Then we live in different universes, since it seems as clear as it possibly can without psychic abilities to me that his intent was improper.
McConnell is too confident of his ability to manage Trump.
He’s obviously never encountered an addict. You can manage them for a time but minus any desire on the part of the addict to reform (and even then) you’re simply filling time until everything goes off the rails.
Being told that he can’t be impeached for rejecting oversight requests is going to make the addict part of Trump’s brain that wants to live without limits light up, and he’s going to abuse the hell out of it.
I almost hope that if Trump wins the election this year, that the Republicans maintain the Senate, just so they’ll have to lead the Impeachment effort.
Every article I can find says the investigation into Burisma was “dormant” or “slow walked” or “not being pursued”, or similar language. I find plenty of sources saying Shokin didn’t want to investigate Burisma because he was like, best friends with the founder or something. Standard corruption in Ukraine. But officially, there was still an ongoing investigation. The misleading part of what Pam Bondi said (according to you) is that she gave the impression that Shokin was actively pursuing an investigation into Bursima, when he was in fact sitting on the investigation. It is misleading, and not a lie, because she did not explicitly say Shokin was actively pursuing an investigation. That is the obvious implication, but it is not what she actually said (according to you).
We clearly disagree. Worth a dedicated thread I think. I had my last one moved to the wrong forum so I’ll leave it to someone else to make a thread.
~Max
Final conviction/acquittal vote is scheduled for next Wednesday.
At least he won’t be acquitted when he gives his SotU address, or in time to gloat in his super secret Super Bowl ad.
The Senate will vote (to acquit) just in time to allow Trump to gloat in his State of the Union address.
Nice timing.
ETA: didn’t see Happy’s post. But I read there will be time for it to happen.
It’s not legitimate intent that cancels out corrupt intent. Unlike what I’ve heard of the Derschwitz argument, I could not care less what the accused thinks is or is not legitimate use of his own power. He can think whatever he wants to think. He can think helping his re-election is good for national security. If I think the act was actually a legitimate use of power, then that is what overrides corrupt intent.
So I can’t answer your question because you haven’t given me enough information to determine if the act was legitimate or not.
I’m not totally familiar with that episode, but I would think suing for documents is equivalent to enforcing contempt under criminal law is equivalent to seeking criminal charges. So really it would come down to the courts deciding whether the committee had actually followed the contempt law when they decided to hold Holder in contempt.
~Max
We are a self-selected sample here, that might explain the duality you see.
~Max
Well, I disagree that it’s mandatory, is all.
~Max
SOTU is Tuesday. The Senate vote is the following day.
It’s not a fact. I wouldn’t put Rudy Giuliani above lying (to the President or to Ukraine) or even misinterpreting directions or misunderstanding his role and status. The letter may not even be about investigations into Biden/Burisma/DNC/Crowdstrike, that part is not a fact. Perhaps Mr. Trump also had Mr. Giuliani talking about a favorite golf course or something.
As I said before, I would need this to be established beyond a reasonable doubt, not just built on circumstantial evidence.
~Max
It’s not a magic law. it’s cited as evidence that dt was avoiding normal channels. Common sense and past practice in the US demand investigation of this fact. It may not be prosecution. But the potus needs very good excuses for doing it.
Can anyone cite a legal theory having to do wtih dual motives in a crime, both criminal, and ( …whatever it may be,) being legally linked and dependent on each other for the purpose of trial?
Two things:
-
The standard is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt. That standard is used for the potential deprivation of liberty. What we are concerned with here is simply a removal from a job for misconduct.
-
Circumstantial evidence does not mean unreliable evidence. Completely different things. By saying you could not convict on the basis of circumstantial evidence, you could never, ever convict anyone without a direct confession of intent. Until a mind reading machine is created, every single determination of intent has to be based on circumstantial evidence. And it’s done every day, in every courtroom in the US. Maybe not so much in a rigged trial where the jurors specifically vote not to hear actual evidence. But for the rest of the world …
Maybe Max can speak for himself but it seems to me that he is ignoring circumstantial evidence as not relevant or valid enough.
To me CE is useful information and it hasn’t been ambiguous. But if it’s not accepted then the same arguments are going to be running here ad infinitum.
This is not yet established to my satisfaction.
Whether something is typically a special envoy’s job is irrelevant. There are situations where I think it would be appropriate for a special envoy to investigate or push for an investigation of possible criminal acts by a U.S. citizen, and there are situations where I think it would be appropriate for a special envoy to encourage a foreign government to weed out corruption. I would need to be convinced that Rudy Giuliani actually did something that implicates the President in a high crime or misdemeanor.
If he was acting under the color of authority, he would need some semblance of law enforcement power and either a warrant of probable cause or a showing of exigent circumstances. Even without any of that, you aren’t going to get the evidence thrown out of court if the bag was going to be searched anyways, when you go through TSA.
If he claims to have been walking by and happened to notice bricks of weed sticking out, then it’s on you to show Mr. Giuliani acted differently because of his status as special envoy in a way that deprives you of your rights.
If he claims to have been a private citizen, again, you aren’t going to have the evidence thrown out because he opened your bag instead of calling airport police.
When it comes to suing people for violating your Fourth Amendment rights, you may not be aware of it but those lawsuits are already directed against individuals in their personal capacity. If an FBI agent breaks into my home without a warrant, I sue that FBI officer in their personal capacity, because the United States itself is entitled to sovereign immunity. If the “officer” is then disowned by the FBI (this would be pretrial), not only can you beg the DA to prosecute for impersonating an officer, you can also adjust your own civil suit for misrepresentation or, if battling over rules of evidence, declare the evidence fruit of a poisonous tree.
Congress cannot and did not confine the President’s powers in the field of foreign relations, so I don’t see why the President can’t conduct foreign policy outside of the state department, at least not for those reasons.
~Max
Well, I agree with the parts I quoted.
~Max
I disagree with the BRD theory you keep going back to, but wild speculation in opposition to evidence is not the basis for a reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt is not imaginary doubt. There’s nothing in evidence to suggest that he was talking about a golf course, while there is testimony that on many occasions places Rudy at the center of efforts to start an investigation into Burisma.
You have established a high threshold for evidence, but I submit you are applying it incorrectly. You talk about reasonable doubt, but in practice, you seem to be applying a standard of “beyond all doubt.”
No, I disagree. It’s incumbent on the legislative branch to force the executive branch to cooperate, either through their impeachment power or through their legislative power plus judicial interpretation.
I don’t accept this doctrine of each branch having an obligation to expose itself and its inner working to every other branch. That is antithetical to the theory behind executive privilege, and in my belief it is antithetical to effective deliberation of sensitive matters. You are right, I don’t suppose that each branch is entitled to check the other. There are limits on each check.
I think this is just a flaw in the Constitution, and I could support an amendment allowing retroactive impeachments to remove immunity and expose the ex-president/official to liability. I would have to think about how far back you can go, but I could support such an amendment.
In the real world, subpoenas are issued by the court so naturally it makes no sense to say “get a court order and I’ll comply”. I am of the opinion that Congressional subpoenas do not carry the same force as a court’s subpoena. SCOTUS says Congress has an inherent power to enforce it’s own subpoenas, but it chooses not to use that power. Perhaps wisely, since I doubt the inherent power extends beyond the Capitol building. Instead they make contempt of court a criminal act, but by doing so they are effectively trusting the courts to issue court orders which interpret the law as requiring production of documents. Those court orders are then executed and enforced by… the executive branch.
Congress’s other check is the laws themselves. Congress may by law force the President to produce documents as part of their oversight powers. But this only extends to areas where Congress has a legitimate interest in the documents for legislative purposes, and again, the law is interpreted by… the courts. And enforced by the executive branch.
Congress’s final check is impeachment. I will grant that they have the power to impeach and convict an officer that obstructs them contrary to the Constitution, but first you have to convince me that obstruction took place and violated the Constitution.
~Max
The Reagan standard (which everyone was fine with and which has been the standard for the last 37 years):