"Are Democrats Building A Collapsible Impeachment?"
Jonathan Turley
Alan: From the time Pelosi launched the formal impeachment inquiry, Democrats' tunnel vision focus on the Ukraine affair - and only the Ukraine affair - has mystified me.
In the article below, law professor Jonathan Turley gave me a jolt by confirming my suspicion that drawing up just one article of impeachment indicates a flimsy process that, by nature, is not designed to "hold up."
Does Pelosi have some inscrutable 3 dimensional chess move in mind?
On a number of occasions, I have argued that trying to impeach Malignant Messiah over a single phone call with Ukranian president Zelensky is like bringing Al Capone to court for income tax evasion, rather than the many egregious crimes he committed during his "reign of terror."
With one key difference.
Capone's case was tried in federal tax court.
Trump's case will be tried in the militantly non-cooperative Republican-held senate.
Here is my expanded argument on behalf of a comprehensive catalog of impeachment articles - including those enumerated in the Mueller Report. Such a sprawling menu of charges brings with it the added advantage of NOT being able to vote on all articles of impeachment until well into next year's presidential election campaign.
In my view, expanding the articles of impeachment affords Democrats - or could have afforded them - the tactical advantage of being able to prolong impeachment by holding non-compliant witnesses in contempt, one witness at a time.
Ideally, the House impeachment process could be prolonged until "ALL the dirt on Donald" comes out. And by controling the timing, Trump's treachery and putresence would be revealed during the last hundred days of the campaign which is when most Americans start to pay attention.
It also seems possible that Democrats could have timed their manouvers so that the Senate would not be able to conduct its own impeachment trial until after November's election.
Consider the scope of "the dirt."
If Pelosi and the House were to expand "The Articles of Impeachment" as suggested by Amitai Etzioni in his excellent article, "What Should Donald Trump Really Be Impeached For?" - https://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2019/11/what-should-donald-trump-really-be.html - then, the House would have reason to supoena Mattis, Kelly, McMaster, Tillerson, Bolton, the anonymous author of "A Warning," Hope Hicks, Sean Spicer, The Mooch, Manafort, Michael Cohen, Roger Stone, Kellyanne Conway, Steve Bannon, George Conway (?), Michael Flynn, and the fall guy co-conspirators currently "doing time."
Instead, the Democrats have embarked an impeachment process without a single witness "on tap" with enough name recognition to capture the hoi polloi's attention.
However, if the "big guns" -- Mattis, Kelly, McMaster, Tillerson, Bannon and Bolton et al -- were to testify, the upshot would shed harsh light on the unmitigated monstrosity Trump is.
As it is, trying to impeach Malignant Messiah on the basis of a single phone call with Ukranian president Zelensky (who is on record saying he didn't feel any pressure from Trump) is like bringing Al Capone to court for income tax evasion.
Don't monkey around on the periphery of the obvious.
Cut to the quick.
Oblige every crucial in-house witness to Trump's treachery-and-treason to testify -- before the cameras -- in The House of Representatives.
Am I missing something?
"Are Democrats Building A Collapsible Impeachment?"
Jonathan Turley
Jonathan Turley
Alan: From the time Pelosi launched the formal impeachment inquiry, Democrats' tunnel vision focus on the Ukraine affair - and only the Ukraine affair - has mystified me.
In the article below, law professor Jonathan Turley gave me a jolt by confirming my suspicion that drawing up just one article of impeachment indicates a flimsy process that, by nature, is not designed to "hold up."
Does Pelosi have some inscrutable 3 dimensional chess move in mind?
On a number of occasions, I have argued that trying to impeach Malignant Messiah over a single phone call with Ukranian president Zelensky is like bringing Al Capone to court for income tax evasion, rather than the many egregious crimes he committed during his "reign of terror."
With one key difference.
Capone's case was tried in federal tax court.
Trump's case will be tried in the militantly non-cooperative Republican-held senate.
Here is my expanded argument on behalf of a comprehensive catalog of impeachment articles - including those enumerated in the Mueller Report. Such a sprawling menu of charges brings with it the added advantage of NOT being able to vote on all articles of impeachment until well into next year's presidential election campaign.
In my view, expanding the articles of impeachment affords Democrats - or could have afforded them - the tactical advantage of being able to prolong impeachment by holding non-compliant witnesses in contempt, one witness at a time.
Ideally, the House impeachment process could be prolonged until "ALL the dirt on Donald" comes out. And by controling the timing, Trump's treachery and putresence would be revealed during the last hundred days of the campaign which is when most Americans start to pay attention.
It also seems possible that Democrats could have timed their manouvers so that the Senate would not be able to conduct its own impeachment trial until after November's election.
Consider the scope of "the dirt."
If Pelosi and the House were to expand "The Articles of Impeachment" as suggested by Amitai Etzioni in his excellent article, "What Should Donald Trump Really Be Impeached For?" - https://paxonbothhouses.blogspot.com/2019/11/what-should-donald-trump-really-be.html - then, the House would have reason to supoena Mattis, Kelly, McMaster, Tillerson, Bolton, the anonymous author of "A Warning," Hope Hicks, Sean Spicer, The Mooch, Manafort, Michael Cohen, Roger Stone, Kellyanne Conway, Steve Bannon, George Conway (?), Michael Flynn, and the fall guy co-conspirators currently "doing time."
However, if the "big guns" -- Mattis, Kelly, McMaster, Tillerson, Bannon and Bolton et al -- were to testify, the upshot would shed harsh light on the unmitigated monstrosity Trump is.
As it is, trying to impeach Malignant Messiah on the basis of a single phone call with Ukranian president Zelensky (who is on record saying he didn't feel any pressure from Trump) is like bringing Al Capone to court for income tax evasion.
Don't monkey around on the periphery of the obvious.
Cut to the quick.
Oblige every crucial in-house witness to Trump's treachery-and-treason to testify -- before the cameras -- in The House of Representatives.
Am I missing something?
"What Should Donald Trump Really Be Impeached For?" Amitai Etzioni In "The National Interest"
"This Is No Ordinary Impeachment" By Andrew Sullivan, New York Magazine
Trump Is A National Security Threat: What Should We Do About It?
Trump "Violates All Recognized Democratic Norms" Federal Judge Says In Biting Speech
Alan: So why are Democrats only rallying around "the straw that broke the camel's back" rather than hammering away on the wide range of substantive issues which damn His Satanic Majesty beyond reasonable doubt?
And if not individually, then collectively.
Although the Senate gets the final "say so," the first -- and decisive -- "verdict" is issued in The Court of Public Opinion.
If public opinion turns on Trump in a big way, there's a real chance Republican senators will submit to the will of their constituents, leaving the sinking ship behind.
And if not individually, then collectively.
Although the Senate gets the final "say so," the first -- and decisive -- "verdict" is issued in The Court of Public Opinion.
If public opinion turns on Trump in a big way, there's a real chance Republican senators will submit to the will of their constituents, leaving the sinking ship behind.
Are Democrats building a collapsible impeachment?
By Jonathan Turley, 11-13-2019
As impeachment hearings begin, some have raised dubious objections to the process from a constitutional basis. Former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker suggested there can be no impeachment since “abuse of power” is not a crime. Northwestern University Law Professor Steven Calabresi argued that President Trump was denied the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in the closed hearings held by House Democrats.
Neither argument is compelling. The fact is that, if proven, a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven. Yet the more immediate problem for House Democrats may not be constitutional but architectural in nature. If they want to move forward primarily or exclusively with the Ukraine controversy, it would be the narrowest impeachment in history. Such a slender foundation is a red flag for architects who operate on the accepted 1:10 ratio between the width and height of a structure.
The physics is simple. The higher the building, the wider the foundation. There is no higher constitutional structure than the impeachment of a sitting president and, for that reason, an impeachment must have a wide foundation in order to be successful. The Ukraine controversy is not such a foundation, and Democrats continue to build a structurally unsound case that will be lucky to make it to the Senate before collapsing.
For three years, Democrats in Congress have insisted that a variety of criminal and impeachable acts were established as part of the Russia investigation. Even today, critics of Trump insist that, at a minimum, special counsel Robert Mueller found as many as ten acts of criminal obstruction of justice. That is not true as he investigated those acts of obstruction but found evidence of noncriminal motivations that would have made any criminal case highly unlikely to succeed. For that reason, Attorney General William Barr and then Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein agreed there was no case for criminal obstruction.
Putting aside that legal judgment, the glaring absence of any articles of impeachment related to Russia would raise a rather obvious problem. If these criminal or impeachable acts are so clear, why would Democrats not include them in the actual impeachment? There are only two possible reasons why these “clearly established” crimes would not be included. Either they are not established, as some of us have argued, or Democratic leaders do not actually want to remove Trump from office.
For three years, some of us have warned that Democratic leaders clearly were running out the clock on impeachment and doing little in terms of building a case against Trump. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has been openly hostile to impeachment. Now, after moving at a glacial pace, Democratic leaders are insisting on an impeachment vote on the basis of a presidential phone call made this summer. They are in such a hurry that they have said they will not even seek to compel the testimony of key witnesses like former national security adviser John Bolton.
Ironically, the strongest impeachment was the one that never happened with President Nixon. It was so strong that he resigned shortly before a vote. The contrast with the Nixon impeachment is so concerning in the current context. In the Nixon impeachment, public opinion shifted after months of public hearings and testimony. The evidentiary record showed that Nixon knew of criminal acts and sought to conceal them.
The result was a deeply developed evidentiary record. A presidential impeachment requires this period of maturation of allegations to swing public opinion. In contrast, after years of discussing Russia allegations, Democrats want to move forward on a barely developed evidentiary record and cursory public hearings on this single Ukraine allegation. Democrats also are moving forward on a strictly partisan vote.
That brings us back to architecture. Bad buildings often are built in slapdash fashion. The infamous Fidenae Stadium in Rome was built in a rush to restart the gladiator games, an atmosphere not unlike the current bread and circus frenzy in Washington. It eventually collapsed, killing or injuring 20,000 spectators. The two prior impeachments show the perils of building slender and tall. Take, for instance, the foundation of the Clinton impeachment. I testified during those hearings, as one of the constitutional experts, that President Clinton could be impeached for lying under oath, regardless of the subject matter. Democratic witnesses and members insisted that such perjury is not an impeachable offense when it concerned an affair with a White House intern.
The Clinton impeachment was broader than the one being discussed against Trump but it still was quite narrow. It did involve an alleged knowingly criminal act committed by Clinton. A federal judge later found that Clinton committed perjury, a crime for which he was never charged, despite thousands of Americans who have faced such charges and jail. Yet Clinton was impeached on lying to the grand jury and obstruction of the Monica Lewinsky investigation. Notably, he was not indicted on other allegations, like abuse of power in giving pardons to his own brother or Democratic donor Marc Rich. The result was an acquittal in the Senate by a largely partisan vote. The articles discussed against Trump would be even narrower and rest primarily on an abuse of power theory.
Then there is the impeachment of President Johnson, which also failed in the Senate. While encompassing nearly a dozen articles, it was narrowly grounded in an alleged violation of the Tenure of Office Act. Johnson removed War Secretary Edwin Stanton in defiance of Congress and that law. The impeachment was indeed weak and narrow, and it failed, with the help of senators from the opposing party who would not stand for such a flawed removal, even of Johnson, who was widely despised.
The Leaning Tower of Pisa is a reminder of those who strive for great heights without worrying about their foundations. If Democrats seek to remove a sitting president, they are laying a foundation that would barely support a bungalow, let alone a constitutional tower. Such a slender impeachment would collapse in a two mile headwind in the Senate. This certainly may not be designed to last. Much like the Burning Man structure raised each year in the Nevada desert, this impeachment may be intended to last only as long as it takes to burn it to the ground.
Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He served as the last lead counsel in a Senate impeachment trial and testified as a constitutional expert in the Clinton impeachment hearings. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.
No comments:
Post a Comment