‘Garbage Dressed Up as Legal Argument’: Lawyers, Law Profs ‘Baffled’ by Trial Memo’s Defense of Trum

'Nuff said!

 

Normal problem with dressing up a political act to seem like a judicial one. The entire process from start to finish is politics. The law has very little to do with it.

 

To be fair there IS a dispute about whether an Impeachment does or does not require a law to be violated. I know many like to pretend that its settled law, but it isn't even a law or based on anything directly in the Constitution. We do know that the Constitution states "bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors" but that is all that it states about it. Each one is clearly referencing actual crimes. And your argument (well...not YOURS per se as its really just a talking point that I've heard for decades) about "there was no Federal Statute for Bribery" is sophistry. Of COURSE there was no federal law against Bribery at the time that the Constitution was made. There weren't ANY Federal laws at the time that the Constitution was made because the Constitution is what formed the Federal Government to begin with. Kinda hard to have a Federal crime of Bribery when there was no Federal Government at the time don't you think? However it IS a law that the very first Congress enacted in 1789. So its not like it wasn't in their minds to make such a law once the Federal Government was formed.

In any case Precedent of past impeachments, including impeachments against judges has always included a crime that is on the books as far as I know. At least I don't know of a single one that didn't. Perhaps someone more knowledgeable in that department would know for sure? But I do know for sure that aside from Trump, every other President that has been or would have been impeached included a crime. In Clintons case it was perjury. In Nixon's case it probably would have been the Watergate Break In. And in Johnsons case it violated the Office of Tenure Act when he fired Stanton. So there is evidence that some actual crime is needed for a President to be impeached.

I know that the general consensus is that Congress can impeach for any reason because they can always make something against the law. And for that reason I tend to agree that yes, a President can be impeached for any reason that Congress so wishes. But I'm not sure that it would actually hold up in a court of law. It might, but it might not also. As far as I know no person can be charged for violating a law that never existed until it was made law. Ex: A person owning a AR-15 that gets banned 10 years later but the person is no longer in possession of said AR15 because he/she got rid of it prior to the law banning AR-15's was enacted. I think even SCOTUS would balk at such a thing and I don't think it would matter if it had complete 100% liberal or conservative bent.

 

Hoosier8 is spot on. There is ZERO evidence of what you claim.

 

* Also, Sen Cornyn(R-TX) (Majority Whip) leaked a confirmation of the investigation in October.

 

Because according to the MSM Dems didn’t do those things. It’s all made up. /derp

 

Yeah and so focused on his 2020 presidential campaign that he didn’t mention those words either.

 

I've heard this before. I've also heard that Dems have "overwhelming evidence" that Trump committed a crime.

Two things on this and what you said.

1: If there was/is "overwhelming evidence" then why are Dems so hellbent on getting new witnesses? If what they have is so "overwhelming" then they shouldn't need any more new witnesses.

2: What words exactly? Remember, its the Presidents job to make sure laws aren't broken and it is perfectly well with in his right to ask for foreign assistance for help in investigating any possible crime. Remember, no one is above the law. Not even possible Presidential Candidates. (at this point in time I have doubts if Biden is actually going to get the nomination...too many gaffes and there are even far left and liberals that are against him. the whole identity politics is hurting Dems big time this election season from my pov)

 

This impeachment scam is all about nullifying the 2016 election and rigging the 2020 election in favor of the candidate selected by the DP bosses.

 

Thank you for taking the time to discuss your point with some depth and detail.

As an initial matter, the reason why the person in the AR-15 example would not be convicted is because of the Constitutional Limits against Ex Post Facto Laws. In law school, I read about a criminal conviction being overturned in Texas where a guy allowed his disabled mother to wallow in really horrific conditions - she ends up dying from bed sores and 2nd/3rd degree burns as the result of sitting in her own urine. He left her up there and even denied his sister access. Just really brutal stuff. Well, Texas did not have a law on the books at the time of his actions regarding an obligation to care for someone like that, even a parent. They arrest him and the Congress passes a new criminal statute and he gets convicted. The Supreme Court of Texas (or perhaps the US Supreme Court, not completely sure) overturns the conviction because of that limitation on Ex Post Facto Laws.

But here's the thing - that does not apply to Trump because he is not being criminally prosecuted for either of the Articles of Impeachment. If he were being criminally prosecuted for Abuse of Power and not Bribery, for example, then he would probably have an argument under the grounds you raised. But he is being impeached and that does not require a criminal conviction.

In terms of whether the Constitution requires a Criminal Statute, even Johnathan Turley concluded that it did not. I am unaware of nearly any legal scholars who would seriously argue that Impeachment requires a Criminal conviction - Dershowitz being the most prominent as far as I can tell and that might be a slight misreading of his argument. The argument that some have made is that Congress should not impeach for actions not directly related to a criminal conduct.

 

Cornyn was unwilling and unable to provide any support for that assertion.

 

The critical difference there being that one would help incriminate him and the other would help exonerate him.

When you neglect to the say the former, it is more likely that you are just trying to cover up for yourself. When you neglect to say the later, it is more likely that you are just trying to cover up for yourself.

 

Being far left I understand why you'd question anything a would say; however, Cornyn is and can be taken at his word.

 

As an initial matter, Biden is still the frontrunner and Trump's own internal polling at the time that he pressed Ukraine for assistance demonstrated that Trump would lose by the largest margin to Biden.

As to your questions:

1) The evidence necessary to impeach and prove Trump guilty of the alleged conduct is currently overwhelming. That does not mean that additional facts - either negative or positive - should be excluded.

2) I'm not sure what you mean by "what words exactly?" Are you asking for the direct quote from Trump that is incriminating? The fact that Trump has an obligation to uphold the law also applies to his dispersal of Congressional mandated funds. That is why the GAO recently ruled that Trump violated the law when he withheld the funds without informing Congress of the pause and without ever providing a policy justification for the delay. In terms of investigating Biden for alleged corruption - and let's be clear, Trump had zero evidence - then he is still obligated to take that information to a domestic investigative agency and letting them handle the investigation. If, and only if, that agency had made a request for cooperation from Ukraine AND Ukraine had refused would I accept Trump directly getting involved by threatening to withhold aid or the meeting. Anything short of that presents a MASSIVE and OBVIOUS conflict of interest, at a minimum.

 

Sure thing lady.

 

That last part, probably convicts a lot of innocent people, it's what Democrats have been doing since 2016.

The Congress can impeach for anything whatsoever, like just being a "liberal" if they want. If Congress could pack the court, they might impeach justices too. I think that is what Dershowitz is afraid of. Lowering the bar because it is like pounding the table.

 

See post #185.

 

I think it would be a wild fantasy to think the Supreme Court would even get involved and throw out an impeachment, so for me the argument that the articles are unconstitutional just goes no where with me. I don't know enough law to know if any court tried to throw out an impeachment at a state level, have they?
Impeachment seems to be totally up to the legislature, bias and political as it may be.

Obviously I don't want Trump kicked out.

 

One does not need to exert executive privilege when the Schiff Show doesn't put in a subpoena.

 

The leftist proclivity for saying things like "that power is absolute" is the reason we have 3 separate branches of government.

 

Oh noes.

 

You can admit that Trump has not asserted executive privilege.

 

Judges are next.

 

Why would you need executive privilege when the other branch doesn't subpoena you?

You can just say "no" and laugh.

 

Doesn't need to be an explicit subpoena. Could be a FOIP or any other request for documents/info from the Govt.

Also, interesting philosophical point: for the party of such staunch constitutionalists, It's interesting to see you and they cling to a component of the US Political System like Executive Privilge even though it doesn't appear in the constitution at all. I understand the reasoning behind it, and the legal weight given to it by the SCOTUS, which I believe is actually necessary (though I also believe that it can't be used as a blanket, or even the threat of it be used to avoid answering questions. It should be used like the 5th, where you are asked a question and then the POTUS says 'no, EP') for the allowance of communication between the POTUS and his staff.