After The Acquittal

[Alan Klein]

Link is missing.

[LesPalenik]

sorry for the omission and thanks for letting me know. I added it now to my previous post.

[Alan Klein]

Usually, I read the articles in the chronological order, as they arrive to my computer. Here is one from earlier today, but there seems to be something wrong with the pictures, since Trump looks there better than Melania.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8036815/Crowds-line-greet-Donald-Melania-Trump-couple-touches-India.html

Well Donald looks better than Melania because she just told him that she changed her mind.  That she really doesn;t want the Taj Mahal.

[Alan Klein]

Modi was even more pleased then Trump although he's not in the picture to see his wide smile.  He thought he'd have to give the Taj Mahal to the president as a payoff for American support.  Meanwhile, Trump's lawyers were the happiest of all.  They could stop whispering admonitions in the president's ear, "Emoluments.  Emoluments"

[William Walker]

On the other hand, the crowds are bigger for cricket.

Rob

Even when England plays...!

[Rob C]

Usually, I read the articles in the chronological order, as they arrive to my computer. Here is one from earlier today, but there seems to be something wrong with the pictures, since Trump looks there better than Melania.



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8036815/Crowds-line-greet-Donald-Melania-Trump-couple-touches-India.html

You see? What did I tell you about that sash/belt thing?

Trying to call up memories of Britain's colonial past as well as Rajasthan motifs doesn't always work for people too far removed.

Some things London does better than Hollywood.

;-)

[Alan Klein]

The NY Times doesn;t even mention his trip on their front page this morning.  The "fake news" press at it again.

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/02/24/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf

Well, the NY times put a nice picture today on the front page.  But left the written story to page 4.
https://static01.nyt.com/images/2020/02/25/nytfrontpage/scan.pdf

[Robert Roaldi]

There is a recent episode of the Freakonomics podcast "How much does the President matter?" https://freakonomics.com/podcast/president-matter-redux/. They first asked the same question ten years ago and are revisiting the subject. It's sort of a snapshot of the current state of the US presidency and its relationships with other branches of government. Trump is mentioned, of course, as are other presidents, but the episode is not primarily about him, a welcome relief.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Another legislative win for our dear Leader:

"Court hands Trump win in sanctuary city fight, says administration can deny grant money"

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/court-hands-trump-win-in-sanctuary-city-grant

Trump is too gentle. I would nuke them.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

https://www.foxnews.com/politics/joe-biden-under-probe-in-ukraine-for-alleged-link-to-top-prosecutors-2016-ouster-report

The Ukrainian probe was launched in response to a court order, after the ousted prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, made an appeal for action in the matter, Shokin’s attorney, Oleksandr Teleshetsky, told The Washington Post.

And for the fair and balanced sake, here is Washington Post too:

https://a.msn.com/r/2/BB10ueCF?m=en-us&referrerID=InAppShare

[Alan Klein]

A US Appellate Court just ruled that in effect one of the two articles of impeachment were invalid.  The Article claimed that Trump was obstructing Congress by ordering his people not to answer the COngressional subpoena and testify before Congress.  Of course, COngress jumped the gun with that article because you normally wait to see what the courts say.  Well, the courts have spoken and ruled the subpoena unenforceable.  Trump did not have to comply with them.  Trump did nothing wrong yet was impeached for it.

Congress Cannot Sue to Enforce Subpoenas Defied by Executive Branch, Appeals Court Rules
An appeals court dismissed a lawsuit brought by the House Judiciary Committee against President Trump’s former White House counsel, Donald F. McGahn II.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/02/28/us/mcgahn-subpoena-trump.html

[Chris Kern]

A US Appellate Court just ruled that in effect one of the two articles of impeachment were invalid.  The Article claimed that Trump was obstructing Congress by ordering his people not to answer the COngressional subpoena and testify before Congress.  Of course, COngress jumped the gun with that article because you normally wait to see what the courts say.  Well, the courts have spoken and ruled the subpoena unenforceable.  Trump did not have to comply with them.  Trump did nothing wrong yet was impeached for it.

This is exactly the opposite of what the appellate court said.  The essence of the court's ruling is that the judiciary is not constitutionally authorized to decide these disputes between the two political branches of the government.  The majority opinion holds that the U.S. Constitution contemplates that these political conflicts will be resolved through political mechanisms, including impeachment―not by "dragging judges into the fray."

The absence of a judicial remedy doesn’t render Congress powerless. Instead, the Constitution gives Congress a series of political tools to bring the Executive Branch to heel. . . . Congress (or one of its chambers) may hold officers in contempt, withhold appropriations, refuse to confirm the President’s nominees, harness public opinion, delay or derail the President’s legislative agenda, or impeach recalcitrant officers. . . . And Congress can wield these political weapons without dragging judges into the fray.

[Committee on the Judiciary of the United States House of Representatives v. Donald F. McGahn, II (citations omitted).]

[Alan Klein]

This is exactly the opposite of what the appellate court said.  The essence of the court's ruling is that the judiciary is not constitutionally authorized to decide these disputes between the two political branches of the government.  The majority opinion holds that the U.S. Constitution contemplates that these political conflicts will be resolved through political mechanisms, including impeachment―not by "dragging judges into the fray."

I disagree.  Congress weaponized the subpoena and impeached a President without waiting for the courts to weigh in whether the president was allowed to ignore their subpoena in the first place.  If the court decided differently that the president should have responded to the subpoena, then the article of impeachment that the president obstructed congress would have been more valid.  But that's not what the court decided. 

The president did not violate any constitutional laws by refusing to respond to subpoenas. In fact the article goes on to worry that because of this decision, future presidents will just ignore congressional subpoenas out of hand with impunity.  Because of this ruling, Congress will have less moral or legal justification to impeach when Presidents ignore their subpoenas, not more.  Presidents will point to this decision and tell Congress their subpoenas have no authority with the executive branch.   When presidents do that, what argument would Congress give for impeachment when president are now not legally bound to respond to Congress?  The Appellate court has taken all the wind out of Congress sails.  Negotiation and threat does not have the same power as having the law and the courts behind you. 

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... what argument would Congress give for impeachment when president are now not legally bound to respond to Congress?...

No argument needed, they can still impeach him. Or arrest anyone who ignores a subpoena.

[Alan Klein]

No argument needed, they can still impeach him. Or arrest anyone who ignores a subpoena.

Sure, that's what they just did.  But in the long run, the people aren't going to stand for Congress impeaching a president every time there's a dispute between co-equal branches of government.  The court just said, work it out; just keep us out of it. From a Congressional point of view, they would be happier if the court agree the president's men had to respond to the subpoena.  Then if the president stopped them, Congress would have a strong rationale for impeachment.  Now it's, meh!

[Alan Klein]

A little on the light side.  Twenty year old article and photo shows Melania's appreciation to FDNY after 9-11.

https://nypost.com/2020/02/28/melania-trump-kisses-firefighter-in-unearthed-new-york-cover/

[faberryman]

I disagree.  Congress weaponized the subpoena and impeached a President without waiting for the courts to weigh in whether the president was allowed to ignore their subpoena in the first place.  If the court decided differently that the president should have responded to the subpoena, then the article of impeachment that the president obstructed congress would have been more valid.  But that's not what the court decided.

I wonder how Trump supporters would have reacted if this court ruling had been with respect to a Republican committee issuing subpoenas to employees of a Hilary Clinton administration because you know what comes around goes around.

[Alan Klein]

I wonder how Trump supporters would have reacted if this court ruling had been with respect to a Republican committee issuing subpoenas to employees of a Hilary Clinton administration because you know what comes around goes around.

You're absolutely right, Frank.  This argument is a constant between all congresses and all presidents, Democrat and Republican.  That's why it isn;t an impeachable "offense" when both sides fight about it.  It's why the appellate court refused to get involved like parents breaking up a fight between their two children 

It's up to the two branches to resolve disputes when each side steps on the toes of the other side.    But Congress using its impeachment power is a bridge too far.  These disputes are not treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors, just political arguments. You don't burn your house down because you're fighting with your spouse. 

[Alan Klein]

Just a comment about the two co-equal branches fighting about stuff. 

This is exactly what the founders of our republican and constitution wanted. That's why they set it up the way they did.   They didn't want too much power in the government.  So they set it up so there would be these kind of disputes, not like what happens in a parliament where the PM and the members in charge are all from the same party.  Having opposite parties in control of the presidency and legislative (congress) is good for freedom and reduces government power.  People who argue that blocks legislation are missing the point.  That's good.  It helps slow down stupid legislation like Obamacare where the people lose their liberty.  The more they argue, the better it is for the country.  Of course, hopefully, in a real crisis, like war, or coronavirus, everyone comes together.  But with this other stuff, let them fight.  It's good for the people.

[faberryman]

I haven't read the text of the opinion yet, so I will not go overboard, but it seems to me that under this ruling Nixon wouldn't have been required to turn over the Watergate tapes. I'm not sure that would have been the best result, but some Republicans may differ. By the way, I am sure that since this was a 2-1 decision before a three judge panel, Congress will file a motion for rehearing before all the judges of the D.C. Circuit, and that the loser will appeal it to the Supreme Court. I don't think we have heard the last of this.