Impeaching Donald Trump

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Every action here is seen as a political act. Not a constitutional one...

Since there are no takers for my previous question ("what exactly is the constitutional issue here?"), I'll offer my opinion:

There is no constitutional issue here, short of providing for the possibility of impeachment and providing a procedural framework for it.

It is, by design, a political act.

The constitution doesn't not define what "high crimes and misdemeanors, etc." are. No need for a crime either. If a president gives someone the evil eye, they can impeach him for that.

So, defining what happen re Ukraine as a bribery is a political act. Claiming it endangered national security is a political act. Everything regarding impeachment is a political act, not judicial, nor constitutional (except for what I mentioned above).

[ah693973]

Alan,

I wish Nixon was still around to learn this, he would be pissed that he got it wrong about having to cooperate.

Congressional hearings are not a Grand Jury.  That's a straw man.  There's a constitutional separation of powers between Congress and the President's Executive Branch.  You know that.  The Congress does not have unlimited subpoena power over members of the Executive Branch any more than the President can subpoena congress.  Whether a person has to testify depends on the constitution and the reason for the subpoena.  Often the Federal Courts have to make that determination.

[Alan Klein]

Andy, Slobodan is a master of the brief sting.  Unlike I who goes on and on spelling things out like everyone doesn't understand and needs to be spoon fed.  He covers important territory and theory in as few words as possible.  You have to fill in the rest.

[ah693973]

Alan,

While I vehemently disagree with your politics, I think I would like you in person.

I agree with your assessments, people are interesting. :-)

Andy, Slobodan is a master of the brief sting.  Unlike I who goes on and on spelling things out like everyone doesn't understand and needs to be spoon fed.  He covers important territory and theory in as few words as possible.  You have to fill in the rest.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Congressional hearings are not a Grand Jury.  That's a straw man.  There's a constitutional separation of powers between Congress and the President's Executive Branch.  You know that.  The Congress does not have unlimited subpoena power over members of the Executive Branch any more than the President can subpoena congress.  Whether a person has to testify depends on the constitution and the reason for the subpoena.  Often the Federal Courts have to make that determination.

Your reading of the Constitution is in error.  Impeachment inquiries just as with the Benghazi hearings that the Republicans conducted are akin to Grand Jury gathering of testimony.  The Courts are already ruling against the President and just an hour ago, the Appeals Court up held the New York request for President Trump's tax returns.  Of course all this stuff will go to the Supreme Court and the President will suffer a number of legal defeats as he is clearly obstructing Congress. 

[Alan Klein]

Since there are no takers for my previous question ("what exactly is the constitutional issue here?"), I'll offer my opinion:

There is no constitutional issue here, short of providing for the possibility of impeachment and providing a procedural framework for it.

It is, by design, a political act.

The constitution doesn't not define what "high crimes and misdemeanors, etc." are. No need for a crime either. If a president gives someone the evil eye, they can impeach him for that.

So, defining what happen re Ukraine as a bribery is a political act. Claiming it endangered national security is a political act. Everything regarding impeachment is a political act, not judicial, nor constitutional (except for what I mentioned above).

I wouldn't go that far.  There are limits in the constitution that refer to actual crimes.  The exact words in the Consitution are as follows:

SECTION 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

There has to be some nexus to an actual crime.  Treason and Bribery are real crimes.  While the House can certainly impeach for political reasons, and interpret high crimes and misdemeanors however they want, Americans won;t stand for it.  After all, a little less than half the country voted for the president.  They know a crime or not and they know a political act or not. 

Americans want to vote their presidents in or out of office during an election.    Otherwise, we'd have impeachments every time Congress was held by the opposite party.  That would be terrible for government and the country.  The bickering is preventing real work from getting done.  The public realizes this.  That's why they won;t stand for political impeachments.

[ah693973]

Alan G,

To me the interesting question is what happens when he starts losing at the SC? I think that it is existential to his presidency and that there is little chance that, rather than see what he can get away with, he will do the right thing.

Your reading of the Constitution is in error.  Impeachment inquiries just as with the Benghazi hearings that the Republicans conducted are akin to Grand Jury gathering of testimony.  The Courts are already ruling against the President and just an hour ago, the Appeals Court up held the New York request for President Trump's tax returns.  Of course all this stuff will go to the Supreme Court and the President will suffer a number of legal defeats as he is clearly obstructing Congress.

[Alan Klein]

Alan,

While I vehemently disagree with your politics, I think I would like you in person.

I agree with your assessments, people are interesting. :-)

Well, thank you.  I think you'd be an interesting person to meet too.  Whatever you do, don;t become bitter from these political threads.  No one ever changes anyone's minds in any case.  But these are better than fighting with your wife.

[John Camp]

Congressional hearings are not a Grand Jury.  That's a straw man.  There's a constitutional separation of powers between Congress and the President's Executive Branch.  You know that.  The Congress does not have unlimited subpoena power over members of the Executive Branch any more than the President can subpoena congress.  Whether a person has to testify depends on the constitution and the reason for the subpoena.  Often the Federal Courts have to make that determination.

Jeez, Alan. The President (the Administration -- the Justice Department) not only can subpoena members of Congress, it does so, and not only does it do that, it can indict them, issue arrest warrants, and convict them of crimes and put them in prison, as a number of Congressmen have learned. In this particular case, apparently no members of Congress have committed or are witnesses to any indictable crimes that we know of, so none have been subpoenaed. But if evidence of a crime should come to light, they could be.

The Congress now is subpoenaing people that it claims are witnesses to high crimes and misdemeanors, which Congress is specifically given authority to do. By the Constitution. And Congress also has the right to define high crimes and misdemeanors, a term deliberately left somewhat vague because the Founding Fathers understood that there are cases of misfeasance or nonfeasance that are not necessarily crimes, but would justify removal from office. Read a little history; it's all right there.

[Alan Klein]

Your reading of the Constitution is in error.  Impeachment inquiries just as with the Benghazi hearings that the Republicans conducted are akin to Grand Jury gathering of testimony.  The Courts are already ruling against the President and just an hour ago, the Appeals Court up held the New York request for President Trump's tax returns.  Of course all this stuff will go to the Supreme Court and the President will suffer a number of legal defeats as he is clearly obstructing Congress. 

You may be right that he will lose in court.  However, you don't even have that right to go to court in a grand Jury or have a defense counsel attending.  So the comparison to Grand Juries is not correct.  The president still has a right to object and defend himself to a much greater degree than in a grand jury.  I'll let our lawyers expand on this if they wish.

[ah693973]

Alan,

I agree with a lot of what you wrote here. If there is not enough basis for impeachment then there will be a voter backlash. Everyone in DC knows this (Clinton impeachment).

I disagree with the crime required part:

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for 'intentional, evil deeds' that 'drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency' — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors

I also strongly disagree with your "vote the president out" recommendation. The problem is that Trump is being investigated for interfering with an election. How do we know if the next election is free and fair if we don't have confidence that our president is not interfering?

I wouldn't go that far.  There are limits in the constitution that refer to actual crimes.  The exact words in the Consitution are as follows:

SECTION 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

There has to be some nexus to an actual crime.  Treason and Bribery are real crimes.  While the House can certainly impeach for political reasons, and interpret high crimes and misdemeanors however they want, Americans won;t stand for it.  After all, a little less than half the country voted for the president.  They know a crime or not and they know a political act or not. 

Americans want to vote their presidents in or out of office during an election.    Otherwise, we'd have impeachments every time Congress was held by the opposite party.  That would be terrible for government and the country.  The bickering is preventing real work from getting done.  The public realizes this.  That's why they won;t stand for political impeachments.

[Alan Klein]

Alan G,

To me the interesting question is what happens when he starts losing at the SC? I think that it is existential to his presidency and that there is little chance that, rather than see what he can get away with, he will do the right thing.

You don't know Trump.  Do you really think he quits?  He's been involved in something like 800-900 civil law cases, most of which he's won or settled.  He's faced down bankruptcies and divorces numerous times and came through them successfully. He breathes on conflict. 

[ah693973]

Alan,

This is only the case in the Senate. The house proceedings are generally akin to a GJ. The houses can make their own rules however and in this impeachment have given Trump rights not available to Nixon or Clinton. Despite his love of playing the victim, Trump has it better than past impeachees.

 

You may be right that he will lose in court.  However, you don't even have that right to go to court in a grand Jury or have a defense counsel attending.  So the comparison to Grand Juries is not correct.  The president still has a right to object and defend himself to a much greater degree than in a grand jury.  I'll let our lawyers expand on this if they wish.

[ah693973]

Alan,

That is exactly what I am saying. We are rolling towards a constitutional crisis at 65 mph and Trump is not letting off the accelerator. He is not going to put the interest of the country first, only himself. If he loses at the SC he will just ignore it. Hope I am wrong.

You don't know Trump.  Do you really think he quits?  He's been involved in something like 800-900 civil law cases, most of which he's won or settled.  He's faced down bankruptcies and divorces numerous times and came through them successfully. He breathes on conflict.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

I wouldn't go that far.  There are limits in the constitution that refer to actual crimes.  The exact words in the Consitution are as follows:

SECTION 4. The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

There has to be some nexus to an actual crime.  Treason and Bribery are real crimes.  While the House can certainly impeach for political reasons, and interpret high crimes and misdemeanors however they want, Americans won;t stand for it...

Alan, whether Americans would stand for it is irrelevant for the claim I made. Their reaction would come after the fact, thus is irrelevant for the fact. While treason and bribery might be real crimes, what constitutes it is open to political interpretation in case of impeachment. While collusion is not a crime (in Russian case), for instance, most Democrats wanted to impeach him for that too.

[Alan Klein]

Alan,

This is only the case in the Senate. The house proceedings are generally akin to a GJ. The houses can make their own rules however and in this impeachment have given Trump rights not available to Nixon or Clinton. Despite his love of playing the victim, Trump has it better than past impeachees.

 

My understanding is that republicans on the committee representing the president can call and subpoena their own witness to defend the president.  If true, that can't be done in a GJ.  In any case, Republican representing the president can cross-examine witness the Democrats call.  That's something that doesn't happen in a GJ.

[Alan Klein]

Alan, whether Americans would stand for it is irrelevant for the claim I made. Their reaction would come after the fact, thus is irrelevant for the fact. While treason and bribery might be real crimes, what constitutes it is open to political interpretation in case of impeachment. While collusion is not a crime (in Russian case), for instance, most Democrats wanted to impeach him for that too.

I don't disagree it all comes down to politics and who has the votes.  My main point is that Americans won;t stand for it if it's only politics. 

[ah693973]

Alan,

Correct. And these are things that were not available to Nixon or Clinton. The house is being very nice to Trump.

My understanding is that republicans on the committee representing the president can call and subpoena their own witness to defend the president.  If true, that can't be done in a GJ.  In any case, Republican representing the president can cross-examine witness the Democrats call.  That's something that doesn't happen in a GJ.

[Alan Klein]

Alan,

That is exactly what I am saying. We are rolling towards a constitutional crisis at 65 mph and Trump is not letting off the accelerator. He is not going to put the interest of the country first, only himself. If he loses at the SC he will just ignore it. Hope I am wrong.

Why is of interest to the country to submit to a political lynching? He represents his voters and I for one don't want him  to quit and roll over to Democrats who are using politics to impeach him looking for three years for something, anything, to get him.   

There's no constitutional crisis.  Everything is going according to the book (the Constitution.) Please explain how there is one?

[Alan Klein]

Alan,

Correct. And these are things that were not available to Nixon or Clinton. The house is being very nice to Trump.

It's not "nice".  It's political. The whole thing is political.  The Democrats have already convicted him.  They cheered in Congress when the vote was taken.  Everything they do is calculated to how the public will perceive it.  It's all a game.