is there any explicit reference to a privilege of confidentiality…
We conclude that when the ground for asserting privilege as to subpoenaed materials sought for use in a criminal trial is based only on the generalized interest in confidentiality, it cannot prevail over the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of criminal justice. The generalized assertion of privilege must yield to the demonstrated, specific need for evidence in a pending criminal trial.

ETA: By releasing his ‘perfect transcript’, Trump has utterly undermined any claim that he is entitled to executive privilege to protect diplomatic ‘secrets’.

[drad_dog]

@cmosdes

Nov 2017 is at least 10 months after taking office. That isn’t day 1. The question is if he should have been impeached on day 1. Don’t move the goal posts.

We can go down the myriad of other paths you brought up, such as whether lying about whether he would release his taxes or not, but the original question was if Trump should have been impeached on day 1.

I used that date just to say that it is all relative. He should have been investigated on day 1. Impeachment doesn’t happen until investigation is closing. If the only remedy for an unfit potus is impeachment then as soon as you know he’s unqualified, your investigation should begin, with the possibility of impeachment. That was on day 1 for all thinking americans.

[EasyPhil]

@drad_dog

I used that date just to say that it is all relative. He should have been investigated on day 1. Impeachment doesn’t happen until investigation is closing. If the only remedy for an unfit potus is impeachment then as soon as you know he’s unqualified, your investigation should begin, with the possibility of impeachment. That was on day 1 for all thinking americans.

So, your contention is that over 60 million Americans are not thinking?

[EasyPhil]

@Moriarty

I see that your legal acumen derives from Wikipedia.

In the real world, when the Supreme Court considered the concept of Executive Privilege, they ruled against the President in holding that he had to comply with the subpoena.

ETA: By releasing his ‘perfect transcript’, Trump has utterly undermined any claim that he is entitled to executive privilege to protect diplomatic ‘secrets’.

Isn’t it the role of the Supreme Court to resolve this?

[Sage_Rat]

@EasyPhil

I don’t think Trump is pushing people to waste time, they’re doing that all on their own. Trump is exercising his rights and I’m sure we all agree there isn’t anything wrong with that.

The answer to that is more complex than “No.” so apologies for the length.

Let’s say, for example, that the President is aware that a terrorist has snuck into the country, with a plan to kill…

Jack Bauer: Millions of People!

So he sends some soldiers to go hunt the terrorist down and shoot him without mercy.

Fair enough.

Except that he’s just ordered a random person to be murdered on American soil. Is that Constitutional? If the President can blithely murder anyone - or even just foreigners - on his own say so then, I mean, why not just send some soldiers to kill various wealthy tourists, steal everything they have, and send it to ye olde retirement account?

Thinking of the President (and, by that, I mean the role not “Donald Trump”) as though he’s a regular person with the same rights and rules is wrong. A regular person has the right to sue anyone they want to, for any reason. But a regular person also has the right to receive gifts from Prince Charles whole the President is expected to give them away or refuse them (and traditionally has) because the Constitution bans him from accepting anything from a foreign nation that anyone could perceive as influencing his decisions. Whereas, the President can order Prince Charles to be assassinated and that is sort of “okay” while a regular person attempting the same is just a nutball murderer.

The idea of the role is that it exists for the good of the people. So, in the example of the President having a terrorist killed, that’s completely happy and wunderbar because, clearly, he is acting in his role to serve the people of the country and see to it that they are safe. So long as that is true, to some extent, all is fair. If the President is not able to execute his agenda because Congress is going against him, it’s perfectly reasonable for him to mire them in legal hell or do whatever all else (so long as it’s fully contained within the checks and balances of the Constitution - going outside of that and assassinating Congressmen, or whatever, is not acceptable).

The instant that the President tries to do anything outside of serving the good of the people or, like emoluments, even just do something that looks like it opens the door to serving some interest other than exactly the citizens of the United States of America (which does not include the President nor its officers) and all that dries up. He cannot veto a law because it would negatively impact his business; he cannot ask his soldiers to build him a retirement house on his private land; nor anything. He can’t mire Congress in legal hell, if it’s to protect his personal interest rather than the National interest.

The term “Executive” comes from the idea that the President’s core duty is to see to it that the law is executed.

If he is aware that the legal system can be readily abused to allow people to escape the law, his Oath of Office would require that he work to shut that loophole down. While it’s open, as said, he can utilize it as a mechanism of checks and balances so be it in the national interest. But for him to just leave it open, knowing that it’s there, and be happy that it is - as far as the founders be concerned - would render him unfit for office.

… To some extent. This is an idealized view but, then again, they had their ideal man and they wrote the role for him. Still, I’m sure that they recognized that all people are imperfect and that there would be some duds to hit the role. I don’t think they expected the President to do perfectly live up to the role as that but, I would say, Trump is well past the “dud” mark in terms of Constitutionality.

Julius Caesar was a brilliant and capable leader. The Founders would have voted in favor of the assassins who killed him since the system is, in the long run, more important than the man. We didn’t become the supreme power on Earth through an unbroken chain of genius Executives, nor did the Roman Empire. A good system works better than a good leader.

[Moriarty]

@EasyPhil

Isn’t it the role of the Supreme Court to resolve this?

No, not necessarily. The constitution doesn’t give the Supreme Court original jurisdiction over congressional subpoenas, so there’s no reason it has to be that court which resolves the issue.

Moreover, subpoenas that are duly issued are presumed authentic and enforceable, so it’s on the person trying to avoid the obligation to go to court to seek relief, not the entity trying to enforce it, meaning congress doesn’t need the supreme court to make a valid request.

[cmosdes]

@John_Stamos_Left_Ear

There’s precedent for that with Bill Clinton lying about his blow job.

Are you saying you want to claim that Trump has told "a single lie? Because we’re not talking a hypothetical, we’re talking an actual person and an actual impeachment.

And speaking of that, if it is your contention that if a “single lie” is not impeachable (which your incredulity seems to suggest), are all lies created equal? Because it was decided that lying over a blow job was impeachable, had Clinton lied over something else - something possibly dealing with national security or congressional oversight - would that “single lie” be just as bad as about a blow job?

I anxiously await your response unless you’ve decided to let everyone else win, in which case I want you to congratulate me on my win.

No, not a win situation here. Do you really think I’m dumb enough to not know the difference between the circumstances Bill Clinton lied under and those Trump lies over? Because it seem pointless for you to bring that up if you know I’m just going to point out Trump hasn’t lied under oath while Bill Clinton did. Bill Clinton perjured himself. Has Trump?

Of course I’m not contending all lies are equal. Where did you get that from? There was a contention made that Trump should be impeached because he lied. Go back and track through this progression, okay? I said that was dumb. Are you now contending Trump SHOULD have been impeached on day 1 because of LIES from on or before day 1?

Someone else chimed in and said that lying after having taken an oath of office was as bad as perjury (lying while under testimony). That is when I was asking them if a single lie while in office was worthy of impeachment. Because if they are going to contend that taking an oath of office obligates someone to tell the truth, that must mean they are obligating the office holder to NEVER lying. It really isn’t that complicated. The argument wasn’t mine, it was someone else’s. I was pointing out the stupidity of that argument by asking about a single lie.

Here, I’ll make this even simpler for you.
It isn’t the number of lies that matter. It matters the circumstances and subject of the lie. Trump lies constantly. He has from day 1 and way before. But that doesn’t make the lies impeachable. If he lies under oath, that is different. If he lies about how his office is conducting affairs of state to congress, that is impeachable. If he lies to congress when asked for information while they are investigating something or other, impeach him. If he lies about the size of the crowd at his inauguration? He is an egotistical blowhard, but it isn’t impeachable.

Does that help?

[cmosdes]

@drad_dog

I used that date just to say that it is all relative. He should have been investigated on day 1. Impeachment doesn’t happen until investigation is closing. If the only remedy for an unfit potus is impeachment then as soon as you know he’s unqualified, your investigation should begin, with the possibility of impeachment. That was on day 1 for all thinking americans.

What high crime had Trump committed on day 1 that would have warranted an impeachment inquiry?

Bear in mind, being unqualified is not a stipulation for impeachment. Being an asshole, jerk, blowhard, ego maniacal dimwit isn’t, either. We’ve had many worthless presidents who weren’t impeached and didn’t need to be.

[elucidator]

Did everyone else see the pictures of the wind farms daily production of shredded eagle?

[MulderMuffin]

@EasyPhil

Executive Privilege

Executive privilege is the right of the president of the United States and other members of the executive branch to maintain confidential communications **under certain circumstances **within the executive branch and to resist **some **subpoenas and other oversight by the legislative and judicial branches of government in pursuit of particular information or personnel relating to those confidential communications. The right comes into effect **when revealing information would impair governmental functions ** Neither executive privilege nor the oversight power of Congress is explicitly mentioned in the United States Constitution.[1] However, the Supreme Court of the United States has ruled that executive privilege and congressional oversight each are a consequence of the doctrine of the separation of powers, derived from the supremacy of each branch in its own area of Constitutional activity.[2]

This excuses a blanket ban on every document and excludes every government official, regardless of department or level in government bureaucracy, including retired ones, concerning events that are in the past and will not impair any ongoing governmental function? That doesn’t quite track…

[jsc1953]

@MulderMuffin

This excuses a blanket ban on every document and excludes every government official, regardless of department or level in government bureaucracy, including retired ones, concerning events that are in the past and will not impair any ongoing governmental function? That doesn’t quite track…

Plus - correct me if I’m wrong – I don’t think Trump claimed executive privilege as his rationale for ordering complete non-compliance with impeachment-related subpoenas. I think his rationale was: I don’t wanna.

[Fear_Itself]

@EasyPhil

Executive Privilege

Except Trump has never claimed Executive Privilege with respect to the impeachment inquiry. Nor have any in his administration. What they have claimed is Absolute Immunity. Which is not a thing.

[Sherrerd]

@Euphonious_Polemic

I really do wonder what the Republican plan is for the Post-Trump world. Ivanka? Are they going all in on a totalitarian cult of personality like North Korea? Is that their end game?

I would guess that most Congressional Republicans do not wish for an Imperial Family. I think, instead, they all believe they’ll make out like robber barons in the brave new world of a President-for-Life who’s easily manipulated. They will not be expected to bow down as will the commoners; they will be living the high life at the side of the man they flatter but do not respect.

After Donald inevitably goes to feed the worms, the new GOP oligarchs will sit back at their ease and choose the next President-for-Life. It could be Don, Jr, or it could be one from among their own number who has played the oligarch game better than the others. In their minds, it doesn’t matter much, as they are confident they will still be able to control the PFL.
We see a similar optimism in Putin’s Russia: those he’s made insanely wealthy via granting ownership of aluminium mining, electrical utilities, etc., continue to support him, confident that when he is gathered to Chernobog’s bosom, they will continue to prosper under some other Supreme Leader.

[galen_ubal]

@Euphonious_Polemic

I really do wonder what the Republican plan is for the Post-Trump world. Ivanka? Are they going all in on a totalitarian cult of personality like North Korea? Is that their end game?

I don’t think there is an end game plan for Republicans - just short-term gain.
This can be seen in their tax policies, climate policies, social policies…“get while the getting is good” might as well be the Party slogan.

[squeegee]

nm, ninja’d above

[UltraVires]

@Aspenglow

I see the board has your comments well in hand and I see no purpose in retreading what all have said so ably. I will, however, take exception to your assertion about the “ultimate issue.” The ultimate issue is not, “Was the call criminal?” Criminality does not enter into the calculus for impeachment. You, a lawyer, should remember that statutory crimes had not even been created in our government at the time the impeachment language was written into the Constitution – so it’s a little ridiculous to make such an assertion.

Furthermore, the purpose for impeachment is to remove an unfit president, irrespective of whether the conduct he has engaged in is criminal. Again, criminality is not the criterion. Fitness for office is a whole different concept, and one I invite you to learn more about.

Most folks can discern the difference. A president who, say, slips a little something unnoticed into his pocket while visiting a department store is guilty of a crime: Shoplifting. But that’s not a threat to national security, and hence, not an impeachable offense. But a president who extorts a promise from a foreign head of state for an announcement of an investigation into his political rival designed to benefit only himself, the president, in an upcoming election in exchange for Congressionally-approved foreign aid that protects our national security, has committed an impeachable offense. It is an abuse of power, though perhaps not technically criminal. Really, discerning between these two things is not that hard.

If Trump’s hands are clean, then he should release the full transcript of the Zelenskyy call.

If Trump’s hands are clean, he should be willing to comply with lawful subpoenas for witnesses and documents. His conduct is bald, blatant obstruction and cannot be viewed as anything else. I’ve never seen obstruction of Congress on a scale such as this – and neither have you. Stop acting like this is normal.

If Trump’s hands are clean, this “corruption investigation” should have been carried out through regular channels in full view of the public, not covered up at every step. You may be familiar with the concept of consciousness of guilt.

John Bolton can and absolutely should testify not only as a first-hand witness to the call. He should also testify as an expert on national security. I mean, he was only the National Security Adviser to this administration. I think he’s qualified as an expert in this field.

The plain text of the Constitution seems to require criminality. “Treason, bribery or other high crimes or misdemeanors” All of those are crimes.

Further, although the federal executive department has grown into a massive behemoth the President is still constitutionally THE executive branch. Nothing requires that every new President follow the previous one’s general policy. If I buy (yeah right) a controlling interest in Microsoft, nothing says I have to do things the way Bill Gates did. Especially if there was a Microsoft Constitution that puts sole executive power in its CEO. Maybe the last guy left personnel issues to the HR department, but if I see something wrong, there is nothing untoward about me picking up the phone and doing something personally.

Also, Trump, just like every other person in the United States, can refuse to honor a subpoena if he believes it is improper. That’s what the courts are for, to decide on these things. If “absolute immunity” is not a real thing, then the courts can compel him to honor the subpoenas. It’s outrageous for the House to claim that the courts are too slow and therefore Trump should have to submit to their unreviewable demands.

The founding fathers rejected “fitness for office” or more specifically “maladministration” as grounds for impeachment. Madison said that would mean that the President only holds office at the pleasure of the Senate. And it’s it convenient that since his election, those on the left have said that Trump is unfit for office.

If the Dems succeed at this, it will result in an absolute immunity for anyone of the opposite political party of the President. If the President orders an investigation of someone on the other side, he or she will be accused of abusing his or her power.

If Donald Trump, Jr. got a job for which he was unqualified in Ukraine instead of Hunter Biden, your side would demand an investigation. But Trump asking for an investigation of Hunter Biden is an impeachable offense?