WSJ: Trump colluding with Ukraine

"I am not partisan and I am not political," said Maguire.

When the I.G. turned over to him the report alleging misconduct by the President, the first thing Maguire did was turn the matter over to the President's lawyers. He acknowledged that his office consulted with the White House counsel's office and William Barr, who sometimes doubles as the U.S. attorney general.

At first, he caved to White House pressure, not following the law and not turning over a complaint that the intelligence community's inspector general deemed "urgent and credible."

That was last week. This week, Trump caved and released the transcript of the call and the whistleblower complaint.

 

Possible...but unlikely. The "whistleblower's report" states that on July 18th the OMB informed departments and agencies that the President had suspended U.S. security assistance to Ukraine, "earlier that month." That would be a few days prior or as early as July 1. The telephone conversation took place on July 25th. Presumably, the State Department would have informed Ukraine about the suspension of aid (since it passed Congress) or the Ukrainians would have inquired at some point during the two-three week period prior to the telephone conversation. It would seem probable that was discussed separately in another conversation prior to the conversation released, since it wasn't mentioned in that conversation.

 

Trump abused his official powers "to solicit interference" from Ukraine in the upcoming 2020 election, and the White House took steps to cover it up, according to a stunning whistleblower complaint released Thursday.

Several White House officials were "deeply disturbed" by Trump's July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and tried to "lock down" all records of the phone call, especially the word-for-word transcript produced by the White House, the complaint states.

The complaint notes White House lawyers were "already in discussion" about "how to treat the call because of the likelihood, in the officials' retelling, that they had witnessed the president abuse his office for personal gain."

White House lawyers also directed officials to remove the transcript of the call from a computer system that stores them for Cabinet-level officials and instead put the transcript in a system for especially sensitive information, the whistleblower alleges.

https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/whistleblower-complaint-released/index.html

 

Let’s a assume a hypothetical situation that Trump is impeached by the house and the senate a couple of months before the elections. And he wins the elections in 2020. Would that mean he can run for office again in 2024 since he wouldn’t have completed his first term 2016-2020?

 

If a full impeachment with a corresponding prison sentence was to happen, he would be put in prison. If he then won in 2020, he would pardon himself and things would be back to normal.

 

So impeachment only applies to one term? It expires once the term ends?

 

How could he win the election if he has been impeached and removed from office?

 

Impeachment is like an indictment. There are charges that laws were broken, and congress acts as a prosecutor. So if a full "drag him out of the oval office and put him behind bars" impeachment happens, then he's no longer the president. If he wins the 2020 election, he's the President again and can pardon himself.

The impeachment process doesn't affect anybody unless it really results in an impeachment. Once that happens, he's no longer the President and cannot pardon anybody.

However, the chances are that we'd end up with a situation where Pence would pardon him, just like what happened with ford and nixon.

 

Even if he is impeached, he can run for presidency. And if he wins, that means he will be the president, even if he was impeached from prior term.

 

Nope. Conviction upon impeachment means you can never run for public office again.

 

Umm... no.

good gawd! You guys don't even know the constitution!!!!!!! arrrrrrrrgh!!!!

35 years of age, natural born citizen, that's it!

 

You have a really warped idea of "normal"

 

Research it. Conviction upon impeachment means you cannot run again for public office.

 

Actually that has to be voted upon at the time of conviction

 

Nope.

No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.

That's from the constitution, son. Nothing in there about impeachment.

 

Article I, Section 3, Clause 7. It's the last paragraph of Section 3.
That's from the Constitution, Dad.

 

That's a solid argument, however...

disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States:

That office of honor is interesting, but could be argued against. I found this page that does tend to side towards my interpretation, but it would have to go to scotus.
https://www.pointoforder.com/2014/09/02/is-the-presidency-an-office-under-the-united-states/

The precise question is whether the president holds an “Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States” as that phrase is used in the Disqualification Clause. Cassady’s article sheds some light on the origin of this language. He provides examples in English statutory law that referred to some variant of an “Office of honor, Trust or Profit,” where it almost always referred to offices conferred by the Crown. Id. at 278-80. As such, the offices were often identified as being “under” the Crown.

It would undoubtedly have to go before scotus. Is the presidency an office of honor? It requires a bit more than mere honor. It required 270 electoral college votes back in 2016. I'm not sure that can be defined as an office of honor.

 

I trust you read the last paragraph of your link...the author read the Constitution as I have...along with the vast majority of Constitutionalists. I doubt it would even go before the Courts. He would have to be nominated and would be judged by the parties as "unqualified." Although, I would agree that Trump tests "the honor of the Presidency."
Try again.

 

I did read it. The last paragraph reads...

DAVID A. MCKNIGHT, THE ELECTORAL SYSTEM OF THE UNITED STATES: A CRITICAL AND HISTORICAL EXPOSITION OF ITS FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES IN THE CONSTITUTION, AND OF THE ACTS AND PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONGRESS ENFORCING IT 346 (Philadelphia, J.B. Lippincott & Co. 187 (noting that “t is obvious that . . . the President is not regarded ‘as an officer of, or under, the United States,’ but as one branch of ‘the Government.’”).

Not an office of honor. I personally think that be somebody who was appointed, rather than elected. We voters are the final say in who shall represent us. It's not a position of honor, but rather a position based upon we the people.

 

The article was written by Michael Stern. You are referring to a comment made on the article. But, regardless, you hold an "obscure interpretation."

 

You're welcome to add a quote from the article you find defends your position. You mentioned the last paragraph, which I posted.

The paragraph above states...

[C]ivil officers of the United States’ [as used in the Impeachment Clause] meant such, as derived their appointment from, and under the national government, and not those persons, who, though members of the government, derived their appointment from the states, or the people of the states.

Still the same. The presidency is not a position of honor.

 

An obscure proposition. You got caught misstating the Con situation. Admit it and move on.

 

No, I think I'll stay and laugh a bit longer.

but you're welcome to move on. I don't blame you for wanting to move on. The presidency is not a position of honor, and you know it.

 

You missed Article I, Section 3, Clause 7. Admit it.

 

I do admit that I wasn't thinking about that, but as I've already pointed out, the presidency is not a position of honor. He's the president because he managed to win enough electoral college votes. A position of honor would be an honorary position appointed by the President.