Those articles of impeachment
They’ve settled on abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Quid pro quo and bribery are out, as is treason.
As this commenter at LI writes:
Article 2 [“obstruction of Congress”] is a disgrace and a direct threat to the balance of the branches and future presidents. The three branches of the government are equal to each other. The legislative branch of course has the right to subpoena stuff from the executive branch BUT the executive branch has the right to say no to subpoena based on executive privilege. Arguments over whether something falls under executive privilege…go to the courts to decide.
#1 Did at anytime the executive branch violate a court order to hand over documentation? NO. There is no instance anywhere during the Trump administration where a court ordered the executive branch to hand over documentation and the executive branch still refused to honor the court ruling.
#2 Did at any time when the executive branch claimed executive privilege did the legislative branch go to the judicial branch to request that the judicial branch make a decision on whether or not the executive branch has to hand over requested data? NO. There are multiple instances of the legislative branch demanding data and the executive branch claiming executive privilege and instead of going to the judicial branch the legislative branch than claimed that the executive branch was obstructing Congress. That is not how it works. You can’t skip the steps in the process. You must go to the judicial branch. The legislative branch is equal to the executive branch. It is not superior to the executive branch. The executive branch has the right to assert it’s rights under the Constitution. Even in the middle of an “impeachment inquiry” the executive branch still has the right assert executive privilege.Under Article 2 of this farce the Democrats are pushing a theory that could result in the impeachment of every future president regardless of party affiliations. All administrations at one time or another have claimed executive privilege in response to legislative branch inquires…
…Instead of writing Obstruction of Justice they weasel it by saying Obstruction of Congress. They are trying to get around the fact that they, the legislative branch, didn’t even bother to go to the judicial branch to ask for a ruling on which branch of government is correct.
I would say the articles of impeachment are ludicrous but that makes too much light of something that is actually dangerous. As for the “abuse of power” charge, here is just a small taste of all that’s wrong with using it as a standard for impeachment:
Should this farce make its way, through an imminent vote in the House, to the Senate, it will be very interesting indeed to discover whether the Republicans in that chamber will prove to have a lion’s strength or, as is more likely, the backbone of a cephalopod. Personally, I have grave doubts about Cocaine Mitch and L Graham.
Just sent a note to my rep, Joe Courtney asking him to please not be a lemming and follow his fellow Dems off the insanity cliff. A lot of good it will do, and my withholding my vote for him means zilch here in CT, but hey, worth a few minutes of my time.
Of course it’s ludicrous, but Democratic voters don’t care. They just want the President gone and the rest is filler and talking points.
The real problem is that we can’t stand each other anymore. See Spain, 1934.
#2 is patently ridiculous. Have given zero thought to this whole thing but can any of these just be dismissed in the senate like charges in criminal or civil trial by the judge. Suppose #1 could be arguable but the Obstruction of Congress one truly makes no sense as mentioned above.
The elimination of quid pro quo and bribery seems like a big deal to me. Tell me the meat of their allegations against the president isn’t gone. (I could be wrong.)
At the risk of over simplifying, this whole thing boils down to “where is the crime?”
Remember way back to the original Russia! Russia! allegations. Supposedly, the actual charge was “collusion” with the Russians. Well, “conspiracy” is an important element of a criminal charge, but “collusion” is, at a minimum, not the correct terminology. So collusion can mean whatever they want it to mean.
Similarly, “obstruction of justice” is real criminal terminology. “Obstruction of Congress” by itself, means nothing in a criminal sense. Especially in this case where the Constitution explicitly allows for Congress to be obstructed by dint of three co-equal branches of government.
Where is the crime? Because “high crimes and misdemeanors” requires a crime.
“Quid pro Quo”!
Um, uh, no, make that “Bribery”!!
Um, uh, no, make that “Obstruction of Congress”!!!
Translation: [With seething anger] “Waaa.” [With apoplectic gnashing of teeth] “He’s not doing what we want him to do!!!” [With explosive frustration] “He’s a bad man”!!
At the risk of over simplifying, this whole thing boils down to “where is the crime?”
The ‘crime’ is that he’s moved the Overton window and failed to show deference by abasing himself in the face of the media’s contrived sh!tstorms, that’s what.
A couple other LI commenters observe:
Leslie Eastman | December 10, 2019 at 9:23 am
The basis for both charges:
Abuse of Power: President Trump wasn’t suppose to have any power…it was all suppose to be Clinton’s. So any use of his executive abilities was going to be abuse.
Obstruction of Congress: President Trump fought the Democrats robustly, instead of rolling over and resigning. Therefore, he obstructed the plans to remove both him and his Vice President.
Trump is having a rally tonight in Pennsylvania. I predict it is going to be lit!
Colonel Travis | December 10, 2019 at 9:31 am
Article 1 – Trump won the 2016 election
Article 2 – See Article 1
Lucifer Morningstar | December 10, 2019 at 3:30 pm
What happened to the quid pro quo and bribery?
That most democrats, including Schiff, Nadler, and Pelosi are themselves most likely guilty of the crimes of “quid pro quo” and “bribery” in their long careers I’d hazard a guess they didn’t want to create a precedent for removal for those crimes because it might come back and bite them on the ass at some point in the future.
georgfelis | December 10, 2019 at 10:57 am
To be a Dem in the House, you are forced to believe two mutually contradictory things.
1) That Joe Biden did nothing wrong by using the full power of the US Government to withhold a billion dollars worth of aid to a country that had been invaded by Russia, in exchange for getting the prosecutor fired who was looking into Hunter Biden’s corrupt Ukrainian employer.
2) That the entire US election should be annulled because Trump attempted to have Ukraine look into how this happened back in 2016.
“Getting better all the time…” (TM)
https://nypost.com/2019/12/10/former-fbi-lawyer-lisa-page-sues-fbi-justice-department-over-released-texts/
This should be fun to watch.
I’d hazard a guess they didn’t want to create a precedent for removal for those crimes because it might come back and bite them on the ass at some point in the future.
An alternative explanation is that they figure Richard Burr and others in the Republican yellow-belly caucus are considering blocking the issue of subpoenas to Eric Ciaramella and Hunter Biden. They take Ukraine off the table, they figure they can push Burr, Romney, Murkowski &c over the line.
Surprise!!!!
(Just kidding….)
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/fisa-report-reveals-clinton-meddled-2016-election
Two articles? Should be
“Enough. Let’s get this done.”
No wait, wrong funny hair man. Boris should win big this Thursday, and then Brexit should happen.
I’m only guessing 60% chance the Dems vote impeach on these articles — there’s plenty of reason for the endangered Dems to vote against impeachment and avoid a trial.
The Dem true believers actually are deluded enough to think Trump has committed crimes. Normal folk think Trump’s actions have been, under the circumstances, fairly “normal”.
I think Trump “wins” either way, with a wimpy Dem “no impeach”, or a desperate Dem “impeach” plus Senate trial. Which might be a sideshow to any Durham indictments — which themselves might be the reason for the impeachment, so that Dems can claim indictments are just political payback.
Good stuff AesopFan. You’d have to empty out half of Capitol Hill if you put all the palm greasers and ‘greasees’ in jail.
The Dem true believers actually are deluded enough to think Trump has committed crimes. Normal folk think Trump’s actions have been, under the circumstances, fairly “normal”.
No, that’s the default position among Democrats. An impeachment vote will pose a dilemma for Democrats in ambivalent districts. I’m wagering the overwhelming majority will vote the party line. And, no, street-level Democrats don’t care about the content of the resolutions. The stated issue is never the issue. The issue is that Trump tells the media to go hang, plays to win, and puts issues on the table they want off the table. Bush put all his chips on the Iraq war and GOP staples like tax cuts and didn’t otherwise challenge the opposition. He played to win, but less consistently. And he eschewed any challenges in the realm of public discourse.
The Dems are cooked. They lost when they decided to not play fair during the inquiry. Now, with opinions from lefty legal scholars that defines nearly anything Trump does as impeachable (including naming his son Barron), the Dem Quixotes are marching fearlessly into an impeachment vote.
My guess is that “Wiley Pelosi” hopes it will fail. (They just rushed to pass USMCA today. Hmmm, does she want to show that the House can do good things?)
If impeachment passes, it will be narrowly. They will go into the Senate with a huge mountain to climb to get a conviction. In the meantime, the President’s team can take their time, build an unbeatable argument that the Dems trumped up the charges against the President and create a yuuge buzz for his campaign.
Stock up on popcorn.
J.J.,
The most important move Trump made in this was quickly releasing the call transcript. It totally stopped the Democrats from lying and misrepresenting it like they did with so much of the Russia collusion stuff. And when the so called whistleblower’s claims were proven wrong they were forced down the hopscotching path of charges.
Very shrewd move.
The most important move Trump made in this was quickly releasing the call transcript
Griffin: Indeed.
Trump wrong-footed the Dems immediately. Schiff’s fraudulent paraphrase was outed and he had to draw back to the lame “parody” defense. Pelosi pulled the trigger on impeachment.
“If impeachment passes, it will be narrowly.” — J.J.
Call me a silly optimist, but I think there’s a good chance impeachment will fail in the House. If the bribery and quid pro quo is gone, are these House Dems worried about their elections really going to impeach based on the president offending the House’s sensibilities?
On the other hand, do they feel that they must impeach in order to keep receiving Rob Reiner’s checks, and Barbara Streisand’s checks, etc.?
Call me a silly optimist, but I think there’s a good chance impeachment will fail in the House.
TommyJay & J.J.: I take heart in your optimism. I’d prefer Democrats not to be completely unmoored. As I’ve said, I think a Senate trial would be bad for Democrats in several ways.
However, my impression is Pelosi committed when she unleashed the Ukraine “impeachment inquiry,” then doubled-down last week to proceed with articles of impeachment. And now those articles have arrived.
It’s too late to say, “Never mind.” Pelosi still is enough of a whip to enforce the vote.
Pelosi’s Choice.
Back to the LI commenter above (georgfelis | December 10, 2019 at 10:57 am), Kim Strassel is on the same page.
https://www.foxnews.com/media/democrats-drop-bribery-quid-pro-quo-impeachment-case-protect-biden-kimberley-strassel
“Kimberley Strassel: Democrats drop ‘quid pro quo’ from impeachment case to protect Joe Biden”
Griffin: “Very shrewd move.”
Indeed. I think Trump has excellent instincts and is getting good legal advice.
Huxley: “It’s too late to say, ‘Never mind.'”
Probably. I agree that the trial will be a disaster for the Dems. I’m no lawyer, yet I can see a path to putting the Democrat party on trial for the malicious and baseless impeachment of POTUS. That’s why I say it could be a grand kick off for Trump’s campaign.
That said, I’m not discounting the probability of mass demonstrations and violence by the progs. However, we have a stout-hearted AG and most LEOs love Trump. So, we’ll see what happens.
I very much take to heart the Instapundit nostrum “Don’t get cocky, kid”. But it doesn’t look good for the Dems.
The two main motivations for impeachment were 1) appease the party’s rabid scream-at-the-sky base and 2) throw some shade on Trump’s re-election bid. The clumsy reduction of the original quid-pro-quo/bribery charge shows that 2) is not working. Pelosi probably knew all along it wasn’t a good idea but the last Democrat with the integrity and guts to stand up to the party’s loony left was Pat Moynihan and he’s been gone a long time. Now she is forced to get it to pass the House because the only worse outcome than impeachment without a conviction would be if the Dems can’t pass it even when they control the House. Not only would it effectively exonerate Trump but the Dems would look foolish, weak and ineffective. Or more so than they already do.
My prediction, worth exactly what you are paying for it: impeachment will pass the House, just barely. If it doesn’t there will be a revolt against the Dem leadership and keep the popcorn handy.
Before they vote “aye” on impeachment, Democrats running in potentially red states need to consider the responses of William Barr and “Bull” Durham(!) to the IG report. Both men strongly rejected the IG’s finding that Russiagate was properly commenced. It appears likely that there will be indictments in the Spring. It won’t go down well for a red state Democrat to have voted to impeach the President when it is proven that Tump was the target of a coup attempt that was being cheered on by Democrats.
FOAF,
‘Don’t get cocky, kid.’
Han Solo said it first. Credit where credit’s due.
He shot first, too.
Q: What happened to the bribery charges related to the Ukraine?
A: In the Senate trial Hunter Biden’s name must not be mentioned.
the last Democrat with the integrity and guts to stand up to the party’s loony left was Pat Moynihan and he’s been gone a long time.
I think you mean the last non-Southern Democrat. In that respect, Moynihan pretty much crapped out after 1981. In 1983, an anonymous member of his staff told Morton Kondracke that Moynihan hated being attacked in The New York Times “more than you can believe”, so had backed off some contentious positions. The ones who really stood fast were Henry Jackson and Dante Fascell (who was from Miami, not the Southern south).
Democrats need to remember that if they mange to remove Trump, Pence will be President. Same Attorney General.
Democrats need to remember that if they mange to remove Trump, Pence will be President. Same Attorney General.
The name of the game is to taint Trump and reduce his chances for re-election. This is narrative manufacture and placate-our-boobs posturing. They don’t actually think they can get 20 Republican senators to vote for impeachment. They likely want three so they can say they got a majority of the Senate behind it. Problem: McCain is dead, Flake and Corker have retired from Congress, Collins doesn’t have any time for thoroughgoing fraud, and Burr is nothing if not self-protective. So, you’re stuck with trying to persuade Alexander, Portman, Romney, and Murkowski. Alexander is a wildcard as he is leaving Congress in a year. Murkowski is usually a spanner in the works and may be retiring in three years. Romney seems to have put aside all the things he might be doing in old age to harass Trump.
Art Deco:
Wasn’t Joe Lieberman the last one?
Molly Brown on December 11, 2019 at 2:07 am said:
FOAF,
‘Don’t get cocky, kid.’
Han Solo said it first. Credit where credit’s due.
He shot first, too.
* * *
And Jabba didn’t kill himself.
Henry “Scoop” Jackson was not Southern, he was from the state of Washington. He passed away in 1983.
neo – yes I forgot Lieberman. But even he wavered a bit when he ran for President in 2004, then was drummed out of the party when he ran for re-election to the Senate from CT in 2006.
Forgot about Lieberman. And, of course, he was eventually knocked-off the Democratic line in a primary. Didn’t work out for his Democratic challenger as Connecticut is one of three states in which voters do not have a severe allergy to voting for non-partisan or 3d party candidates, and that allowed him to return to Congress. What’s interesting about Lieberman is that his lifetime rating from the American Conservative Union was about the same as that of the Senate Majority Leader’s. He voted with the opposition more often than did Christopher Dodd, but ‘more often’ means 16% of the time rather than 8% of the time.
You could say that he was the Democratic equivalent of John McCain: he didn’t have the aggregate voting record of a dissident, but he was off the reservation on a few key issues that mattered to political sectaries. The thing is, McCain is a much more abrasive person in meat space and was given now and again to dropping remarks which indicated that he actually despised important Republican constituencies. I don’t think Lieberman did that, but he enraged a certain gentry liberal element in the Democratic Party which is given to self-aggrandizement in the form of pretending our military, intelligence, and diplomatic services are responsible for all the trouble in the world and culpable for everything.
Lieberman was distinct for a different reason: he was one of an odd minority among lawyers in Congress who gave up a satisfactory career in law to enter public office. He’d been a partner in a mid-law firm (in Hartford, IIRC) sitting in the Connecticut legislature p/t when he ran for state attorney-general (again, a position that actually requires legal education). In Congress, you have ‘lawyers’ who never practiced (upChuck Schumer, Bwawney Fwank, Robert ‘Kleagle’ Byrd, and Everett Dirksen), lawyers who spent 0.1-6 years as an associate in some firm, as a solo practitioner, in a small partnership, or as some sort of government lawyer (Marco Rubio, Rick Santorum, Barack Obama, John Kerry, Christopher Dodd, Tom Harkin, Joseph Biden, Dan Quayle, Walter Mondale, Ted Kennedy); and lawyers with longer careers but who hopped from office to office and firm to firm (Mitch McConnell, Gary Hart, Richard Gephardt). John Edwards and Hillary Clinton had handsome careers in law, to be sure; one’s a classic ambulance-chaser and the other’s partnership was a function of her personal connection to the state attorney-general turned governor.
“Connecticut is one of three states that do not have a severe allergy to voting for non-partisan or 3d-party candidates”
That is really different from when I grew up there, though since I haven’t lived there in nearly 50 years it is not necessarily a contradiction. They had this crazy device called “mandatory party lever” in the voting machines – you *had* to pull a party lever first thereby automatically voting a straight ticket for a party. Then if you wanted to split your ticket you had to push up the lever for the candidate you didn’t want and then push down the lever for another candidate. Yes there were other parties besides Republican and Democrat but they often couldn’t fill their slate so the effect was to lead everyone to vote straight tickets, usually Democrat though Republicans weren’t quite as weak then in CT as they are now. I can just barely remember when Prescott Bush of the Bush family was US senator from CT.
Art Deco: lawyers who spent 0.1-6 years as an associate in some firm
Amusing fact: I am three degrees of separation from every President from Johnson to Obama, because back in the ’60s in Anchorage, Alaska, my father’s attorney was… Ted Stevens. 😀
Just now…
One Congresswomen nearly admitted that this impeachment is payback for the impeachment of Bill Clinton.