Impeachment

Discussion in 'Political Discussions' started by nosborne48, Dec 10, 2019.

Loading...
  1. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator Staff Member

    I'm going to make a small correction here. I think I'm right about this but I'm no lawyer. It's true that Trump has told various people not to testify before Congress. However, he does not really have the authority to order anyone to refuse to honor a legal subpoena. These people may be honoring Trump's "request" that they not testify but there is no executive privilege in these instances. These people may be fearful of losing their jobs if they testify but they will not be in any legal jeopardy if they do. The evidence for this is seen with the various members of the State Dept. who recently testified. The test case involves Don McGahn who may be forced to testify. The next step in this case occurs on January 3rd.

    https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/12/23/house-panel-urges-court-force-mcgahn-testify-impeach-trump/2732263001/
     
  2. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Weeellll...hm. There is such a thing as Executive Privilege. The Congress cannot hound the President on a whim. He has to be let alone enough to do his job and perform his constitutional duties. I suppose a federal judge gets to decide whether a subpoena can be enforced or not. Lucky judge.
     
  3. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator Staff Member

    Of course you're right. There is such a thing as Executive Privilege. But how far does it extend? Does it extend to people who don't even work in the White House? Does it apply to people who were involved with Trump before he was elected President. In my own non-lawyerly opinion the answer to both is no. However, it's clear that my opinion doesn't count. I believe the first test of this will be on Jan. 3rd when McGahn's case gets heard. We'll see.
     
  4. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    But executive privilege must be declared after the request and/or question, which the President has never done, nor have any of his staff made such a claim when testifying. You're not supposed to refuse to testify at all because of an executive privilege claim. You testify, then claim executive privilege question-by-question as it is applicable.

    What the administration has been engaged in is obstruction of Congress. While they have the right to contest subpoenas in court, the president has said more than once that no one gives them anything. That's not the same thing.

    Also, executive privilege is considered waived if the subject of the privilege is already testified to under oath, as McGahn has done. The idea of a president claiming that his ex-employee (as Kizmet notes) suddenly cannot testify about the very area he's already testified about (without claiming executive privilege) is lawless.
     
  5. copper

    copper Member

    At least that's what a strictly partisan vote in the House decided minus a couple of their own! What if the POTUS thinks his lack of "participation" coined as "obstruction of Congress" is due to the partisan efforts (House Dems) desire to commit a Coup d'etat? Is that really obstruction of Congress when the POTUS is protecting the presidency as a duly elected president? I realize the Constitution has an impeachment process but is it to be used in a partisan effort to overthrow a duly elected president? Answer: No!
    https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/10/09/then-now-how-lawmakers-characterize-impeachment-coup-protect-their-own/

    My personal opinion is to let the voters decide in the next election and not take this country for a warp drive spin around a black hole!
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2019
    heirophant likes this.
  6. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    It is not the president's prerogative to refuse lawfully issued subpoenas. The courts are, slowly and repeatedly, telling him that.
    It is not a "coup." It's an impeachment. The process is provided for in the Constitution. The bar for removal was purposely set high to demand consensus. If, in this case, a sufficient number of Republican Senators cannot be moved to vote to acquit, the president will not be removed. This is actually a good thing. It most certainly is not a coup.
    This is what will occur, and no one has ever seriously doubted that. But everything the House has done has been 100% consistent with the Constitution.

    So far, the Republican leadership in the Senate has, with one exception, stayed within its Constitutional requirements as well. This is primarily because, like the House with impeachment proceedings, the Senate is free to set up the trial pretty much any way it wishes. (The one exception is the public statements about not being unbiased--this flies in the face of the oath they will take to be just that at trial. I'm not sure how you reconcile those--the oath and the statements.)

    As for the next election, it might be a good idea to address any attempts to corrupt it now, and not wait for more instances of the same. But it will indeed be that election that decides all of these questions. It will be up to the voters to decide, as they consider their votes, what elements of this process have been fair or unfair.
     
  7. copper

    copper Member

    Thank you for your comments and reassurance that the US Constitution is being followed! I am certainly not a constitutional scholar although I have read it a few times. I do agree that the integrity of the election process needs to be at the forefront of efforts
    to prevent corruption in future elections. People voting more than once, dead people voting, stacks of ballots mysteriously showing up and those who do not have the right to vote must be addressed as well! If we don't have a incorrupt election process as well as a global appearance of one, we are basically screwed as a Nation!
     
    Last edited: Dec 31, 2019
  8. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Sorry, but election fraud is largely a myth. At least as far as people voting who should not. There is a huge case of voter fraud in North Carolina, though. You should go read about that one.
     
  9. copper

    copper Member

    Voter fraud is not a myth! It happens but probably not at a level significant enough to sway an election. https://www.heritage.org/voterfraud
     
  10. copper

    copper Member

    Sounds like you are curious of my political affiliation because you think you can rattle my cage with a GOP Republican voter fraud issue in North Carolina. I am actually a moderate Independent and very impressed with Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii and feel she can work across the isles to solve real problems in our country! This extreme partisanship needs to stop! Too bad the Democratic party is railroading her into oblivion. She would very much attract the independent voters needed to win a presidential election. Just my opinion though.
     
  11. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    You assume far too much.
     
  12. copper

    copper Member

    Hoping 2020 brings everyone perfect vision for a Happy New Year!
     
  13. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator Staff Member

  14. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

  15. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator Staff Member

  16. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Whatever. The results are still foreordained.
     
  17. Kizmet

    Kizmet Moderator Staff Member

    In my mind the Impeachment is not about the Impeachment. It's about the election.
     
  18. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    Trump has never made a claim of executive privilege. Also, the president cannot make a blanket claim and use it to prevent witnesses from testifying before Congress. Instead, the witness would testify and would raise privilege on each particular question where it was relevant. In practice, very little ever gets protected by executive privilege. It’s a thing, but not the wide-ranging thing most people think.
     
  19. Rich Douglas

    Rich Douglas Well-Known Member

    There are several reasons for the Democrats to do this. One is to get things on the record. Two is to fulfill their duties as the Article 1 body in the government. And another certainly is with an eye on the 2020 elections.
     
  20. nosborne48

    nosborne48 Well-Known Member

    Weeellll...hm. The problem with saying what a President can and cannot do is that there's not a really clear enforcement mechanism. No Court is likely to try and hold the President in contempt because no Court is likely to want to issue a bench warrant to arrest him. Who would serve it? The U.S. Marshals? The result would be a constitutional crisis. The power to actually physically FORCE the President to do something lies in the Congress alone and its power of impeachment and removal. If a Congress in unwilling to impeach and remove a President, and all Congresses thus far have proven unwilling, there's not much to be done. This is the downside, if it is a downside, to the separation of powers doctrine.
     

Share This Page