Impeachment is neither a political nor a criminal process. It is best described as a constitutional process. The framers knew there had to be a way to remove the president, other primary federal officers, and supreme court justices (almost all of their focus was on the president.) Congress handles its own members. They also were in solid agreement that the bar for impeachment should be very high. It is higher than any criminal wrong doing per se or any political malice and animosity. The president cannot do his constitutional duty if he is subject to the whims of criminal prosecutors or to the whims of political activists in congress. Congress, they said, cannot unilaterally decide the tenure of a president. They borrowed much from English law but ignored some basic tenets, most prominently our separation of powers with assurance that the three branches of government could not hold power over each other. They in no way wanted a president removable by a simple vote of no confidence. They did not want the executive telling congress or the courts what to do, congress telling the executive or courts what to do, or the court telling congress and the president what to do. They struggled with the words. It began with “maladministration” but that was quickly discarded as too broad making the president subject to blackmail by congress. They settled on “high crimes and (high) misdemeanors.” It was an attempt to express their real criteria for impeachment which was actions that cause great and egregious injury to the public and community. Coming to the present, it never occurred to the framers that an officer of the executive branch would ever be telling the president what to do. The president cannot be convicted of a crime while in office, which means he cannot be indicted or subpoenaed. Investigated, maybe, but only around the periphery. The special counsel, Mueller, has no authority to interview Trump, though if Trump volunteers that is O.K. If Mueller had that authority, so would every US Attorney, which means they could keep a president from his job and out of the white house for 94 straight days … and then another 94 days after that. Anyone who thinks the constitution was meant to allow that is totally loony. The drive to impeach is completely without basis since impeachment requires an egregious action by a president, and the push for impeachment began weeks before Trump was even president. So this impeachment idea can only be driven by malice and animosity, two criteria the framers explicitly rejected. Mueller has no authority to make a report to congress with the purpose of impeachment. That is not his job in the least. Congress could certainly have an investigation, but that would usually be done with their own investigators and possible assistance from the FBI. Starr gave congress a lengthy report on Clinton which went so far as to recommend specific articles of impeachment (11 or so). I think Starr was way out of bounds. Cox gave congress stuff he uncovered about Nixon, but he stewed over doing that long and hard because he needed a loophole in the accepted procedure of not feeding congress. In comparison, I think both Johnson’s and Clinton’s impeachments were on very thin ice. Johnson’s was kind of justified because he directly and purposefully violated a law. But that law was quickly passed (and signed by Johnson) for the sole purpose of stopping Johnson’s plans. Clinton was impeached for two perjuries and obstruction of justice (sound familiar?) The obstruction was part justified (my opinion) with clear witness tampering and suborning, and part hokey, like not answering congress’ written questions nicely. One perjury, from the civil case, was real, though that case was dismissed. The perjury with the grand jury was very iffy and more “evasive” than perjurious. However, at least Clinton’s investigation and impeachment began with real crimes (which does not excuse the impeachment.) No one as yet has uncovered any crimes of Trump. Sorry for the length.
I read one of your earlier posts that you're a defense lawyer and that shows with this information. I really learned a lot from what you read(I'd been actively reading these law opinions and documents since the saga began, and I think that my understanding is closer to the legal realm than not.) There has been no named crime in this investigation. There wasn't a named crime in the authority granted by Rod Rosenstein. In fact, the whole "Matters pertaining to the investigation" is a TLDR way of saying "Charge when you find something to charge." Which is completely ridiculous and not the norm of US investigations. Basically the Mueller team with Rosenstein's authority has both the power of a prosecutor and an investigator, where normally these facets are separate. Law enforcement investigates, the AG would decide whether or not to prosecute. I think those challenging Mueller's authority are barking up the wrong tree, they should challenge the dual prosecutor-investigator role specifically assigned to Mueller and his team. I'm not sure if its legal or not, but it is abnormal. Otherwise, what need is there for private investigators or for LEO's to investigate. Just have a prosecution team do it.
Care to enlighten why the founders settled on the exact same language that had been applied to judges, counselors to the monarchy, by Parliament when they expected it to such much of a higher bar for the President? There is nothing new to that 'high crimes and misdemeanors' phrase is there? I'd think they would reach for new language considering how uniquely high you claim that bar needed to be. Care to share examples of the use of the same phrase to impeach members of the federal judiciary and the cabinet prior to 1850 as well as examples where Parliament did the same, which did not include serious criminal charge at all? Examples of more in line of moral turpitude or gross misconduct or incompetence? I don't think you will have to look super hard here because I found them. Mueller can write his report in crayon and offer it up a copy on the Captain Kangaroo show as long as it is not directly contrary to the language and his direct supervisor does not mind. You are not his supervisor. Congress may either consider what he writes or preclude consideration as it sees fit. The impeachment language does not tell Congress what reports it may not use or consider. As for you notion of how thin or thick ice is supposed to be, The constitution says an inherently political body ought to decide. I imagine those who wrote it, will not be shocked with the ice is 6 inches thick when the President has more political capital, and 2 inches thick 50 years later. Maybe that explains the vague and rather unoriginal language and the choice of a bunch of politicians as the deciders. How naïve do you claim these people were? Rod, you and I may come to agreement on what would be prudent for an impeachment process, and we may be able to quote some language in the convention language or federalist papers or debates to shore up our view, but we cannot speak with much conviction. They ended up taking the lazy way out and using a tried and true standard to lock in, with an exceptionally easy lock for anyone to pick.
I disagree with you on a basis for impeachment. It is for when a politician becomes unacceptable and the next election is too far off. I think that the Democrats will gain a sound majority in the House in November, essentially crippling Mr. tRump. He will be replaced in 2020, possibly even losing the primary. What will get him impeached will be him going off the rails once House Republicans stop covering for him and House Democrats begin restraining him. His little spat with Brennen shows how juvenile and petty he has become. I suspect once he starts feeling cornered enough, he'll crack. My money, however, is on the 25th amendment, rather than impeachment. There is a very good reason liberals don't want Trump impeached. A Mike Pence presidency could be worse.
Impeachment is not a convenient, nor casual remedy for those who simply don't like the president. He would have to commit an impeachable act, Trump has not.
A couple of points. Misdemeanor as used here did not does not mean an illegal act necessarily. At the time the term was use to mean mere "misbehavior". For instance if a president turned derilict in his duties like Trump announcing he was going to spend the next 6 months at his resort and play golf and not take calls or hold meetings and any of the necessary functionsof his office Congress could choose to remove him through impeachment. Yes, like Whitewater/Madison the Lewinsky matter and impeachment began with a crime and in this case prima facie evidence of a crime. The false affidavit entered into a federal court. Then the subornation of perjury, conspiracy to commit that perjury and witness tampering ala Betty Curry. There was also an abuse if power aspect in his using his power as President to seek Lewinsky a better job hinting back to the Gennifer Flowers scandal. Not sure about the current law under which Mueller is acting but as I recall under the Starr mandate he was required to take any evidence of a crime by the President to the Speaker of the House for its consideration for impeachment and removal from office. He could not prosecute as long as Clinton remained in office. And since he was not removed and even though Starr had an indictment in hand the prosecution was put off until after he left office. And lets not forget that Judge Wright dismissed the Jones lawsuit because at the time the legal interpretation of the law was that actual harm had to be shown for not giving in to the attempt to solicit sex in return for rewards or favor. Jones could not prove she suffered harm. That changed after the Burlington decision where only a reasonable fear that if the person did not give in they would suffer harm was sufficient to prove sexual harassment and creating a hostile workplace. Jones refined and Clinton settled because he had no defense. The dismissal did not vacated the perjury and obstruction of justice for which the judge found him guilty and then he plea bargained the criminal charge as he left office.
Makes no sense. Even if every Trump appointed U.S. Attorney did this, which would be telling on its own, it would get consolidated by the courts. If the President commits a bank robbery, are you saying he can't be arrested or indicted until Congress acts? Ridiculous on its face.
And Congress has broad latitude in determining what is an impeachable offense. Of course in the case of Clinton it involved high crimes, felonies. However the Democrats said that perjury, obstruction of justice, subornation of perjury and witness tampering did not rise to the level of removal from office.
Agreed it's not to be used by malcontents unhappy about the election. It remains to be seen if Trump has committed an impeachable act or not. My guess is he'll never be impeached by a Republican Congress, but he might resign if told in no uncertain terms by those that he would be if he doesn't resign.
Don't think he can be arrested but he can be indicted but would have to be removed for the indicted to proceed to trial.
He would have to be arrested or he could hop in and out of the US Treasury with a stack of bills and then take Air Force 1 to Russia. Obviously the worst case scenaio, but you would have to be able to prevent further crimes. My theory on impeachment is that it is just a mechanism to remove someone from office. Should have no effect on the criminal side of things.
Committing perjury under oath, however, is a felony. It's also a good reason to have a lawyer disbarred....not that he was ever a very good lawyer.
Well it would be hard for the impeachment and removal to NOT influence a subsequent trial no matter the judges instructions to a jury to ignore it.
You the people decide what's an impeachable offense and then tell your representatives to impeach? "Oh I don't like his politics, impeach him", sorry it doesn't work like that.The Mueller farce has been going on since May 2017 and has produced nothing and will continue to find nothing because Trump hasn't done anything wrong. If you don't like Trump you'll get another crack at him in 2020 otherwise he'll continue to take up room inside your head 24/7, enjoy!!!! MAGA!!!!
L Funny thing, you mentioning malcontents. It seems to me, a few years back, Republicans were using the recall process to harass Democrats who had beaten them.
Lying about a sexual relationship with a subordinate employee in a federal civil rights lawsuit certainly is. And other such relationships were made subject to judicial inquiry by the Molinari Amendment which much to the fanfare of feminist groups President Clinton signed into law so when he objected to such inquirey and the left whined about it that was the height of hypocrisy on their part.
So Article II Section 4 of the Constitution says: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors. It seems to me according to the above language if the President is impeached he remains in office unless and until he's convicted of a crime because of the AND word. But how can he be convicted of anything without full due process of law, which includes indictment and the subpoena process while he's in office? (Note the above applies to all the above mentioned state actors.)
As shown in the notes and minutes of the constitutional convention, they struggled hard for the correct wording for impeachment. High crimes and misdemeanors leaves much to be desired but they were unable to come up with something better. They categorically rejected "maladministration," which is pretty much how England defined high crimes and misdemeanors, as being too broad and making the president subject to political blackmail. They absolutely did not want congress to simply decide the tenure of the president, which is basically how the English parliamentary system works. Per Article 3, the judiciary can be removed simply for not "good behavior."
Here's the point the brain dead Left seem to fail to grasp. All impeachment is it is equivalent to a Grand Jury handing up an indictment. A formal writ of charges. It will be up to the full Senate to conduct the trial on the basis of evidence presented and whether the argument for removal is compelling enough that it would cause the Senate to vote in that favor. That being said, I know there are a minority of Americans who loathe Trump. But he has not committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" worthy of impeachment. This has always been the Democrats' attitude towards any and all Republican Presidents. So in short, impeachment =/= removal. And BTW, should the Left's wet dream be achieved, Pence does have a reputation for sticking it to Liberals HARD!!
Which Republicans? I vaguely recall an election or two with recalls being called for (California?), but don't know if it was done, the results or anything else.
