The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

[Sheilbh]

No, but it is an interesting (and perhaps troubling) aspect of our system of separation of powers.  What should/would agencies due in the case of conflicting orders from the Judicial/Executive/or Legislative branch.  Much like in the argument of written vs. tradition-based constitutions, this hasn't been a system-destroying flaw in US politics perhaps solely because of "tradition".

Also interesting distinction with US is our permanent civil service who are required to obey the law (by Parliament) not the government and they aren't appointed by the government. So over here the head of civil service had a general letter to the civil service saying they need to stay out of politics despite Brexit, that public trust relies on them being non-political and in which noted he was "mindful" of his constituional responsibilities.

My impression is under Trump career civil servants have performed as best they can. The appointees are, generously, a mixed bag.

Which matches what I've said.  Both when Obama was President, and Bush, and Clinton, going on even further back, both Congress and the Executive would generally avoid pushing matters to the USSC for the risk of getting a ruling they disagreed with.  Imagine if the USSC ruled that indeed Congress had sweeping, almost unlimited ability to subpoena documents.  Or the contrary - if the USSC ruled that executive privilege was incredibly broad.

I mean surely the risk of that is that Trump doesn't care about a legacy or his role of safeguarding the Presidency. And with him there's surely a chance he would pick a very bad hill to die on, which could lead to a more sweeping decision.

[Barrister]

It should also be said that if they desire it, the Executive branch could ignore the USSC just as easily as it does Congress.  It's been done before.

I know there is the Andrew Jackson quote that says something like 'the court made its decision... let's seem them enforce it'.  Some googling says that it's probably apocryphal, that the state government in question did (eventually) comply with the ruling (Worcester v Georgia), and thus didn't lead to a direct conflict.

But yes - that would perhaps be the ultimate constitutional crisis - what is there is, say, a subpoena for I dunno Rudy Guiliani to testify before congress, that subpoena is upheld all the way up to the Supreme Court, and the White House refuses to comply.

[The Brain]

It should also be said that if they desire it, the Executive branch could ignore the USSC just as easily as it does Congress.  It's been done before.

I know there is the Andrew Jackson quote that says something like 'the court made its decision... let's seem them enforce it'.  Some googling says that it's probably apocryphal, that the state government in question did (eventually) comply with the ruling (Worcester v Georgia), and thus didn't lead to a direct conflict.

But yes - that would perhaps be the ultimate constitutional crisis - what is there is, say, a subpoena for I dunno Rudy Guiliani to testify before congress, that subpoena is upheld all the way up to the Supreme Court, and the White House refuses to comply.

It will be like taking a drunk from a plane I hear.

[Razgovory]

Can anyone imagine the frothing rage of the GOP if Obama had done something similar?

It can happen right now.  Congressional Democrats could visit Panama or Indonesia and request investigations into Trump's properties in those two countries.  Such a thing is out of bounds in my opinion.  The impeachment is about whether such behavior is out of bounds.  If Trump isn't convicted then Democrats should take that proof that requesting foreign governments to go after the children of your political rivals is the new political norm.  That is what's stake here.  That's why I support impeachment.

[jimmy olsen]

Congress can fine the individuals $10,000 a day or more if they want, so they don't even need to send the capital police to pick someone up. They can bankrupt them in a week. None of the snakes that Trump is put in place is going to sacrifice their fortune for him.

[The Minsky Moment]

I'm concerned with aspects of the Committee's request that can be understood only as an attempt to intimidate, bully, & treat improperly the distinguished professionals of the Department of State

-Mike Pompeo

The Trump administration is investigating the email records of dozens of current and former senior State Department officials who sent messages to then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's private email, reviving a politically toxic matter that overshadowed the 2016 election, current and former officials said.
As many as 130 officials have been contacted in recent weeks by State Department investigators — a list that includes senior officials who reported directly to Clinton as well as others in lower-level jobs whose emails were at some point relayed to her inbox, said current and former State Department officials. Those targeted were notified that emails they sent years ago have been retroactively classified and now constitute potential security violations

Hmm.

[The Minsky Moment]

This may be stating the obvious but it's not witness intimidation to point out the sanctions that could result from failure to appear and testify truthfully.  Since every US subpoena form contains a statement of potential sanctions for non-compliance, that would mean every person who ever issued a subpoena would be guilty of witness intimidation.

[Syt]

Thread of Trump clips ranting to the press today. Clips of the quotes are in the below link.

https://twitter.com/atrupar/status/1179438027984310279

TRUMP on Adam Schiff: "They should look at him for treason."

Minutes after tweeting "BULLSHIT," Trump avoids saying the word "jockstrap" because he doesn't want to offend anyone.

He then insisting his call with the Ukrainian president that's at the heart of an abuse of power scandal was "perfect."

During the course of a 5-minute rant, Trump says Democrats "should be focused on making America great again" and the media should cover "Obama's conversation with the president of Russia" instead of him.

Trump on concerns about his desire to out a whistleblower: "I don't care"

Trump on the whistleblower: "This country has to find out who that person was, because that person is a spy in my opinion."

Trump ends his media availability by smearing the "corrupt media" as "truly the enemy of the people."

This was during a press event with the Finnish president who looks very comfortable during this.

[The Brain]

The US is such a fucking joke. Who will rid you of this retardsome President?

[Malthus]

That facial expression is perfect. 

[Tonitrus]

From the Pelosi/Schiff press conference today....

https://youtu.be/RFkjVyIKAvk?t=573

If only to give fodder for the law-talkers here to expound on...it feels to me (from my amateur seat), that while arguing that failing to allow witnesses is indeed obstructing Congress's remit to investigate...claiming that doing so is grounds for citing adverse inference to assume that the accusations made are correct...might be stretching that near or beyond the bounds of adverse inference. 

[Sheilbh]

One thought on his conduct in this is it's a bit like October 2016. It seems very reminiscent of when he probably thought he was going to lose the election and was starting to suggest that Obama and Clinton were cheating/stuffing the ballot boxes with illegal immigrants' votes. He was clearly setting himself up to either contest the vote or spend the rest of his life saying he was elected if not for the rigging by Obama and Clinton.

I didn't know how that would play out then and I wonder how it will now.

[Barrister]

From the Pelosi/Schiff press conference today....

https://youtu.be/RFkjVyIKAvk?t=573

If only to give fodder for the law-talkers here to expound on...it feels to me (from my amateur seat), that while arguing that failing to allow witnesses is indeed obstructing Congress's remit to investigate...claiming that doing so is grounds for citing adverse inference to assume that the accusations made are correct...might be stretching that near or beyond the bounds of adverse inference.

It's a big old "it depends", with a side of "impeachment is a political, not legal, process".  In a courtroom, the trier of fact is never required to draw an adverse inference - it is just an option they may use.

[Syt]

That facial expression is perfect. 

[Solmyr]

https://twitter.com/rebeccaballhaus/status/1179429695483518976

We are all Niinistö.