Impeaching Donald Trump

[Frans Waterlander]

And it was about the Mueller investigation, not impeachment.

P.S. Trump was not even the President during the investigated collusion/no collusion situation, so for that he could not even be impeached.

Oh, for Pete's sake, Bart, get real!

[Peter McLennan]

  However,  all we're doing is kicking the can and day of reckoning down the road.  The next recession is going to be  a beaut.

In other words, stealing trillions of dollars from your kids and grandkids.  Who cares about them?  WE'RE doing great!

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

Has that ever been tested?

How could one abuse Presidential powers when not in function as President?

[Alan Klein]

In other words, stealing trillions of dollars from your kids and grandkids.  Who cares about them?  WE'RE doing great!

WE'RE? Aren't you Canadian?

[Alan Klein]

How could one abuse Presidential powers when not in function as President?

Can the be an impeachment after their term if they violated them while they were president?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Can the be an impeachment after their term if they violated them while they were president?

They can be charged criminally. Which is not impeachment. Just an ordinary court case.

[Bart_van_der_Wolf]

They can be charged criminally. Which is not impeachment. Just an ordinary court case.

Yes, that's my take on it as well. Same goes for the pre-presidential period.

One can only impeach a president while they're a president.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/impeachment

the act of making a formal statement that a public official might be guilty of a serious offence in connection with his or her job, especially in the US

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impeachment

to charge with a crime or misdemeanor
specifically : to charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office

[Alan Goldhammer]

President Trump may have violated the Whistleblower Protection Act by retweeting the alleged name of the CIA staffer who began the whole Impeachment mess by voicing concern over the Ukraine telephone call.  In the days of the Wild West we had gunslingers with itchy trigger fingers; today we have a President with an itchy Twitter finger.  Not sure which is/was better.

[JoeKitchen]

President Trump may have violated the Whistleblower Protection Act by retweeting the alleged name of the CIA staffer who began the whole Impeachment mess by voicing concern over the Ukraine telephone call.  In the days of the Wild West we had gunslingers with itchy trigger fingers; today we have a President with an itchy Twitter finger.  Not sure which is/was better.

Nope. 

Actually the Whistleblower Protection Act only prohibits the Inspector General from revealing his/her name, but that is pretty much the extent.  Anyone else can reveal the name without violating the law.  Rand Paul made a point of this early on in the investigation.  Below is a more thorough article on the meaning of the law from a lawyer. 


Explainer: Is it illegal for Trump or Congress to name the impeachment whistleblower?

"There is only one provision in the ICWPA that deals specifically with whistleblower anonymity, said Kel McClanahan, a national security lawyer in Washington.

That provision says the inspector general should not disclose the whistleblower’s identity without their consent, unless the watchdog determines that “such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.”

Once the complaint is out of the inspector general’s hands the law does little to guarantee the whistleblower anonymity, said McClanahan, the executive director of National Security Counselors, a public interest law firm."

[Alan Klein]

President Trump may have violated the Whistleblower Protection Act by retweeting the alleged name of the CIA staffer who began the whole Impeachment mess by voicing concern over the Ukraine telephone call.  In the days of the Wild West we had gunslingers with itchy trigger fingers; today we have a President with an itchy Twitter finger.  Not sure which is/was better.

The Impeachment process would in any case override any laws protecting the whistleblower if the accused requires the whistleblower to testify in his defence as a witness.  The requirements of the Constitution would trump specific laws. 

[Alan Klein]

Biden's Democrat competitors start poking him.  No wonder Pelosi isn't sending the articles of impeachment over to the Senate. 

Warren: 'If there's a lawful order for a subpoena, I assume' Biden would comply
https://thehill.com/homenews/campaign/476145-warren-if-theres-a-lawful-order-for-a-subpoena-i-assume-biden-would-comply

[LesPalenik]

In the Christmas spirit, Trump tweeted the name of the presumed whistle-blower in the Ukraine scandal, which is a federal offense.
The Atlantic has just published David Frum's article analyzing the latest Trump's actions.

Amid a two-day binge of post-Christmas rage-tweeting, President Donald Trump retweeted the name of the CIA employee widely presumed to be the whistle-blower in the Ukraine scandal. On Thursday night, December 26, Trump retweeted his campaign account, which had tweeted a link to a Washington Examiner article that printed the name in the headline. Then, in the early hours of Friday morning, December 27, Trump retweeted a supporter who named the presumed whistle-blower in the text of the tweet.

Trump’s post-Christmas mania confirms House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s prediction that Trump would impeach himself.

Donald Trump will not be bound by any rule, even after he has been caught. He is unrepentant and determined to break the rules again—in part by punishing those who try to enforce them. He is a president with the mind of a gangster, and as long as he is in office, he will head a gangster White House.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/donald-trumps-gangster-white-house/604216/

[Frans Waterlander]

Yes, that's my take on it as well. Same goes for the pre-presidential period.

One can only impeach a president while they're a president.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/impeachment
https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/impeachment

As a Dutchman you are quoting a British dictionary with regards to an American matter. That's rich!

[JoeKitchen]

In the Christmas spirit, Trump tweeted the name of the presumed whistle-blower in the Ukraine scandal, which is a federal offense.
The Atlantic has just published David Frum's article analyzing the latest Trump's actions.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/donald-trumps-gangster-white-house/604216/

Please note my response to Alan above along with this quote from a lawyer working in DC specializing in this field:

"There is only one provision in the ICWPA that deals specifically with whistleblower anonymity, said Kel McClanahan, a national security lawyer in Washington.

That provision says the inspector general should not disclose the whistleblower’s identity without their consent, unless the watchdog determines that “such disclosure is unavoidable during the course of the investigation.”

Once the complaint is out of the inspector general’s hands the law does little to guarantee the whistleblower anonymity, said McClanahan, the executive director of National Security Counselors, a public interest law firm."

The fact is, it is only a federal offense for the IG to announce the name.  However, by law, anyone else, including the President, can say this person's name all he wants without threat of being prosecuted.  Now whether or not Trump should do this is another matter, but the fact is it is not illegal for him to do so. 

You Dems really are clutching at straws to try and get Trump out at this point.  It would be comical if it were not so sad. 

[Alan Klein]

In the Christmas spirit, Trump tweeted the name of the presumed whistle-blower in the Ukraine scandal, which is a federal offense.
The Atlantic has just published David Frum's article analyzing the latest Trump's actions.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/donald-trumps-gangster-white-house/604216/

David Frum, who wrote the article, is a unrepentant neo-con who's never seen a war America should avoid.  For these reasons, he's been opposed to Trump since before he ran for president.  The President has a right to defend himself against attacks by anyone including a whistleblower.  The accused in America are allowed to face their accused.  The whistleblower can't hide behind secrecy laws when their accusations can cause a president to be impeached or for anyone to have to face criminal charges.   The purpose of the whistleblower law is to prevent the whistleblower's job from being terminated or facing discrimination by the government organization they work for.  It was not set up to prevent accused people from defending themselves nor to block their testimony in a civil or criminal trial or impeachment.

[Chris Kern]

In the Christmas spirit, Trump tweeted the name of the presumed whistle-blower in the Ukraine scandal, which is a federal offense.

Probably not.  There is a statute that makes it a crime for government officials or other individuals with access to national secrets ("classified information") to reveal the identity of a covert intelligence officer or operator.  However, the whistleblower reportedly is an intelligence analyst, and while there is a convention within the government that the names of intelligence analysts should not gratuitously be made public, they are not considered to be operating under cover and I'm not aware of any law or regulation that attempts to restrict the publication of their names.

The statutory Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protections and an associated presidential directive prohibit retaliation against intelligence agency employees who use specified procedures to report violations of law or regulations, mismanagement, waste of funds, abuse of authority, or dangers to public health or safety.  However, they define retaliation in terms of prohibited adverse personnel actions, and do not include a general restriction on revealing a whistleblower's identity.

Congress could consider revealing the identity of an employee of an intelligence agency with a retaliatory intent or to induce others to harm that employee as grounds for an article of impeachment, but I think it is a stretch to argue that Trump's tweet constitutes a statutory or regulatory violation.

[RSL]

The real question: Can this thread get any sillier? Stand by for the next episode of "The Impeaching Trump Comedy." Listen for the laugh track in the background.

[Robert Roaldi]

Probably not.  There is a statute that makes it a crime for government officials or other individuals with access to national secrets ("classified information") to reveal the identity of a covert intelligence officer or operator.  However, the whistleblower reportedly is an intelligence analyst, and while there is a convention within the government that the names of intelligence analysts should not gratuitously be made public, they are not considered to be operating under cover and I'm not aware of any law or regulation that attempts to restrict the publication of their names.

The statutory Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protections and an associated presidential directive prohibit retaliation against intelligence agency employees who use specified procedures to report violations of law or regulations, mismanagement, waste of funds, abuse of authority, or dangers to public health or safety.  However, they define retaliation in terms of prohibited adverse personnel actions, and do not include a general restriction on revealing a whistleblower's identity.

Congress could consider revealing the identity of an employee of an intelligence agency with a retaliatory intent or to induce others to harm that employee as grounds for an article of impeachment, but I think it is a stretch to argue that Trump's tweet constitutes a statutory or regulatory violation.

I lose myself in the legal ins/outs of outing a whistleblower. Bottom line though, isn't it kind of a lousy thing to do regardless of whether it's actually technically legal or not? And I don't think it was the first time that the Pres has mentioned names in public. If I were in the employ of the US civil service, working on behalf of the country would seem a lot less noble to me under this administration.

Just curious to hear what the Trumpeteers out there have to say. Do you REALLY think that Trump is more important than the country? Isn't that kind of very shortsighted? I mean, in the end he's just another politician who will be gone in a while. The country and the citizens will remain. The politicians are just the guys that citizens hire for a while to do a job. I find this level of hero worship a bit silly, frankly.

[LesPalenik]

According to the previously quoted Atlantic article, a president is forbidden to name the whistleblower's names. Below is an excerpt of another article on the same subject by CNN.

Of all the posts in Trump's Friday night tweetstorm, his whistleblower-related post was the most noteworthy because nearly every public official involved in the impeachment inquiry agreed that the identity of the original complainant should be protected.
Trump has shared more than 100 posts about the whistleblower since September, almost entirely critical, but until this week he had refrained from sharing any content directly pointing to a person's name.
Some far-right media outlets and personalities have published stories claiming to know the name of the whistleblower, but his or her identity is not known and has not been reported by mainstream outlets -- including CNN.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/28/politics/trump-ukraine-whistleblower-twitter/index.html

[JoeKitchen]

The real question: Can this thread get any sillier? Stand by for the next episode of "The Impeaching Trump Comedy." Listen for the laugh track in the background.

I'm pretty certain at some point in time it will come out that Trump farted in the oval office, and the Dems and the media will then be using this as an excuse for impeachment.