Now you are making an argument for House discretion on whether or when to prepare articles of impeachment , and one with which I am very sympathetic, but it is a separate issue from my point. The framers decided to use the same exact standard historically used by Parliament when the Senate hears the case. I agree that the House should think long and hard about the impact of a trial on the country and the institutions before it asks for a trial because of the disruptive nature on all three branches . Just as a District Attorney sometimes decides that pursuing a specific case either lead to a miscarriage of justice or might lead to poor use of finite resources, or send a bad larger precedent, or invite appeals on weak grounds so the House in its impeachment role, can and ought to see the bigger picture. I guess what one believes about the Senate's 'discretionary' roll to informally raise that bar above the same high crimes or misdemeanors , or ignore the some of the evidence that would force a 'yeah' vote, may depend a bit on how one sees jury nullification in criminal trials. I am not a sympathetic fan, of jury nullificationeither in criminal trial or an impeachment trial. But that is a whole different discussion that belongs in another thread.. The Framers put this process in the hands of politicians and they understood that many of the nuances I am talking about in my pure esoteric head, are going to be tossed aside.
The President has the power to remove top secret clearances, but the motive behind those actions counts for more than the action themselves. Your post ignores that important fact.
Even with Nixon his obstruction of justices charges (which were all on very shaky grounds, IMO) did not include his firing of the independent prosecutor or the attorney general. You cannot charge a president for doing his constitutionally authorized duties. As an aside I think all but one of Clinton's obstruction charges were very thin -- the one being suborning perjury.
What you say is accurate though you still imply a lower bar. However the British interpreted high crimes and (high) misdemeanors, the framers wanted impeachment only for serious and egregious conduct against the public or community by the president. But it still relies on the good faith of congress. IMO, neither Johnson's nor Clinton's impeachment, nor Nixon's articles of impeachment rose to the level of the bar the framers had in mind. And certainly Trump does not come close. There is no criminal action, high bar or low bar, anywhere. Animosity and malice from the opposing political party was explicitly and strongly rejected by the framers. By the way, if the court did intervene, the framers would roll over in their graves with disbelief and disgust. Just like they in no way wanted congress on their own to decide the president's fate, they would in no way condone the judiciary trespassing on congress' prerogative and constitutional authority.
You won't find a person in authority firing any officer of the government (executive branch) anywhere within a million miles of the obstruction statutes.
It's not illegal for him to revoke the clearances, but IF he's doing that as a way to punish only those government workers he has identified as having something to do with the ongoing Russian investigation, then that would be tampering with witnesses and obstruction of an investigation, which are crimes.
Trump supporters should hope Trump is smart enough to know that. As a Trump opponent, I hope he's stupid enough to do exactly what you say no one would.
You missed my point. I meant that a person in authority firing an officer of the executive branch is not guilty of any obstruction statute -- not by a million miles.
These are the ones who attempted to politicize their position in our intelligence agencies. How does that threaten your freedom of speech?
He entered a false affidavit which is PRIMA FACIE evidence of perjury and obstruction of justice. What was "very thin" about that? He also walked out of his deposition with a warning from the Judge not to discuss ANYTHING about his testimony or their upcoming testimony summoned his secretary Betty Curry to the office and then tried to coach her testimony, what is "very thin" about that?
Number one: witness tampering and obstruction of justice only applies to a criminal activity of court action. There is none of that in this case. Number two: there can be no criminal activity tied to a president carrying out his constitutional duties. So even, for example, if the secretary of defense was indicted for something and scheduled for trial, nothing would prohibit the president from talking to him as that is necessary for the president to carry out his duties. However, Joe Schmo might get in trouble talking to him, depending on a bunch of factors.......
Under normal circumstances, I'd agree. But if Trump revokes the clearances of all those he publicly cited for being part of the Russia investigation, then abuse of power comes into play, along with potential obstruction of justice. No President has ever used his power to retaliate against law enforcement and/or intelligence officials, due to their political neutrality. If Trump does, this sets a dangerous precedent.
Several of those on the list released by the White House never made any political statements against the President. For example: Sally Yates, Assistant Attorney General under Obama, went to Trump immediately after his inauguration to warn him that Russia was interfering in our election. She was doing her job. Trump fired her. Now she's on his hit list for revoking her top secret clearance. She did nothing wrong, but because she had access to secret information about the Russian interference, she was placed on his hit list. That's highly suspicious. When you add all the others who were doing their job and trying to get Trump to act on their warnings, then it moves beyond just suspicious.
It's not limited to statements and their actions were even more egregious. And Yates did not warn him Russia was trying to interfere, she warned him him that Flynn had spoken, however briefly and however unmonumental, to the Russian ambassador even though he had told Pence he had not. The fact is the Obama now claims it knew the Russians were trying to influence the election and were trying to collude with persons in the Trump campaign and they did NOT go and warn Trump and that has been a HUGE red flag. The fact is these people do not need a security clearance, it does not serve the government that they have a security clearance and the fact that most have politicized their positions in some way or the other fully justifies any clearance they have be suspended.
We are just going to disagree about that bar. If I were a member of the House, the only President I would have impeached was Nixon, not Reagan for Iran Contra, not Bush over either the Iraq war or waterboarding, not Clinton for perjury/obstruction. One of fundamental questions I ask is how dangerous to the institutions of government and the nation is this man? How broad based or deep is the corrupting influence? Can we afford to wait the two years for voters to remove him. By the time impeachment became a serious thought around year 6 of his tenure, Nixon had managed to tarnish and taint the IRS, and the FBI, and the CIA, and the Justice Dept, and the Attorney General, and half the White House staff with his corrupting influence. The irony of Trump, is that as much as he may want to abuse presidential authority, People around him including the FBI, the CIA, and his attorney general , seem to be willing to telling him to stick his tweets and his opinions up his ass. No, the CIA will not waterboard, do not want any discretion to use the tactic, whatever his opinion. Yes the Attorney General will recuse himself whether Donald likes it or not and no the Director of the FBI will no compromise an ongoing investigation. Under Nixon, these same people did what they were told. As long people with ethics and courage, stand between Trump and his worse instincts, we can afford to wait him out and as a member of the House looking at this, that may be the least disruptive course of action. The fact Trump is a bad leader, and ineffective as a manager, means we are not as desperate to get him out of there.
Well he was indirectly named as a coconspirator in a crime in Federal court in New York today which hopefully moves him one step closer to impeachment.
I find it difficult to find anything admirable about Trump as a man, a person or as President. Could you help me understand how anyone with any humane or "Christian" values, could like anything about Trump? Could you list some aspects of Trump one could consider admirable?
What are you talking about? Does the President have to obey a subpoena? That has not been decided by the courts. However, in this case, it is a moot point. Trump and Giuliani are arguing with themselves on this issue. Muller is not about to get involved in a legal battle that will last till Christmas, Christmas of '19. He may ask Trump if he wants to present his side of the issue. Then again, he may not. If Trump is asked, but demurs from providing his side, Mueller will submit his report anyway without Trump's testimony. Giuliani is right. Mueller knows the answer to all the questions he would ask Trump. He doesn't need Trump. Does Trump need Mueller? In other words, might Trump think it would be to his advantage to present his viewpoints to Mueller? Cohen admitted to paying hush money to porn star Stormy Daniels in 2016, "at the direction of the candidate." Trump wasn't identified by name in Cohen's statement, but he was the only candidate who Cohen was working for at the time. Cohen also admitted to conspiring with a media company, perceived as the publisher of The National Enquirer, to silence another woman, former Playboy model Karen McDougal, during the 2016 presidential election. Cui bono, who benefits? Cohen's lawyer, Lanny Davis, took pains to underscore that his client did not benefit by has actions, but Trump did. "Today, [Cohen] stood up and testified under oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime by making payments to two women for the principal purpose of influencing an election," Davis said in a statement. "If those payments were a crime for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn't they be a crime for Donald Trump?" He is not going to. He will submit his report to the DOJ, more specifically Rod Rosenstein, his boss. Then it is up to the DOJ. Or Congress. After Mueller submits his report, Congress may find it necessary to open investigations and determine what needs to be done.
