If President Trump has violated the law in his dealings with Ukraine including the statutes against abuse of power, the House would be right to vote to impeach him. The House Democrats should vote to conduct an impeachment inquiry, conduct the inquiry with all proper decorum, and do their utmost to show that the president violated the law. That is their strongest course of action and maximizes the likelihood that enough Senate Republicans will join with Democrats to remove Trump from office.
If the president has not violated the law or abused his power, the House Democrats should censure the president and spare the country the pain of a completely partisan “impeachment inquiry” followed by an equally partisan rejection of the impeachment or acquittal by the Senate.
While it is technically correct that the House has the power to impeach without a crime having been committed, the Constitution is pretty clear that the House is empowered to impeach on the grounds of “high crimes and misdemeanors”, a phrase that actually has a meaning in law. We should keep in mind that the assertion that a high crime or misdemeanor is anything the House says it is originated with Gerald Ford, has never been tested, and I don’t particularly want it to be tested now.
If the House Democrats cannot identify a law that has been broken or prove that the president had corrupt intent in his conversation with the president of Ukraine, something required for abuse of power in the absence of an underlying crime, as noted above I think they should vote to censure but I don’t think they should stop there. They should enact into law a proscription of the behaviors in which they do not believe the president should engage.
“If President Trump has violated the law in his dealings with Ukraine including the statutes against abuse of power, the House would be right to vote to impeach him. “
No shit. And if he gave Putin the nuclear codes or murdered Joe Biden should be impeached. I’m thinking Captain Obvious. Any sense that any of this is reality? Which brings me to this:
“The House Democrats should vote to conduct an impeachment inquiry, conduct the inquiry with all proper decorum, and do their utmost to show that the president violated the law.â€
Really. You know, I’d like to buy the world a Coke and have them sing in perfect harmony. Law? The Democrats are interested in law? What is occurring is a grotesque display of raw back alley politics.
“If the House Democrats cannot identify a law that has been broken or prove that the president had corrupt intent in his conversation with the president of Ukraine..â€
Which, said law breaking, would require a mind reader. The evidence is not there. Trial by projection and Kreskin the Magnificent. Super. And further, the two principals have already stated that the conversation was innocuous, and they are really the only two who matter.
This is unlike you. Was there a point to this post, other than virtue signaling?
Signalling to whom? What I’m trying to do is strike a reasonable, prudent position. Like many of my posts this is hortatory. I want things to get better not worse. IMO the way to accomplish that is by doing the right thing in the right way.
We will not accomplish that by playing a countrywide game of Steal the Bacon. Right now it sure looks to me as though both Trump and the House Democrats think they’re winning and the sad thing is they may both be right at the expense of a country more divided than before.
You hate this position because you think it’s obvious that Trump has done nothing wrong and the Democrats are just engaged in dirty politics. Andy hates this position because he thinks it’s obvious that there was a quid pro quo involved. Steve hates this position because he, apparently, thinks it’s obvious that Trump broke the law and Republicans will not do their duty. I’m just trying to encourage people to adopt positions that might actually bring us together rather than drive us apart.
IMO, the audacity of these impeachment hearings are just another staged set-up to what had been non-stop partisan harassment of a sitting president. Starting with impeachment headlines printed on Trump’s Inauguration Day, to 2 1/2 years of vigorous, vicious and suspiciously corrupt Russian investigations, in concert with unprecedented slow walking government nominees and insulting Supreme Court confirmation hearings – one wedded to threats of impeachment – and now we have a partisan impeachment effort underway, despite the immediate release of a transcript dealing with this highly scrutinized Ukrainian phone call. This is followed by more unprecedented impeachment protocols, a release of cherry-picked transcripts to fit the House’s hysterical charges, while running secret hearings in the House Intel rather than the usual Judiciary committee arena. It’s all so tragically orchestrated to do as much damage as possible to Trump, rather than impartially uncover truth in a bipartisan environment.
As for those seeing quid pro quo nuances in that call, while hardly raising eyebrows from Biden’s videotaped obvious quid pro quo threat, withholding Ukraine funding when he was point man to Ukraine – well, I’m simply dumbfounded and can only reason Steve and Andy’s responses as being examples of skewing one’s perspective through highly partisan lens.
Trump’s presidency may be (probably is) the first challenge to the authority of the “deep state” since Andrew Jackson in 1832.
Let it play out. Trump is either crazy, or very suited to what’s coming next. I’ll bet on Trump.
Let’s remember the baseline here. Whatever they decide to go after him on only has to be as bad as lying about sex. We all know the national security implications to lying about consensual sex. Then we have Trump who asked for a favor (investigate Biden) while discussing arms sales. Trump also openly asked China to investigate Biden. Not investigate corruption, but investigate Biden. We have the diplomats confirming that arms sales were being help up until Biden was investigated. We have trump’s personal lawyer conducting policy in Ukraine. We have all the evidence we need, it just needs to be tied up in a nice package.
Doesn’t really matter though. Republicans no longer have any principles, other than catering to Trump.
“to 2 1/2 years”
Again, lets remember the standard set by the GOP. 4 years of Benghazi hearings. By Republican standards this was a short investigation. Then we had the IRS investigation that was kept open for 3 years and the result was….
“On September 8, 2017, the Trump Justice Department declined to reopen the criminal investigation into Lois Lerner, a central figure in the controversy.[1]
In late September 2017, an exhaustive report by the Treasury Department’s inspector general found that from 2004 to 2013, the IRS used both conservative and liberal keywords to choose targets for further scrutiny.[2][3]”
Nada!
Yes, the baseline is lying under oath which is a federal crime as well as a breach of professional ethics for which Bill Clinton was both impeached and disbarred. Neither the statute nor the code of professional ethics makes an exception for lying about sex.
In that case I would have preferred that Clinton be censured as well but I thought that impeachment followed by acquittal in the Senate worked just as well albeit at greater cost to the national psyche.
“Neither the statute nor the code of professional ethics makes an exceptions for lying about sex.”
Nope, but the decision was made to impeach over lying about sex. The lies had no effects on our national security, no harm to domestic policy and no harm to anyone other than Clinton. The GOP looked for an excuse to impeach and found one. In the current case Trump’s actions were concerning enough that a complaint was brought and it was deemed credible by a Trump appointee. Actions that really do have the potential for national security implications. Look, Clinton could have told the investigators he had pancakes for breakfast when he had eggs. It would have been a lie. Do we really impeach over that? Shouldn’t it at least be something that matters?
Steve
People have been sent to prison for less.
Lying under oath is a felony. It is a serious crime regardless of the matter being lied about.
The â€favor†was looking into CrowdStrike, and activities surrounding their involvement in Ukraine and supposedly helping find dirt on Trump. Biden’s name was barely mentioned, and certainly not “8 times,†as was claimed by the CIA operative, turned leaker who is now fading away.
It’s all such a fabricated ruse – impeachment, sanctimonious outrage and such. In the meantime what will the Democrat-run House have to show for their 2-year reign of ludicrous behavior? What significant legislation will they have passed that actually helped the common man? Will they even be able to muster the votes to pass USMCA?
Lying under oath is a felony unless you’re a democrat.
Dave,
I don’t hate your position – in fact I agree with you halfway – specifically on your advice to Democrats conducting the inquiry.
But I do depart with you on the question of legality and that abuses of the office are not only legitimate grounds for impeachment, but that impeachment is the only check available in many cases. In my view, this qualifies.
When the Republicans impeached President Clinton, he had broken the law, but it was still over a blowjob. One can dress it up anyway they want, but it was not a high crime.
Furthermore, it had nothing to do with the original investigation about a real estate deal that long predated his candidacy, much less election.
At the time, I thought it was a good idea, but after hearing James Carville’s blowjob quip, I realized that he was right. I learned my lesson, and I took a ‘wait and see’ position towards President Obama.
Everything negative said about President Obama was said about President Bush, and it is being said about President Trump. Will you all ever figure out how the game works?
Dave
I didn’t mean to offend. In re-reading I guess my comment comes off too sarcastic. But I admit above the clouds commentary without really looking at facts and quality of an arguments logic is frustrating. I’m willing to be educated, but where is the evidence for the core assertion that Trump wanted to sic the authorities on Biden for political gain? It’s a convenient assertion as far as I can see. After that, I don’t hate anything, I just can’t take seriously all the hyper-intellectual and contortionist musings that follow. In fact, rather than hate, they amuse. My profession doesn’t allow me to engage in such tripe. I’d be bankrupt. Better to stick to the real world.
Today we hear Schiff opines that the witnesses don’t really need to be heard from after all. How is one supposed to take this whole clownish situation seriously?
Sorry if I offended.
“..but it was not a high crime.â€
Oh, I don’t know. He might have been. ðŸ˜
“I’m willing to be educated, but where is the evidence for the core assertion that Trump wanted to sic the authorities on Biden for political gain?”
Trump and Guiliani have both admitted to wanting various countries and entities to investigate the Bidens specifically. If not for political gain, then what is the reason that Trump is focusing on them?
Andy
Corruption of US government officials? Didn’t Mr. Mueller and his sycophants make exactly that argument for two and a half years and 40 million dollars?
And if running for office inoculates one from inquiry, every murderer in the US should run for office. Get serious, man. This is politics, not justice.
“Corruption of US government officials?”
It’s the singular, not the plural. And it’s not officials, it’s a potential candidate and his son.
As noted previously, things might be different if this was wound up into a policy of countering corruption generally. But it’s not. It’s an action being run directly out of the WH that is solely aimed at finding corruption in the activities of a single family.
“This is politics, not justice.”
Yes, exactly – Trump’s actions are about politics, not justice.
Suit yourself.