The Impeachment Puzzle

[Stavros]

The provocative question is this: can the President be impeached on the available evidence?

1) It seems to me that if the Constitution and the law does not prohibit the President from making money from the Office of the Presidency, there is nothing other than moral outrage that can be expressed or done until the Congress and the Supreme Court change the Constitution.

2) Does the Constitution or the Law of the United States define what 'Executive Privilege' is, where its boundaries lie, and was this not fundamental to the behaviour of Richard Nixon following the break-in and cover-up of the burglary at the Watergate Building? If there is a case, it might relate to the 'private' conversations the US President had with the Russian President, and anyone else for that matter (the Australian Prime Minister would be a candidate0 -but are these conversations protected by 'Executive Privilege' even if the US Commander-in-Chief is freely spilling the intelligence beans to other heads of state, or could they be evidence of treason if, for example the life of a US agent was threatened?

3) If it is shown that the President broke the law, so what? The President can break as many laws as he chooses because he cannot be indicted. This may be a convention rather than a statement of fact in law, but with an army of lawyers telling him when and how to zip his fly, I am sure they have told him he can do anything no matter how outrageous, which is what he likes doing anyway. Again, other than moral outrage, what else does the Democrat opposition have?

4) Can the President create a 'Private State Department' that has its own staff to communicate with the Russians, the Saudi Arabians, the Israelis and the Ukraine, using their own servers, limiting their communications to only a few people? On this I am not sure, but if it is not illegal, and there is no law that says it is, what can Congress do about it, and will the key voters in the Senate not assume this is just an attack on the President by Democrats who have no case with substance to present?

As for Mr Barr, is it not time he resigned now that his position is so obviously compromised?

This is a useful link-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...kraine-dilemma

[filghy2]

If you start from the premise that the President is entitled to break the law and abuse the powers of his office for his own benefit then I guess that is right. But if the founding fathers were starting from that premise why would they have bothered to include the impeachment clause in the first place? That clause refers to "high crimes and misdemeanours", by the way, so it isn't just a question of criminality.

[broncofan]

The Constitution is not explicit about the boundaries of the executive privilege. It is implied based on the fact that our branches of government are separate and equal and there is a need to maintain some protection from scrutiny for internal decisions. If Congress tries to subpoena executive branch officials and documents I imagine the President will assert executive privilege. There has to be some basis for protecting information other than the fact that it is damaging, embarrassing, or shows him committing impeachable offenses.

Beyond that, there seems to be no doubt what he's done and is doing daily should be impeachable. He seems to be trying to incite civil war on twitter.

As far as his profiteering from hotels, some attorneys did file for injunctions against that in an attempt to enforce the emoluments clause. It is simply a case of people losing any sense of what kind of law-breaking and abuses of power he will be allowed to get away with. All red lines have been crossed.

[broncofan]

He seems to be trying to incite civil war on twitter.

Some ambiguity here. The civil war would not be on twitter.

[broncofan]

That clause refers to "high crimes and misdemeanours", by the way, so it isn't just a question of criminality.

True. He used the powers of his office to solicit a foreign country to secure re-election. Our entire system of government was designed to prevent this kind of entrenchment of power.

As you say, it doesn't matter whether there's a law on point. What would the founding fathers say? Probably that this is a quintessential case for impeachment.

[Stavros]

I appreciate the responses to my OP, but here is a simple fact. The Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971 makes it illegal for any candidate in an election to solicit or receive the support of a foreign government, yet in July 2016 the Republican candidate was explicit in calling on Russia to help him in his campaign against the American candidate, Hillary Clinton -was he arrested? No. Was his campaign under investigation, yes. In other words, he broke the law and got away with it, even though he was not President at the time.

Set that alongside moral indignation and you have a law that is not applied, and a moral outrage that is cast aside as an irrelevance by a man who has in my estimation insulted and abused more Americans than I recall, either as candidate for the Presidency, or the person holding that office. We can agree that it would have been better for the US had this creature not been allowed to stand let alone claim election, but that also raises the question: is Impeachment the solution?

Would it not be better for the Democrats to reach across the aisle to amend the Constitution and the law so that clear, explicit rules govern the Office of the Presidency, from what Executive Privilege can and cannot mean; to ensure financial probity is in no doubt; and to allow a President to be indicted. For when the convention was reached that protecting the Presidency from frivolous lawsuits was made, it was not assumed the President would wish to let alone openly break the law, it was intended to deter outsiders, rather than the insider bolting the door to scrutiny.

If you can't change the President, change the law.

[broncofan]

I'm with you on the recommendation for an amendment defining executive privilege, with guidance for what it covers as well as guidance for what is impeachable, instead of having Congress try to divine the intent of the constitutional framers.

There was some compromise when Congress passed the special prosecutor statute because both parties realized that it would be good to have executive branch officials who are (somewhat) immune to being fired by the President.

If impeachment is still the sole remedy for a President who breaks the law, political considerations come into play, even with more specific rules. Everyone, even prosecutors and Judges have a political affiliation as well if that changes too.

But I agree that codification of what is impeachable and what is protected executive branch material would be useful.

[filghy2]

Would it not be better for the Democrats to reach across the aisle to amend the Constitution and the law so that clear, explicit rules govern the Office of the Presidency, from what Executive Privilege can and cannot mean; to ensure financial probity is in no doubt; and to allow a President to be indicted.

Why would that have any greater chance of success when the Republicans won't even cooperate on legislation to protect the electoral system from outside interference? I'm afraid the only thing that will change their minds is if more Republican supporters start deserting Trump and they fear he will lead them to electoral disaster.

[Stavros]

I'm afraid the only thing that will change their minds is if more Republican supporters start deserting Trump and they fear he will lead them to electoral disaster.

Evidently not Senator Graham, who it seems will do anything for the man he loves...

Storm clouds are continuing to gather around Donald Trump over the Ukraine scandal, but that hasn’t stopped his faithful confidante, Lindsay Graham, from reportedly urging foreign governments to work with William Barr in investigating the origins of the Mueller inquiry.

Graham is said to have written to the prime ministers of Australia, Italy and the UK to request their “continued cooperation with attorney general Barr as the Department of Justice continues to investigate the origins and extent of foreign influence in the 2016 election”.
More here-
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/...sanders-latest

[broncofan]

While I agree there are ways to convert norms into laws and make constitutional clauses have the sort of detail that statutes have, what we're seeing is excessive partisanship and a failure of Republicans to uphold the rule of law for its own sake.

The Republicans are unwilling to do anything out of fidelity to our system of government. That's a cultural problem. It's also a problem of hyper-partisanship.

I've always thought impeachment should be a Judicial process and not a political one because it is supposed to address wrongdoing and not simply the judgement of our elected officials. Maybe the President should actually face legal jeopardy for crimes while in office as well, though that could become politicized too.