Impeachment does NOT require a crime

I am not, but it appears you may be. Please read your own post. "...let alone high crimes and misdemeanors or other quaint reasons."

 

There is some doubt (read murkiness) if the president temporarily withholds money while he checks into things associated with the money if he has to inform the congress that he intends to withhold, rescind, or even defer the payments. There was no time schedule for delivering the aid, and it is the executive branch's position that delaying any payment without any official deferment does not require notice per the law. Besides, as far as I know, this has nothing to do with the current impeachment, but don't write it off for the next impeachment.

 

That was satire, my friend.

 

Yes, that's what you wrote. But that is false.

Faithful execution of the law does not permit the President to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law. In fact, Congress was concerned about exactly these types of withholdings when it enacted and later amended the ICA. See H.R. Rep. No. 100-313, at 66–67 (1987); see also S. Rep. No. 93-688, at 75 (1974) (explaining that the objective was to assure that “the practice of reserving funds does not become a vehicle for furthering Administration policies and priorities at the expense of those decided by Congress”). OMB asserts that its actions are not subject to the ICA because they constitute a programmatic delay. OMB Response, at 7, 9. It argues that a “policy development process is a fundamental part of program implementation,” so its impoundment of funds for the sake of a policy process is programmatic. Id., at 7. OMB further argues that because reviews for compliance with statutory conditions and congressional mandates are considered programmatic, so too should be reviews undertaken to ensure compliance with presidential policy prerogatives. Id., at 9. OMB’s assertions have no basis in law. We recognize that, even where the President does not transmit a special message pursuant to the procedures established by the ICA, it is possible that a delay in obligation may not constitute a reportable impoundment. See B-329092, Dec. 12, 2017; B-222215, Mar. 28, 1986. However, programmatic delays occur when an agency is taking necessary steps to implement a program, but because of factors external to the program, funds temporarily go unobligated. B-329739, Dec. 19, 2018; B-291241, Oct. 8, 2002; B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. This presumes, of course, that the agency is making reasonable efforts to obligate. B-241514.5, May 7, 1991. Here, there was no external factor causing an unavoidable delay. Rather, OMB on its own volition explicitly barred DOD from obligating amounts. Furthermore, at the time OMB issued the first apportionment footnote withholding the USAI funds, DOD had already produced a plan for expending the funds. See DOD Certification, at 4–14. DOD had decided on the items it planned to purchase and had provided this information to Congress on May 23, 2019. Id. Program execution was therefore well underway when OMB issued the apportionment footnotes. As a result, we cannot accept OMB’s assertion that its actions are programmatic. The burden to justify a withholding of budget authority rests with the executive branch. Here, OMB has failed to meet this burden.

https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf

 

Ah...my mistake. Satire...something like "parody?"

 

None of this changes the fact that, because of the separation of powers, the President may claim executive privilege against a congressional subpoena, and has no legal duty to address said subpoena until compelled to do so by a court.
That hasn't happened here.

 

So...........in your opinion............a prez can cite powers given to him by the flying spaghetti monster to refuse to comply with a legal congressional subpoena..............until a court rules he can't...........at which point he appeals...........and the SC rules he can't............at which point he claims EP...............until a court rules he can't............and he appeals..........and the SC rules he can't...........at which point it's 2025.

 

First, the president is citing powers given by the Constitution. Second, it is unlikely the House subpoenas were legal since the House never voted authority for the committee to issue such subpoenas. Third, your scenario sounds like worst case but is very possible. The wheels of justice often turn slowly. It is what is known in legal circles as tough s -- t.

Curious: what makes Schumer and the House think that the president can't, assuming he chooses to, challenge subpoenas from the Senate for witnesses in the court as he did from the House???

 

What powers specifically? Cuz there is no such thing as absolute immunity. And he hasn't invoked EP. Before you answer, do you understand his claims trample on the rights Congress has been given by the Constitution to act as a check on the executive?

 

I've asked this 62 times,
They don't have an answer.

 

Oh, I dunno. I think they have an answer, but they can't say it and still maintain their facade.

 

I think the calculation is the difference in appearance of Trump refusing to allow witnesses or documents to be presented if it's the Repubs who ask as opposed to "those crazy commie loving Dems." Clearly, it's also about putting Senate Repubs on record as not wanting to see more evidence of Trump's guilt.

 

To answer it, they must first be honest with themselves.
We see how likely -that- is.

 

Exactly.

In no way did the framers intent to set up impeachment as a vehicle for the Speaker of the House, and two of the committee chairmen she appoints, can assume unlimited power over the executive branch, and demand to review all documents and place all the president's closest legal and policy advisors under oath. And they certainly did not mean to empower a partisan Hose to impeach the president should he appeal House overreach to the SCOTUS.

 

Trump's political opponents have using one fishing expedition after another to try and dig up something they can use against Trump. All they have found is one phone call where Trump asked Zelensky to look into the firing of Shokin - that's it.

 

No...he asked him to look into Biden's son and Crowdstrike as well.

 

He mentioned crowdstrike and Biden's son, he did not say to investigate them individually. Even if he did single them out, what is wrong with seeking to look into political corruption and election interference??

 

High Crimes - is the standard = not just any crime - it must be a high crime.

A misdemeanor is simply a crime that does not meet the "Felony" bar. "High Crimes" is the bar.

That is not so complicated - what is complicated is defining what a "High Crime" is and just as importantly - what crimes do not count as "high crimes"

 

His own administration had already investigated the DNC hacking and determined that it was done by the Russians. Russians were indicted for it.

 

According to this article, the Trump admin's OMB sent a letter to the State Department and the U.S. Agency for International Development, when they were holding up all foreign aid. I wonder how previous administrations did this, because they all held up foreign aid at one time or another. It's not like this was unique to the Trump admin.

 

Indeed.

- Holding up foreign aid pending review is not an abuse of power.
- Asking a foreign government to look into the actions of an elected US official with regard to that country is not an abuse of power.
If the two are linked, how does this create an abuse of power?
If that elected official happens to be running for President , how is that an abuse of power?

 

This is the area the framers feared the most of bringing down our constitutional republic.

 

Red herring

 

Explain.

 

If that is how impeachment works, than no president is safe from impeachment. All the opposition political party needs to do is:

1) convince the Speaker to open an impeachment inquiry

2) send a flurry of subpoenas for the president's inner circle of documents and his legal and policy advisors

3) wait for the president to assert executive privilege and appeal those concerns to the SCOTUS

4) impeach the president for it, calling it an "abuse of power."

(and remember, Pelosi did not even need to bother with a formal House vote to begin her inquiry)

And yet this is how the idiot Democrats think our government is supposed to operate. How many times did Obama, or Bush, or Clinton, et al, assert executive privilege?