Take This Impeachment And Shove It...

[firstfloor]

How do you deny allegations, if there are no allegations?

Mr Trump and his legal team said the impeachment charges failed to allege "any crime or violation of law" and were "the result of a lawless process that violated basic due process and fundamental fairness".

The lawyers said Mr Trump "categorically and unequivocally" denies all allegations.

BBC news website

[Watermelon]

How do you deny allegations, if there are no allegations?

BBC news website

[Mountain Man]

Except "abuse of power" is not a crime in and of itself; it is, rather, a description of crimes. One could say, "The President committed crimes X, Y, and Z which together are an abuse of power," and that could be a viable argument, but "abuse of power" on its own without specifying actual crimes doesn't work.

Trump's legal team touched on this point in a recent press conference:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...house-counsel/

[JimL]

Except "abuse of power" is not a crime in and of itself; it is, rather, a description of crimes. One could say, "The President committed crimes X, Y, and Z which together are an abuse of power," and that could be a viable argument, but "abuse of power" on its own without specifying actual crimes doesn't work.

Trump's legal team touched on this point in a recent press conference:

"With regard to the first article of impeachment, we are going to assert that they must be rejected because the — and it relates to the first article of impeachment — it fails on its face to state an impeachable offense. It alleges no crimes at all, let alone high crimes and misdemeanors, as required by the Constitution. In fact, it does not allege any violation of law whatsoever. We assert that the House Democrats’ abuse of power claim would do lasting damage to the separation of powers under the United States Constitution.

"We then get into some very specific allegations, regarding the phone call itself, as it relates to this abuse of power claim. I will tell you this: We will address both the April 21st and July 25th phone calls. We will be making it very clear what President Zelensky said, as well as what the President of the United States said on those calls. We will again reiterate that the House record establishes that President Zelensky and his top aides have never said there was a quid pro quo situation, as that issue came up.

"And remember: This case started — first it was going to be quid pro quo. Actually, first it would be extortion, then bribery, then quid pro quo, then it becomes abuse of power — with the word “quid pro quo” never showing up in the actual articles of impeachment."

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...house-counsel/

Except that the charge is bribery, or extortion if you like, by use of withholding appropriated funds all relating to the main charge against the Constitution which is soliciting, for personal gain, a foriegn country to investigate an american citizen all to interfere into the 2020 elections. On top of that is the obstruction charge in Trumps effort to hide his abuse of power. That's called a violation of his oath, or an abuse of power in an impeachment trial, because in an impeachment trial that's all it comes down to. The President isn't going to prison for these crimes, because it's a different process that a normal trial, he would simply be fired from his job. The SDNY can can indict him for any his other crimes which are outside his presidential abuse of power.

[Mountain Man]

Except that the charge is bribery, or extortion if you like...

Neither of those charges are specified in the articles of impeachment, and there is certainly no evidence to support those charges anyway.

As for "obstruction of Congress", that's not a crime, either. There is not a single law in the entire US code called "obstruction of Congress". The issue is whether or not the President properly invoked executive privilege, an action to which he is legally entitled and therefore cannot be construed as obstruction.

[DivineOb]

Neither of those charges are specified in the articles of impeachment, and there is certainly no evidence to support those charges anyway.

As for "obstruction of Congress", that's not a crime, either. There is not a single law in the entire US code called "obstruction of Congress". The issue is whether or not the President properly invoked executive privilege, an action to which he is legally entitled and therefore cannot be construed as obstruction.

I was under the impression he was invoking 'absolute immunity', not executive privilege (correct me if I'm wrong).

[JimL]

Neither of those charges are specified in the articles of impeachment, and there is certainly no evidence to support those charges anyway.

They are not named as such, though they are defined in the articles, because the actual name for those charges in an impeachment trial is "abuse of power." And yes, there is overwhelming evidence to support those charges.

As for "obstruction of Congress", that's not a crime, either. There is not a single law in the entire US code called "obstruction of Congress". The issue is whether or not the President properly invoked executive privilege, an action to which he is legally entitled and therefore cannot be construed as obstruction.

Again, this is not a normal trial, it's an impeachment, so the obstruction of justice taking place is the obstruction of a congressional inquiry, not a DOJ inquiry, thus the obstruction of Congress which is the institution to which the president is susceptible to justice.

[Mountain Man]

I was under the impression he was invoking 'absolute immunity', not executive privilege (correct me if I'm wrong).

I forget the particulars why this argument even came up, but it was something along the lines of even if there was clear evidence of a crime (the extreme example given was a president murdering someone in broad daylight), a president could not be charged while in office. Of course in that case where the evidence is clear and irrefutable, Congress would be able to quickly and unanimously vote to impeach and remove, and then it would become a civil matter. In the present case, however, the evidence is vague and inconclusive to the point that the articles of impeachment don't even name a specific crime for which the President is being impeached.

[Mountain Man]

And yes, there is overwhelming evidence to support those charges.

Right, the evidence is so "overwhelming" that the Democrats are begging the Senate to call more witnesses in order to plug the gaping holes in their case.

[Sam]

WSJ article out about Lev Parnas' rise in Trump circles thanks to a large supply of third-party money and foreign connections:



Giuliani, remember, represented to both the New York Times and the Zelensky administration in May that he was seeking these investigations with Trump's full knowledge and consent.

--Sam

[JimL]

Right, the evidence is so "overwhelming" that the Democrats are begging the Senate to call more witnesses in order to plug the gaping holes in their case.

The reason for the more evidence is basically for the American people so that they won't be fooled by the spin when the republican Senate aquits a lawless criminal president. It may also cause some vulnerable politically expediant republicans to convict.

[Mountain Man]

The reason for the more evidence is basically for the American people so that they won't be fooled by the spin when the republican Senate aquits a lawless criminal president. It may also cause some vulnerable politically expediant republicans to convict.

The evidence is either overwhelming, or it isn't. Your argument above suggests that it isn't. Earlier you claimed that it is. Pick one.

[JimL]

The evidence is either overwhelming, or it isn't. Your argument above suggests that it isn't. Earlier you claimed that it is. Pick one.

Nothing gets in that you don't want getting in, does it, MM?

[Watermelon]

Except "abuse of power" is not a crime in and of itself; it is, rather, a description of crimes. One could say, "The President committed crimes X, Y, and Z which together are an abuse of power," and that could be a viable argument, but "abuse of power" on its own without specifying actual crimes doesn't work.

Trump's legal team touched on this point in a recent press conference:

https://theconservativetreehouse.com...house-counsel/

Abuse of power should be considered in the same context as crime in that if a violation of law can be considered a crime; a violation of authority can be considered an abuse of power. Just like crime, abuse of power covers a broad range of actions that can be considered trivial to severe. Someone using the authority of their position to get out of a parking ticket is an abuse of power as is conditioning the direction of public policy on a personal benefit.

The question is how severe would a presidents abuse of power have to be before it will be impeachable?

[JimL]

Abuse of power should be considered in the same context as crime in that if a violation of law can be considered a crime; a violation of authority can be considered an abuse of power. Just like crime, abuse of power covers a broad range of actions that can be considered trivial to severe. Someone using the authority of their position to get out of a parking ticket is an abuse of power as is conditioning the direction of public policy on a personal benefit.

The question is how severe would a presidents abuse of power have to be before it will be impeachable?

Well that one, soliciting foreign interference in our elections, in our governance, is a big one, one that the Founders had in mind when they wrote the clause.