Posted: Sat Feb 01, 2020 3:14 pm
Impeachment is the process by which an elected representative may be removed from office for committing crimes while holding public office. The Constitution states that the justification for impeachment is "high crimes and misdemeanors" but it did not define exactly which crimes or misdemeanors. The SCOUTS ruled that the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" as part of the impeachment process is a political question and thus the House of Representatives gets to define what that phrase means. In other words, anything the House of Reprsentatives can *claim* is a "high crime or misdemeanor" is grounds for impeachment, even if the act for which they are impeaching is not, itself, a crime.
There are two articles of impeachment, one for "obstruction of Congress" and another for "abuse of power". On the first....the "obstruction" was because the Executive Branch did not immediately acquiesce and hand over every piece of paper the Legislative wanted and some of the people pushed back against Congressional subpoenas. Now, a regular court-issued subpoena has legal enforcement--if you ignore it then police/baliffs/marshals will arrest you and make you show up. A Congressional subpoena is more of a strong suggestion--they would like you to show up, please, but they cannot enforce it unless they go to a Federal Court to have it enforced. This is where the current House of Representatives failed--they did not want to wait for a court to enforce their subpoenas, so they simply said "obstruction of Congress". The laughable point is this: the phrase "obstruction of Congress" is not in the U. S. Code, the compilation of all Federal laws--it is not technically a crime.
On the second...."abuse of power" is also not defined in the U. S. Code because it is far too nebulous to define. Trump withholding military aid until the legal hold date to pressure Ukraine? Abuse. Obama withholding foreign aid to pressure a different country? Not abuse. "Abuse of power" is nothing but a political opinion, which is why it is not a crime. That being said, because the House gets to define impeachable offenses they said "this is impeachable".
The result of this will be a legacy of *dangerous* proportions--I cannot stress that point enough. In the future, if the POTUS and House of Representatives are controlled by different political parties, then any Congressional subpoena which is not met with immediate compliance is grounds for impeachment. Anything which the House can define as "abuse of power" is grounds for impeachment--and "abuse of power" can be as simple as "recalled an ambassador which was appointed by a previous POTUS from a different political party" or "signed an executive order without consulting Congress".
The real reasons the Democrats in the House did not want to take their time to investigate thoroughly are:
1) they did not want to risk tying up any Senators who are running for the office of POTUS, preventing them from attending the national convention
2) they risked uncovering exculpatory evidence which would actually have cleared the POTUS of any wrongdoing
3) the longer they dragged out the investigation without any real damning evidence would be more proof that the charges were bogus
4) they wanted to pawn off the responsibility onto the Senate. The House can claim "we did our job; they did not do theirs" or "the trial wasn't *fair*"
What is funny is that for a long time Democrats claimed that Trump was not a legitimate POTUS because Hillary won the popular vote or there were questions of foreign interference (as if Russian agents actually hacked voting machines and changed results). When they voted to impeach Trump, they actually legitimized his Presidency--you cannot impeach someone whom you think is not a legitimate POTUS!
The claim now, of course, is "the acquittal is not legitimate". Whatever--they can say what they want but that does not make it reality.
The vote not to hear witnesses was 51 - 49, which is probably what the vote to acquit will be unless one or two Democrats switch sides.
There are two articles of impeachment, one for "obstruction of Congress" and another for "abuse of power". On the first....the "obstruction" was because the Executive Branch did not immediately acquiesce and hand over every piece of paper the Legislative wanted and some of the people pushed back against Congressional subpoenas. Now, a regular court-issued subpoena has legal enforcement--if you ignore it then police/baliffs/marshals will arrest you and make you show up. A Congressional subpoena is more of a strong suggestion--they would like you to show up, please, but they cannot enforce it unless they go to a Federal Court to have it enforced. This is where the current House of Representatives failed--they did not want to wait for a court to enforce their subpoenas, so they simply said "obstruction of Congress". The laughable point is this: the phrase "obstruction of Congress" is not in the U. S. Code, the compilation of all Federal laws--it is not technically a crime.
On the second...."abuse of power" is also not defined in the U. S. Code because it is far too nebulous to define. Trump withholding military aid until the legal hold date to pressure Ukraine? Abuse. Obama withholding foreign aid to pressure a different country? Not abuse. "Abuse of power" is nothing but a political opinion, which is why it is not a crime. That being said, because the House gets to define impeachable offenses they said "this is impeachable".
The result of this will be a legacy of *dangerous* proportions--I cannot stress that point enough. In the future, if the POTUS and House of Representatives are controlled by different political parties, then any Congressional subpoena which is not met with immediate compliance is grounds for impeachment. Anything which the House can define as "abuse of power" is grounds for impeachment--and "abuse of power" can be as simple as "recalled an ambassador which was appointed by a previous POTUS from a different political party" or "signed an executive order without consulting Congress".
The real reasons the Democrats in the House did not want to take their time to investigate thoroughly are:
1) they did not want to risk tying up any Senators who are running for the office of POTUS, preventing them from attending the national convention
2) they risked uncovering exculpatory evidence which would actually have cleared the POTUS of any wrongdoing
3) the longer they dragged out the investigation without any real damning evidence would be more proof that the charges were bogus
4) they wanted to pawn off the responsibility onto the Senate. The House can claim "we did our job; they did not do theirs" or "the trial wasn't *fair*"
What is funny is that for a long time Democrats claimed that Trump was not a legitimate POTUS because Hillary won the popular vote or there were questions of foreign interference (as if Russian agents actually hacked voting machines and changed results). When they voted to impeach Trump, they actually legitimized his Presidency--you cannot impeach someone whom you think is not a legitimate POTUS!
The claim now, of course, is "the acquittal is not legitimate". Whatever--they can say what they want but that does not make it reality.
The vote not to hear witnesses was 51 - 49, which is probably what the vote to acquit will be unless one or two Democrats switch sides.