The Impeachment Process Has Officially Begun (1 Viewer)

[Andrus]

By Laura Bassett

After months of internal arguing among Democrats over whether to impeach President Donald Trump, the dam is finally breaking in favor of trying to remove him from office. The Washington Post reported that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would announce a formal impeachment inquiry on Tuesday, following a bombshell report that Trump illegally asked Ukraine’s government to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, one of his political opponents. (He essentially admitted to having done so over the weekend.)

“Now that we have the facts, we’re ready,” Pelosi said Tuesday morning at a forum hosted by The Atlantic. At 5 p.m. the same day, she was back with more. "The actions taken to date by the president have seriously violated the constitution, especially when the president says Article Two says I can do whatever I want," referring to the segment of the Constitution that defines the power of the executive branch of the government. Pelosi's message was that checks and balances of those branches are just as central to the Constitution. And one more thing: "Today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry," she said at a conference broadcast on Twitter by the Huffington Post. ...

Read the Full Story - InStyle

 

[JimEverett]

With respect to "Obstruction of Congress" as an impeachable offense, I'd say it's true - it has to be true.

Congress has certain oversight roles with respect to the Executive Branch. Traditionally, executive privilege has been most appropriately invoked on highly-sensitive national security subject matter (but even then typically shared with a small group of relevant people in Congress) and when the subject matter is deliberative (which means questions about the varying advice given by executive officials during a deliberative process or information about decisions that have not yet been made).

Executive privilege does not operate as a broadly-applicable shield of congressional oversight over the executive branch. And where a president orders legitimate congressional oversight requests to be ignored - and not with a legitimate basis for executive privilege - it can reasonably be described as obstruction of Congress. And the remedy for it is impeachment.

How would/could you defend yourself on an Obstruction of Congress charge? There obviously is no statute for it. There is, as far as I know, little to no case law. Certainly not enough case law to make it anything resembling a common law crime.
To be charged with such a crime (and I think similarly - "abuse of power" without any underlying crime) strikes me as Kafka-esque.

 

[SaintForLife]

How can the Democrats claim Trump is obstructing Congress when they refuse to let the courts decide because it will take too long? Haven't the courts always been used to address issues between Congress and the Executive branch?

The Democrats wanting to not send the articles of impeachment shows how much of a joke this all is. Haven't we been told that it was urgent to remove Trump because he was a danger to the Presidency? Well apparently he's so dangerous that the Democrats will wait on sending the articles of impeachment, approved more surveillance with the Patriot Act Renewal, and gave him 738 billion Military budget.

 

[dtc]

I missed those explanations. I would love to hear why they decided to go with no crimes whatsoever. Was it because they were in a hurry? They just don't care for rules and such? (I can believe that one).

You must have missed the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" as well.

I'll share with you something I just learned which is that a high crime is very specific language from Hamilton I believe, and refers to a sort of action contrary to the interest of the nation and only committable by a person in elected office.. There's no criminal charge required for impeachment as a "high crime or misdemeanor" refers simply to an act outside of the public interest.

 

[JimEverett]

You must have missed the definition of "high crimes and misdemeanors" as well.

I'll share with you something I just learned which is that a high crime is very specific language from Hamilton I believe, and refers to a sort of action contrary to the interest of the nation and only committable by a person in elected office.. There's no criminal charge required for impeachment as a "high crime or misdemeanor" refers simply to an act outside of the public interest.

So that is the reason they gave? Because they can? I mean even supporters of impeachment should be able to see how incredibly weak that is - even more so if you buy into all this criminality that supposedly surrounds Trump.

 

[superchuck500]

How would/could you defend yourself on an Obstruction of Congress charge? There obviously is no statute for it. There is, as far as I know, little to no case law. Certainly not enough case law to make it anything resembling a common law crime.
To be charged with such a crime (and I think similarly - "abuse of power" without any underlying crime) strikes me as Kafka-esque.

It's not a criminal process, you know that - Presidents enjoy liberty from criminal prosecution, but they can be impeached. And the impeachment process is left to Congress to determine.

To suggest that there can be no standards to apply to an obstruction of Congress charge is obtuse to me - Contempt of Congress is indeed a charge that can be enforced in federal court. And in the history of judges conducting inquiry on whether to sanction someone for contempt of Congress, I don't think they have struggled with concepts to apply.

As applied to a president's conduct, I think the inquiry is fairly straight-forward:
- Did the president have a constitutional duty to comply with legitimate requests of Congress in exercising its oversight role?
- Did the president have a privilege or other excuse to fail to comply with the request(s)?
- Finally, was the president's motive to thwart or undermine the constitutional role of Congress with respect to check on the executive (which renders the conduct unconstitutional or anti-constitutional)?

Kakfaesque implies an individual powerless against the bureaucracy that has become structurally distorted and illogical. I don't think you can apply that concept to the singular power wielded by the president of the United States. A power so great that it can only be checked by Congress . . . and so, no, there's not gonna be any direct case law. But I don't think the founders were troubled by that, the Federalist spends quite a bit of time on the role and parameters of impeachment. They didn't find it Kafkaesque (which obviously is a term that post-dates the late 18th Century but to carry the point out, I'll use it).

 

[dtc]

Agree or disagree - Under concepts of Separation of Powers, and Executive Privilege, there can be no such thing as Obstructing Congress with regard to the Chief Executive.

I say TRUE.

What do you say?

I disagree.
I can't even imagine where you came up with such an opinion given the clearly defined role of the House in impeachment and the constitutionally defined role of oversight.

Seems like a partisan reach or bibblebabble.

 

[dtc]

So what is your position - that Trump has committed crimes but no one can prove he committed crimes?

Mueller called him and unindicted co-conspirator. I don't think that means he can't prove it. I think it means policy he followed prevented him from trying or even making the accusation.

 

[Dadsdream]

With respect to "Obstruction of Congress" as an impeachable offense, I'd say it's true - it has to be true.

Congress has certain oversight roles with respect to the Executive Branch. Traditionally, executive privilege has been most appropriately invoked on highly-sensitive national security subject matter (but even then typically shared with a small group of relevant people in Congress) and when the subject matter is deliberative (which means questions about the varying advice given by executive officials during a deliberative process or information about decisions that have not yet been made).

Executive privilege does not operate as a broadly-applicable shield of congressional oversight over the executive branch. And where a president orders legitimate congressional oversight requests to be ignored - and not with a legitimate basis for executive privilege - it can reasonably be described as obstruction of Congress. And the remedy for it is impeachment.

As I see it, at some point it becomes the responsibility of the Judicial Branch to rule whether the Legislative Branch has acted within its bounds or overstepped and overreached.

It'll end up in the Supreme Court, which has historically given the President broad authority in conducting foreign affairs.

 

[JimEverett]

It's not a criminal process, you know that - Presidents enjoy liberty from criminal prosecution, but they can be impeached. And the impeachment process is left to Congress to determine.

To suggest that there can be no standards to apply to an obstruction of Congress charge is obtuse to me - Contempt of Congress is indeed a charge that can be enforced in federal court. And in the history of judges conducting inquiry on whether to sanction someone for contempt of Congress, I don't think they have struggled with concepts to apply.

As applied to a president's conduct, I think the inquiry is fairly straight-forward:
- Did the president have a constitutional duty to comply with legitimate requests of Congress in exercising its oversight role?
- Did the president have a privilege or other excuse to fail to comply with the request(s)?
- Finally, was the president's motive to thwart or undermine the constitutional role of Congress with respect to check on the executive (which renders the conduct unconstitutional or anti-constitutional)?

Kakfaesque implies an individual powerless against the bureaucracy that has become structurally distorted and illogical. I don't think you can apply that concept to the singular power wielded by the president of the United States. A power so great that it can only be checked by Congress . . . and so, no, there's not gonna be any direct case law. But I don't think the founders were troubled by that, the Federalist spends quite a bit of time on the role and parameters of impeachment. They didn't find it Kafkaesque (which obviously is a term that post-dates the late 18th Century but to carry the point out, I'll use it).

Contempt of Congress is a statutory misdemeanor. This impeachment specifically opted for an "obstruction of Congress" charge, not a "Contempt of Congress" charge. The latter, obviously, is not problematic. There is a reason they chose that language.
I understand that Congress can do anything it wants to do when it comes to impeachment. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't hold them accountable to some sort of standards when they do so.

 

[dtc]

So that is the reason they gave? Because they can? I mean even you should be able to see how incredibly weak that is - even more so if you buy into all this criminality that supposedly surrounds Trump.

Even I?

Isn't this an insult?

 

[JimEverett]

Even I?

Isn't this an insult?

It was not meant as one. meant in the sense of "Even a supporter of impeachment"
I will change the post to reflect that.

 

[superchuck500]

Contempt of Congress is a statutory misdemeanor. This impeachment specifically opted for an "obstruction of Congress" charge, not a "Contempt of Congress" charge. The latter, obviously, is not problematic. There is a reason they chose that language.
I understand that Congress can do anything it wants to do when it comes to impeachment. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't hold them accountable to some sort of standards when they do so.

I agree - I’m just saying the standards are already there. They’re not creating these concepts, like artists. These are fairly self-evident concepts that derive from constitutional principles and the rule of American law.

 

[JimEverett]

I agree - I’m just saying the standards are already there. They’re not creating these concepts, like artists. These are fairly self-evident concepts that derive from constitutional principles and the rule of American law.

I just don't see it. Where does "Obstruction of Congress" come from?
I can follow your notion of the oversight role Congress plays - but going down that route still is ethereal and really boundless, and even confusing. Why not go with the more defined and clear "Contempt" charge?

 

[Taurus]

As I see it, at some point it becomes the responsibility of the Judicial Branch to rule whether the Legislative Branch has acted within its bounds or overstepped and overreached.

It'll end up in the Supreme Court, which has historically given the President broad authority in conducting foreign affairs.

Except the Constitution doesn't give the Judiciary any power over impeachment. (Save acting as the judge in a Senate trial)

If nothing else, Trump has successfully shown us several weaknesses in our system that need to be rectified.

 

[Dadsdream]

Except the Constitution doesn't give the Judiciary any power over impeachment. (Save acting as the judge in a Senate trial)

If nothing else, Trump has successfully shown us several weaknesses in our system that need to be rectified.

No, it gives the Judiciary the power to decide whether or not the actions taken by the other two branches is constitutional and that includes actions that Congress takes regarding impeachment.

 

[superchuck500]

I just don't see it. Where does "Obstruction of Congress" come from?
I can follow your notion of the oversight role Congress plays - but going down that route still is ethereal and really boundless, and even confusing. Why not go with the more defined and clear "Contempt" charge?

I think your point is mostly semantic.

 

[SaintForLife]

With respect to "Obstruction of Congress" as an impeachable offense, I'd say it's true - it has to be true.

Congress has certain oversight roles with respect to the Executive Branch. Traditionally, executive privilege has been most appropriately invoked on highly-sensitive national security subject matter (but even then typically shared with a small group of relevant people in Congress) and when the subject matter is deliberative (which means questions about the varying advice given by executive officials during a deliberative process or information about decisions that have not yet been made).

Executive privilege does not operate as a broadly-applicable shield of congressional oversight over the executive branch. And where a president orders legitimate congressional oversight requests to be ignored - and not with a legitimate basis for executive privilege - it can reasonably be described as obstruction of Congress. And the remedy for it is impeachment.

How can that be considered an impeachable offense when the Democrats refuse to let the courts decide on the disputes? Wouldnt it only be applicable if the courts ruled on the disputes and then the Trump administration refused to follow the court orders?

 

[bdb13]

This board needs more @superchuck500 (and @UncleTrvlingJim ). I think we've been stuck in purgatory here since the last time y'all posted much.