The Impeachment of President Trump

May I suggest congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard?

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Way too gullible.
She's young, and inexperienced in politics, so worth watching for the future. Right now she's getting scammed by some people a President needs to be able to see through.
- - - -

Great.
That's new (do you recall what you asserted about your voting behavior in the past?).
Continue to match your rhetoric to that stance, and you will find your posts aligned with mine in substance and content.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

For the record:
src: NPR dated: December 10 2019
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/10/786579846/read-articles-of-impeachment-against-president-trump

For online viewing of the actual document:
https://apps.npr.org/documents/docu...ext-Articles-of-Impeachment-Against-President


ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT

Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

Mr. NADLER submitted the following resolution; which was referred to the Committee on

RESOLUTION

Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Donald J. Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Donald J. Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" and that the President "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". In his conduct of the office of President of the United States—and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed—Donald J. Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency, in that:

Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.

President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the following means:

(1) President Trump—acting both directly and through his agents Within and Outside the United States Government?corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations into—

(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden,; and

(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.

(2) With the same corrupt motives, President Trump—acting both directly and through his agents within and outside the United States Government—conditioned two official acts on the public announcements that he had requested—

(A) the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered suspended; and

(B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.

(3) Faced with the public revelation of his actions, President Trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly and corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for his personal political benefit.

These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections.

In all of this, President Trump abused the powers of the Presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit. He has also betrayed the Nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.

Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

​

ARTICLE II: OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have the sole Power of Impeachment" and that the President "shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". In his conduct of the office of President of the United States?and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed—Donald J. Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its "sole Power of Impeachment". President Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency in a manner offensive to, and subversive of, the Constitution, in that:

The House of Representatives has engaged in an impeachment inquiry focused on President Trump's corrupt solicitation of the Government of Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 United States Presidential election. As part of this impeachment inquiry, the Committees undertaking the investigation served subpoenas seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry from various Executive Branch agencies and offices, and current and former officials.

In response, without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those subpoenas. President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and assumed to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the "sole Power of Impeachment" vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.

President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of documents and records from the Committees—in response to which the Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or record.

(3) Directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees—in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely John Michael "Mick" Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous efforts to undermine United States Government investigations into foreign interference in United States elections.

Through these actions, President Trump sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct, as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the House of Representatives in the exercise of its "sole Power of Impeachment". In the history of the Republic, no President has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate "high Crimes and Misdemeanors". This abuse of office served to cover up the President's own repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of impeachment—and thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the House of Representatives.

In all of this, President Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

Wherefore, President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.

Published : 10th December 2019

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Seems cut and dried to me...
If the subpoenas were actually lawful, regardless of politics, then refusal to comply is clearly obstruction, especially if other staff were commanded to do the same.

 

The subpoenas are lawful, regardless of politics.

Meanwhile: Trump has stated in public that he fired James Comey to stop his investigation. That was an admission of obstruction of justice.

 

This is a fairly clear, balanced, nonpartisan, and (most important) accurate summary of the immediate situation re impeachment: http://driftglass.blogspot.com/2019/12/impeachment-day.html

 

A small ray of legitimate hope: https://www.washingtonian.com/2019/10/10/the-impeachment-loophole-no-ones-talking-about/

The minimum number of Senators required for a legitimate vote on impeachment to be held is 51. So in theory Trump could be convicted and removed from office by 37 of 51 present and voting Senators.
There are currently 46 more or less reliable votes for conviction in the Senate - no Republicans are reliable. That is two thirds of 69. So that would require a boycott of the proceedings, or abstention of the vote, by 31 Republicans.
If ten Republicans actually switch their vote, we would need 16 abstentions.
That is unlikely - but far more likely than a 20 vote switch.

 

is the vote secret ballot or anonymous?

 

I have been watching some of the the live feed of the House Judiciary on Impeachment meeting. (NPR)
Fascinating stuff!
After gauging social media responses I would make one suggestion to the Democrats.
Who ever runs for office in the 2020 could gain significant support by concentrating policy directly on defense and protection of the Constitution using the current administration as an example of why.
Also change "No one is above the law" slogan to
"No one is above the constitution."
as impeachment is not a local or state legal matter but a constitutional one.

In doing so again the issues surrounding the current administration are automatically highlighted and really, the 2020 election is all about maintaining the integrity of the Constitution. IMO
Trump is a serious threat to the Constitutions future...as he seeks to replace the constitution with himself. IMO

Just thoughts...

 

The election will be about anybody but Trump while not taking away someone's healthcare choices and while not raising their taxes (from the Democrats point of view).

Defense isn't a real issue for either party (we already have way too much of it). The Constitution worries people when issues aren't going their way, otherwise it's not a "pocketbook" issue.

"Half" of the country approves of Trump in some way. That's not going to change by the next election.

 

Fair comment...
but,
My take:
Ukraine:
Dem accusation: "He broke the law" (Ukraine issue) and " No one is above the law"
Repub response: "No he didn't". He applied pressure on the Ukraine but actually didn't break any laws.

The Dem. Message suffers from public confusion because he may not have arguably broken any laws, given his executive privilege. There is actually no victim.
He did however break the constitution by abusing his position in a manner unfitting of the POTUS.
Unconscionable conduct is a difficult legal issue however constitutionally it is quite clear. (IMO)

Summary:
Constitution is threatened and should be the main issue for the Dems to promote.

Obstruction:
Dem accusation: Lawful subpoenas ignored. Congress ignored and stone walled.
Summary:

Constitution is threatened and should be the main issue for the Dems to promote.

The POTUS is supposed to defend and protect the constitution. The Repubs are also supposed to defend and support the constitution.
By voting to NOT impeach Trump, they are guilty of failure to carry out their own oath of office.

By making this a constitutional issue the republicans are placed in an impossible position. Where they have to defend the constitution yet maintain support for a POTUS who ignores it.

Huge strategic advantage IMO for the Dems.

 

Perhaps your constitutional courts should decide whether Trump's executive actions regarding the with holding of aid to the Ukraine were unconstitutional or not.
While they are at it they can decide whether Trump ignoring subpoenas from Congress is unconstitutional or not.

 

All courts are "constitutional".
He ultimately released the funds to Ukraine.
The Democrats chose not to tie things up in the courts since by then his term would be up and we would potentially just be re-elected.

 

The Democrats don't need to win over fellow Democrats. Winning over Republicans on the fringes is more likely to be done by appearing moderate regarding guns, health care insurance and taxes.

In the general election I'm sure there will be an appeal to upholding the Constitution, respect for the government, etc. but the election isn't going to turn on that because those who voted for him don't care. Trump was like this when they voted for him in the first place.

This election is basically going to be about anyone but Trump while not "scaring" away undecided Republican voters.

 

We are at cross purposes. I am taking about the impeachment of Trump with an eye to the election.
If Trump is impeached and removed from office his re-election in 2020 is not going to happen.
Perhaps even in a thread devoted to impeachment I need to preface my post with it.
Do you think it's necessary?
The issue is the impeachment of Trump and the outcome of the trial in the Senate. Not the election.

 

Has he or has he not acted constutionally regarding the accusations in the articles of impeachment?

 

I understand what you are talking about.
He isn't going to be removed from office.
The election has been taken into account throughout this entire process. That's why the Democrats waited so long to decide to impeach (because it might hurt them in the election).

 

He could be if the Dems changed their strategy to emphasise his unconstitutional activity. Forcing the Senate to address the unconstitutional activity, either condoning it or not.
If the Senate condone it, the constitution will forever be compromised by precedent and the whole world will know it.
All hail king Trump. Who is above the constitution.

 

Rep post

 

Regarding Subpoenas:
Related litigation and test of the power of congress vs POTUS
News"NPR" 14th-12-2019

Updated at 5:05 p.m. ET

The Supreme Court says it will review lower court decisions upholding congressional and grand jury subpoenas for financial records from President Trump's longtime personal accountants and banks he did business with.

The cases include requests for records from Mazars USA, Trump's accounting firm, Deutsche Bank, which has a long history with the Trump family; and Capital One.

The decision sets the stage for a battle over whether a president can defy Congress' subpoena power.

The arguments are scheduled for March.
https://www.npr.org/2019/12/13/787963186/supreme-court-agrees-to-hear-trump-subpoena-cases​