Trump’s defenders need to stop pretending impeachment is a criminal trial
Fact check: Does the 6th Amendment require the whistleblower to face Trump?
No
Right to Speedy Trial by Jury, Witnesses, Counsel
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed,
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/amendment/amendment-vi
Clue? Senate IS the JURY and Impeachment is NOT a Criminal Prosecution.
Trump’s Favorite Impeachment Lawyer Is …Trump Himself
Law classmates tell Trump lawyer Cipollone he distorts Constitution by blocking impeachment witnesses
‘Wow. This letter is bananas.’
George Conway: White House letter condemning impeachment proceedings is ‘trash’
George Conway and other attorneys here know far more about the law than I do:
New Statement from Checks and Balances on President Trump’s Abuse of Office
This is the constitutional crisis we feared
In Deranged Quasi-legal Rant, Trump Calls Impeachment Unconstitutional
Trevor Noah Goes Off on Trump for Blocking Impeachment: ‘What a Completely Innocent Thing to Do!’
‘Cannot be expected to participate in’ impeachment inquiry: White House to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
Live updates: White House says it will not cooperate with House impeachment inquiry; Democrats to subpoena State Dept. official
Five facts that blow up the latest White House defense of Trump
The White House argues the impeachment inquiry is “constitutionally invalid.” They’re wrong.
The Letter:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/10/PAC-Letter-10.08.2019.pdf
The Press Release:
Before I begin my breakdown of THE LETTER I want to make a guess and provide an example of what partisanship looked like when Obama was president.
MY guess is that President Donald J. Trump has done other things wrong. Bad things. Those Darn Tax Returns? My guess is that he is afraid an investigation/impeachment will discover things he knows he has done.
Talk About Irony! Guess who the White House asked to help them with the Impeachment – We have Video of him! (You Can Not Make This Stuff Up!)
Kurt Bardella Trey Gowdy joins Trump’s legal team in a laughable betrayal of his GOP legacy
Now for My Reply (I am no lawyer, can only imagine what a lawyer thinks of this letter!)
Dear Madam Speaker and Messrs. Chairmen:
I write on behalf of President Donald J. Trump in response to your numerous, legally unsupported demands made as part of what you have labeled contrary to the Constitution of the United States and all past bipartisan precedent-as an “impeachment inquiry.” As you know, you have designed and implemented your inquiry in a manner that violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process.
The opening paragraph has errors. “legally unsupported demands” Madison and Montesquieu had these demands in mind when they came up with Checks and Balances. “contrary to the Constitution of the United States” Notice no citation here of HOW it is contrary to the Constitution because it isn’t!.
Impeachment
“The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
https://history.house.gov/Institution/Origins-Development/Impeachment/
— U.S. Constitution, Article II, section 4
Executive Branch
The final section of Article II, which generally describes the executive branch, specifies that the “President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States” shall be removed from office if convicted in an impeachment trial of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Two clauses in Article I lay out the role of the House of Representatives and the Senate in impeachments and in trials of impeachment. In practice, impeachments by the House have been rare, and convictions after a trial by the Senate even less common. Two Presidents, one Senator, one cabinet officer, and fifteen judges have been impeached, and of those only eight judges have been convicted and removed from office.
https://constitutioncenter.org/interactive-constitution/interpretation/article-ii/clauses/349
Article I
Section 2 – “The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment.”
Section 3 – “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.”
“Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.”
https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei
So “violates fundamental fairness and constitutionally mandated due process.” in the letter is WRONG. The above IS what the Constitution says.
So First Paragraph of the Letter was Wrong.
For example, you have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and every past precedent. Never before in our history has the House of Representatives-under the control of either political party-taken the American people down the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue.
Impeachment is NOT a Criminal Trial. Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments do not apply. ” right to cross-examine witnesses” This is a backhanded attack at Whistleblowers. Sad and wrong.
You are violating the separation of powers with this letter. Do you realize that? ” Never before in our history ” Bill Clinton will argue with you on this one!
Put simply, you seek to overturn the results of the 2016 election and deprive the American people of the President they have freely chosen. Many Democrats now apparently view impeachment not only as a means to undo the democratic results of the last election, but as a strategy to influence the next election, which is barely more than a year away. As one member of Congress explained, he is “concerned that if we don’t impeach the President, he will get reelected.”1 Your highly partisan and unconstitutional effort threatens grave and lasting damage to our democratic institutions, to our system of free elections, and to the American people.
You DO realize Pence becomes president, NOT Hillary?
You are repeating a GOP Talking Point here. Sad. You are so wrong on “threatens grave and lasting damage” – this letter and Trump’s behavior along with the GOP is doing that!
For his part, President Trump took the unprecedented step of providing the public transparency by declassifying and releasing the record of his call with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine. The record clearly established that the call was completely appropriate and that there is no basis for your inquiry. The fact that there was nothing wrong with the call was also powerfully confirmed by Chairman Schiff’s decision to create a false version of the call and read it to the American people at a congressional hearing, without disclosing that he was simply making it all up.
Another terrible wrong paragraph here! How do we know it is and accurate and COMPLETE transcript?
You are making a legal argument here, “The record clearly established that the call was completely appropriate and that there is no basis for your inquiry.“, without providing a witness to prove it. You do realize those text messages and other records prove your legal argument is wrong?
Those text messages:
So ” Chairman Schiff’s” can’t ‘joke’ but Marco Rubio can tell people that Trump was joking about asking China to find dirt on the Bidens? By the way Marco, Trump was not joking! Trump raised Biden with Xi in June call housed in highly secure server
In addition, information has recently come to light that the whistleblower had contact with Chairman Schiff’s office before filing the complaint. His initial denial of such contact caused The Washington Post to conclude that Chairman Schiff “clearly made a statement that was false.” 2 In any event, the American people understand that Chairman Schiff cannot covertly assist with the submission of a complaint, mislead the public about his involvement, read a counterfeit version of the call to the American people, and then pretend to sit in judgment as a neutral “investigator.”
You may want to review those Benghazi hearings. Those email/server hearings. The Bill Clinton Impeachment. Are you that scared of what the whistleblower knows and Schiff’s skills?
For these reasons, President Trump and his Administration reject your baseless, unconstitutional efforts to overturn the democratic process. Your unprecedented actions have left the President with no choice. In order to fulfill his duties to the American people, the Constitution, the Executive Branch, and all future occupants of the Office of the Presidency, President Trump and his Administration cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional inquiry under these circumstances
The US House, with the powers given to it via the US Constitution, are doing are providing a constitutional service. Impeachment is never an effort to overturn the democratic process. It IS an effort to impugn (The House) and convict (The Senate). You do understand Trump took the Oath of Office?
Trump is betraying his oath of office. If Republicans don’t step up, they will be, too.
The Oath of Office:
I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States
NOT cooperating with Congress is NOT preserving, protecting and defending our Constitution!
I. Your “Inquiry” Is Constitutionally Invalid and Violates Basic Due Process Rights and the Separation of Powers.
Your inquiry is constitutionally invalid and a violation of due process. In the history of our Nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry against the President without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step. Here, House leadership claims to have initiated the gravest inter-branch conflict contemplated under our Constitution by means of nothing more than a press conference at which the Speaker of the House simply announced an “official impeachment inquiry. ” 3 Your contrived process is unprecedented in the history of the Nation,4 and lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding. 5
The Phrase “Due Process” occurs zero (0!) times in the House Rules of Impeachment:
The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives
You are echoing a GOP talking point here. There are no rules in the Constitution for the Method of an Impeachment. ” The House of Representatives shall choose their speaker and other officers; and shall have the sole power of impeachment“. “House taking political accountability” So you want to use a legislators vote against them in 2020? It may not be detrimental for them to vote YES on this in 2020! ” Your contrived process is unprecedented” Trump is unprecedented! The US Constitution does not have specific rules on HOW an impeachment is done. Unprecedented is not a bad thing here. First Twitter Impeachment. First HD TV impeachment. All of that is unprecedented. “lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment proceeding” The Authorization starts and stops with Nancy Pelosi and the other 434 members of Congress via the US Constitution.
The Committees’ inquiry also suffers from a separate, fatal defect. Despite Speaker Pelosi’s commitment to “treat the President with fairness,”6 the Committees have not established any procedures affording the President even the most basic protections demanded by due process under the Constitution and by fundamental fairness. Chairman Nadler of the House Judiciary Committee has expressly acknowledged, at least when the President was a member of his own party, that “[t]he power of impeachment … demands a rigorous level of due process,” and that in this context “due process mean[s] … the right to be informed of the law, of the charges against you, the right to confront the witnesses against you, to call your own witnesses, and to have the assistance of counsel. ” 7 All of these procedures have been abandoned here.
“the right to confront the witnesses against you, to call your own witnesses, and to have the assistance of counsel” Nadler saying it does not make it the law. He was not a judge in a criminal or civil TRIAL. Impeachment is NOT a TRIAL. This is another bite at the whistleblower tree. Sad. The Impugn episode (will use words Trump can understand) of impeachment, The House, is looking into accusations and then writing Articles of Impeachment. Right to a speedy trial, jury of your peers and confront accusers and witnesses do not apply.
These due process rights are not a matter of discretion for the Committees to dispense with at will. To the contrary, they are constitutional requirements. The Supreme Court has recognized that due process protections apply to all congressional investigations.8 Indeed, it has been recognized that the Due Process Clause applies to impeachment proceedings.9 And precedent for the rights to cross-examine witnesses, call witnesses, and present evidence dates back nearly 150 years. 10 Yet the Committees have decided to deny the President these elementary rights and protections that form the basis of the American justice system and are protected by the Constitution. No citizen-including the President-should be treated this unfairly.
WOW! Did you bother READING Watkins v United States?
Watkins v. United States
Question
Did the activities of the Un-American Activities Committee constitute an unconstitutional exercise of congressional power?
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1956/261
This was a FIFTH Amendment Decision – (Hillary testified, Trump didn’t!)
You seem to be confusing the House Impeachment (Charges, Articles of Impeachment) with a Senate TRIAL (Conviction State). The Senate Trial is NOT a Criminal Trial. In both the House and Senate, the Rules do not contain the phrase “Due Process”
The Impeachment Process in the House of Representatives
Impeachment
RULES OF PROCEDURE AND PRACTICE IN THE SENATE WHEN SITTING ON IMPEACHMENT TRIALS
In a 6-to-1 decision, the Court held that the activities of the House Committee were beyond the scope of congressional power. The Court held that both the authorizing resolution of the Committee and the specific statements made by the Committee to Watkins failed to limit the Committee’s power. The Court found that because Watkins had not been given sufficient information describing the pertinency of the questions to the subjects under inquiry, he had not been accorded a fair opportunity to determine whether he was within his rights in refusing to answer. The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment thus invalidated Watkins’ conviction.
QUINN v. UNITED STATES
Was a CIVIL Trial!
Did you READ the Alcee Hastings Decision?
Court Upholds Shortcut Used in Ousting 2 Judges
“In a decision effectively upholding the removal of two Federal judges, the Supreme Court ruled 9 to 0 today that the Senate’s use of a shortcut procedure for handling impeachments is not open to challenge in Federal court.
The Constitution gives the Senate not only the last word but essentially the only word on how to discharge its duty to “try all impeachments,” the Court said in rejecting the arguments of a former Federal judge, Walter L. Nixon, who had challenged the procedure the Senate used to convict and remove him from office in 1989.
Mr. Nixon, formerly the chief Federal District Judge in Mississippi, argued that the full Senate should have heard the evidence in his case rather than the special 12-member committee to which the Senate delegated the job of taking evidence and hearing witnesses.
Both the Federal District Court here and the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit had refused to address the merits of his challenge, ruling that the case presented a “political question” that should not be resolved by the courts.”
https://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/14/us/court-upholds-shortcut-used-in-ousting-2-judges.html
“Yet the Committees have decided to deny the President these elementary rights and protections that form the basis of the American justice system and are protected by the Constitution.” I am surprised you didn’t bring up Mapp vs Ohio, Miranda v Arizona and Gideon v Wainright! One problem. Impeachment is NOT a TRIAL. The 4th, 5th and 6th Amendments DO NOT APPLY! Where did you get your law degree? I don’t have one and I know this! You don’t think a Senator can be impeached do you? (They can’t!)
I am starting to think the person who wrote this letter is to law what Dinesh D’Souza is to US History!
To comply with the Constitution’s demands, appropriate procedures would include-at a minimum-the right to see all evidence, to present evidence, to call witnesses, to have counsel present at all hearings, to cross-examine all witnesses, to make objections relating to the examination of witnesses or the admissibility of testimony and evidence, and to respond to evidence and testimony. Likewise, the Committees must provide for the disclosure of all evidence favorable to the President and all evidence bearing on the credibility of witnesses called to testify in the inquiry. The Committees’ current procedures provide none of these basic constitutional rights.
Everything in this paragraph is wrong. I am going back to my argument from last paragraph. The Bill of Rights DO NOT APPLY to an Impeachment. This is not a criminal or civil TRIAL. You may want to study
Nixon v. United States
(Not THAT Nixon! LOL!)
Question
Is Nixon’s claim — that Senate Rule XI violates the Impeachment Trial Clause — justiciable, i.e., appropriate for judicial resolution?Conclusion
No. A unanimous Court held that the question of whether or not the Senate rule violated the U.S. Constitution was nonjusticiable since the Impeachment clause expressly granted that the “Senate shall have sole Power to try any impeachments.” The clause laid out specific regulations that were to be followed and as long as those guidelines were observed the courts would not rule upon the validity of other Senate procedures regarding impeachments. Chief Justice William Rehnquist observed that while the Supreme Court was the “ultimate interpreter of the Constitution,” a matter would be deemed nonjusticiable when there was “a constitutional commitment of the issue to a coordinate political department.”
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1992/91-740
In addition, the House has not provided the Committees’ Ranking Members with the authority to issue subpoenas. The right of the minority to issue subpoenas-subject to the same rules as the majority-has been the standard, bipartisan practice in all recent resolutions authorizing presidential impeachment inquiries. 11 The House’s failure to provide co-equal subpoena power in this case ensures that any inquiry will be nothing more than a one-sided effort by House Democrats to gather information favorable to their views and to selectively release it as only they determine. The House’s utter disregard for the established procedural safeguards followed in past impeachment inquiries shows that the current proceedings are nothing more than an unconstitutional exercise in political theater.
Congressional Subpoena Power and Executive Privilege: The Coming Showdown Between the Branches
How a particular committee decides to issue a subpoena is specific to each committee. Most committees of the House and Senate have included in their rules one or more provisions on committees’ and subcommittees’ power to authorize subpoenas by majority vote. Most House committee rules delegate to the committee chair the power to authorize subpoenas, and many of these rules require the chair to consult or notify the committee’s ranking minority member. Once authorized, a subpoena must be signed and delivered to the person named in it. Delivery of the subpoena to the person named in it means the person has been officially “served.”
“The House’s failure to provide co-equal” Where was this concern when the GOP was in charge of the House and Nunes was off on his wild goose chase?
“political theater” is the ignoring of subpoenas and thumbing noses at hearing appointments.
As if denying the President basic procedural protections were not enough, the Committees have also resorted to threats and intimidation against potential Executive Branch witnesses. Threats by the Committees against Executive Branch witnesses who assert common and longstanding rights destroy the integrity of the process and brazenly violate fundamental due process. In letters to State Department employees, the Committees have ominously threatened without any legal basis and before the Committees even issued a subpoena that “[a]ny failure to appear” in response to a mere letter request for a deposition “shall constitute evidence of obstruction.” 12 Worse, the Committees have broadly threatened that if State Department officials attempt to insist upon the right for the Department to have an agency lawyer present at depositions to protect legitimate Executive Branch confidentiality interests-or apparently if they make any effort to protect those confidentiality interests at all-these officials will have their salaries withheld. 13
What “threats”? Where? NOT showing up IS Obstruction. That is NOT a Threat. That is a FACT!
obstruction of justice
“their salaries withheld” If the private sector, if you refuse to cooperate with your employer he may not want to pay you, especially in right-to-work states.
The suggestion that it would somehow be problematic for anyone to raise long established Executive Branch confidentiality interests and privileges in response to a request for a deposition is legally unfounded. Not surprisingly, the Office of Legal Counsel at the Department of Justice has made clear on multiple occasions that employees of the Executive Branch who have been instructed not to appear or not to provide particular testimony before Congress based on privileges or immunities of the Executive Branch cannot be punished for following such instructions. 14 Current and former State Department officials are duty bound to protect the confidentiality interests of the Executive Branch, and the Office of Legal Counsel has also recognized that it is unconstitutional to exclude agency counsel from participating in congressional depositions. 15 In addition, any attempt to withhold an official’s salary for the assertion of such interests would be unprecedented and unconstitutional.16 The Committees’ assertions on these points amount to nothing more than strong-arm tactics designed to rush proceedings without any regard for due process and the rights of individuals and of the Executive Branch. Threats aimed at intimidating individuals who assert these basic rights are attacks on civil liberties that should profoundly concern all Americans.
Confidentially does not extend to illegality.
United States v. Nixon
Yes, THAT Nixon!
Question
Is the President’s right to safeguard certain information, using his “executive privilege” confidentiality power, entirely immune from judicial review?
Conclusion
No. The Court held that neither the doctrine of separation of powers, nor the generalized need for confidentiality of high-level communications, without more, can sustain an absolute, unqualified, presidential privilege. The Court granted that there was a limited executive privilege in areas of military or diplomatic affairs, but gave preference to “the fundamental demands of due process of law in the fair administration of justice.” Therefore, the president must obey the subpoena and produce the tapes and documents. Nixon resigned shortly after the release of the tapes.
II. The Invalid “Impeachment Inquiry” Plainly Seeks To Reverse the Election of 2016 and To Influence the Election of 2020.
The effort to impeach President Trump—–without regard to any evidence of his actions in office —- is a naked political strategy that began the day he was inaugurated, and perhaps even before. 17 In fact, your transparent rush to judgment, lack of democratically accountable authorization, and violation of basic rights in the current proceedings make clear the illegitimate, partisan purpose of this purported “impeachment inquiry.” The Founders, however, did not create the extraordinary mechanism of impeachment so it could be used by a political party that feared for its prospects against the sitting President in the next election. The decision as to who will be elected President in 2020 should rest with the people of the United States, exactly where the Constitution places it.
A lot to digest here. “without regard to any evidence of his actions in office” There seems to be MOUNTAINS of Evidence. This letter does not question the veracity of the evidence already obtained by the house. ” your transparent rush to judgment” So the months of Pelosi saying No to impeachment was a ruse? “violation of basic rights in the current proceedings” Repeating this throughout the letter may be a great message to Trump’s shrinking base, but I have already disavowed this mantra in this letter more than once. “The Founders, however, did not create the extraordinary mechanism of impeachment so it could be used by a political party that feared for its prospects against the sitting President in the next election.” Have you read the Federalist Papers? I have. Ever heard of GOOGLE? Federalist 65?
The Federalist Papers : No. 65
The word “impeach” occurs 13 times. The word “politic”? 3 times. “elections” Once. Alexander Hamilton, far wiser than you and I, did NOT make the argument you are.
A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves. The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.
Would it have been desirable to have composed the court for the trial of impeachments, of persons wholly distinct from the other departments of the government? There are weighty arguments, as well against, as in favor of, such a plan. To some minds it will not appear a trivial objection, that it could tend to increase the complexity of the political machine, and to add a new spring to the government, the utility of which would at best be questionable. But an objection which will not be thought by any unworthy of attention, is this: a court formed upon such a plan, would either be attended with a heavy expense, or might in practice be subject to a variety of casualties and inconveniences. It must either consist of permanent officers, stationary at the seat of government, and of course entitled to fixed and regular stipends, or of certain officers of the State governments to be called upon whenever an impeachment was actually depending. It will not be easy to imagine any third mode materially different, which could rationally be proposed. As the court, for reasons already given, ought to be numerous, the first scheme will be reprobated by every man who can compare the extent of the public wants with the means of supplying them. The second will be espoused with caution by those who will seriously consider the difficulty of collecting men dispersed over the whole Union; the injury to the innocent, from the procrastinated determination of the charges which might be brought against them; the advantage to the guilty, from the opportunities which delay would afford to intrigue and corruption; and in some cases the detriment to the State, from the prolonged inaction of men whose firm and faithful execution of their duty might have exposed them to the persecution of an intemperate or designing majority in the House of Representatives. Though this latter supposition may seem harsh, and might not be likely often to be verified, yet it ought not to be forgotten that the demon of faction will, at certain seasons, extend his sceptre over all numerous bodies of men.
The Federalist Papers : No. 69
The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.
Democrats themselves used to recognize the dire implications of impeachment for the Nation. For example, in the past, Chairman Nadler has explained:
The effect of impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters. We must not overturn an election and remove a President from office except to defend our system of government or our constitutional liberties against a dire threat, and we must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by another. Such an impeachment will produce divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come, and will call into question the very legitimacy of our political institutions. 18
We are under a dire threat. We have a POTUS using his power of office to blackmail foreign leaders for personal gain. We have a POTUS that refuses to release his taxes yet has properties that his donors and industries he regulates rents for parties and rooms to stay in(?). Overwhelming consensus of Americans? See the latest polls? Two more weeks of the White House stopping people from testifying will only drive those poll results higher. When will the GOP realize how bad Trump is will answer “supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by another”.
Will cowardice be part of today’s GOP legacy?
Unfortunately, the President’s political opponents now seem eager to transform impeachment from an extraordinary remedy that should rarely be contemplated into a conventional political weapon to be deployed for partisan gain. These actions are a far cry from what our Founders envisioned when they vested Congress with the “important trust” of considering impeachment. 19 Precisely because it nullifies the outcome of the democratic process, impeachment of the President is fraught with the risk of deepening divisions in the country and creating long-lasting rifts in the body politic.20 Unfortunately, you are now playing out exactly the partisan rush to judgment that the Founders so strongly warned against. The American people deserve much better than this.
I have already provided you with Hamilton’s thoughts on Impeachment. If he was here he would tell you just how wrong you are. Trump is the reason they wrote Impeachment into the Constitution. Hamilton knew it would be a partisan exercise. He wrote exactly that. You may want to read Madison’s Federalist Paper 10 one day? He addresses factions. We could go with the “Electoral College was Written to Keep Someone Like Trump from Being Elected” argument but since I have wanted to abolish the Electoral College since 1976 I won’t go there.
III. There Is No Legitimate Basis for Your “Impeachment Inquiry”; Instead, the Committees’ Actions Raise Serious Questions.
It is transparent that you have resorted to such unprecedented and unconstitutional procedures because you know that a fair process would expose the lack of any basis for your inquiry. Your current effort is founded on a completely appropriate call on July 25, 2019, between President Trump and President Zelenskyy of Ukraine. Without waiting to see what was actually said on the call, a press conference was held announcing an “impeachment inquiry” based on falsehoods and misinformation about the call.21 To rebut those falsehoods, and to provide transparency to the American people, President Trump secured agreement from the Government of Ukraine and took the extraordinary step of declassifying and publicly releasing the record of the call. That record clearly established that the call was completely appropriate, that the President did nothing wrong, and that there is no basis for an impeachment inquiry. At a joint press conference shortly after the call’s public release, President Zelenskyy agreed that the call was appropriate. 22 In addition, the Department of Justice announced that officials there had reviewed the call after a referral for an alleged campaign finance law violation and found no such violation.23
I just noticed that throughout your letter you keep misspelling President Volodymyr Zelensky’s name. ” Without waiting to see what was actually said on the call, a press conference was held announcing an “impeachment inquiry” based on falsehoods and misinformation about the call.” You do realize Trump confessed to asking for help with the Bidens? He asked China and other nations too! Trump raised Biden with Xi in June call housed in highly secure server and Mounting evidence buttresses claims in whistleblower complaint
“That record clearly established that the call was completely appropriate, that the President did nothing wrong, and that there is no basis for an impeachment inquiry.” Saying this over and over again does not make it true. You are thinking Beetlejuice! “President Zelenskyy agreed that the call was appropriate.” (One y in Zelensky, and Zelensky, like any person being coerced or blackmailed, has to say whatever it takes to get to keep what he was given by congress. He has learned the power of flattery when it comes to Trump.) ” Department of Justice announced that officials there had reviewed the call after a referral for an alleged campaign finance law violation and found no such violation.” In other news, tobacco companies find nothing wrong with smoking. We have learned that Trump thinks Barr is HIS personal attorney and Barr made donations to the Senate to make sure he got to be Trump’s attorney. William Barr’s donations to Senate Republicans spiked just before they confirmed him as attorney general
Perhaps the best evidence that there was no wrongdoing on the call is the fact that, after the actual record of the call was released, Chairman Schiff chose to concoct a false version of the call and to read his made-up transcript to the American people at a public hearing. 24 This powerfully confirms there is no issue with the actual call. Otherwise, why would Chairman Schiff feel the need to make up his own version? The Chairman’s action only further undermines the public’s confidence in the fairness of any inquiry before his Committee.
parody
During the impeachment, do you plan on using SNL cold openings?
“Otherwise, why would Chairman Schiff feel the need to make up his own version?“
You do realize that Schiff said “This is in sum and character what the president was trying to communicate with the president of Ukraine” and If would be funny if….” Watch! Ever heard of Orson Welles War of the Worlds? So you are excusing the THOUSANDS of LIES that Trump tells?
Speaking of a ‘perfect call’
The real problem, as we are now learning, is that Chairman Schiff’s office, and perhaps others-despite initial denials-were involved in advising the whistleblower before the complaint was filed. Initially, when asked on national television about interactions with the whistleblower, Chairman Schiff unequivocally stated that “[w]e have not spoken directly with the whistleblower. We would like to.”25
You do understand this is how whistleblowing works? A congressional office is a Service Office. Grassley Op-ed: We need whistleblowers for good government
Federal Employee Whistleblowers — Whistleblower Protection Act
Look up what a Case Worker does in a Legislator’s office.
Now, however, it has been reported that the whistleblower approached the House Intelligence Committee with information-and received guidance from the Committee-before filing a complaint with the Inspector General.26 As a result, The Washington Post concluded that Chairman Schiff “clearly made a statement that was false. ” 27 Anyone who was involved in the preparation or submission of the whistleblower’s complaint cannot possibly act as a fair and impartial judge in the same matter-particularly after misleading the American people about his involvement.
You are going with the “Discovery is Wrong” argument here? When did the Washington Post become judge and jury? You may not want to go there! I have hundreds, maybe thousands, of Washington Post stories about your client, from his taxes to his charities. I notice you are not attacking the truthfulness of the whistleblower, just the desire to reveal who it is and muddy the waters of his or her involvement for Trump’s base. You can’t attack the message so you want to attack the messenger.
All of this raises serious questions that must be investigated. However, the Committees are preventing anyone, including the minority, from looking into these critically important matters. At the very least, Chairman Schiff must immediately make available all documents relating to these issues. After all, the American people have a right to know about the Committees’ own actions with respect to these matters.
No argument here. Except for ANY documents pertaining to the whistleblowers (plural). Don’t you find it odd you are making this argument when this entire letter is you telling the House Trump is NOT going to do this very thing?
Given that your inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation, any pretense of fairness, or even the most elementary due process protections, the Executive Branch carmot be expected to participate in it. Because participating in this inquiry under the current unconstitutional posture would inflict lasting institutional harm on the Executive Branch and lasting damage to the separation of powers, you have left the President no choice. Consistent with the duties of the President of the United States, and in particular his obligation to preserve the rights of future occupants of his office, President Trump cannot permit his Administration to participate in this partisan inquiry under these circumstances
“Given that your inquiry lacks any legitimate constitutional foundation” I have covered this, with Federalist Papers and the US Constitution. Impeachment IS one of THE Foundations of Checks and Balances. I even gave you an instructional video! Here is another video, from a teacher friend in Buffalo, New York I met via Youtube and Twitter:
“any pretense of fairness” FAIR is where pigs and cows are judged. “or even the most elementary due process protections, the Executive Branch cannot be expected to participate in it.” The Bill of Rights was to protect CITIZENS FROM our Government. It only applied to the Federal Government until the 14th Amendment. It DOES NOT APPLY to Impeachment. Impeachment is Government impugning someone IN Government. Those pesky Federalist Papers. A Constitutional Lawyer or any US Historian can explain this to you. Some of them are on twitter.
Your recent letter to the Acting White House Chief of Staff argues that “[ e ]ven if an impeachment inquiry were not underway,” the Oversight Committee may seek this information as a matter of the established oversight process. 28 Respectfully, the Committees cannot have it both ways. The letter comes from the Chairmen of three different Committees, it transmits a subpoena “[p]ursuant to the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry,” it recites that the documents will “be collected as part of the House’s impeachment inquiry,” and it asserts that the documents will be “shared among the Committees, as well as with the Committee on the Judiciary as appropriate.”29 The letter is in no way directed at collecting information in aid of legislation, and you simply cannot expect to rely on oversight authority to gather information for an unauthorized impeachment inquiry that conflicts with all historical precedent and rides roughshod over due process and the separation of powers. If the Committees wish to return to the regular order of oversight requests, we stand ready to engage in that process as we have in the past, in a manner consistent with well-established bipartisan constitutional protections and a respect for the separation of powers enshrined in our Constitution.
This passage “The letter is in no way directed at collecting information in aid of legislation, and you simply cannot expect to rely on oversight authority to gather information for an unauthorized impeachment inquiry that conflicts with all historical precedent and rides roughshod over due process and the separation of powers.” explains everything! Everything being Trump’s total lack of knowledge when it comes to basic Civics and you seem to be suffering from that same ignorance!
When you types “the letter is in no way directed at collecting information in aid of legislation” One of the powers of Congress is OVERSIGHT. CHECKS AND BALANCES. Legislation NOT required! Madison and Montesquieu. A History Lesson:
Checks and Balances
You gave away the farm! A Civics Lesson:
Unit 2 – National Government
“unauthorized impeachment inquiry that conflicts with all historical precedent and rides roughshod over due process and the separation of powers.” The House gives ITSELF authority. Precedent is not an argument. No other president had his party change the platform
How The Trump Campaign Weakened The Republican Platform On Aid To Ukraine
for better control over who he can give someone.
The timeline of Trump’s decision to withhold aid to Ukraine is increasingly suspicious
separation of powers IS what gives the House the Power to Impeach. Your client is going to learn this lesson, it appears, with this letter, the hard way, but he WILL learn.
For the foregoing reasons, the President cannot allow your constitutionally illegitimate proceedings to distract him and those in the Executive Branch from their work on behalf of the American people. The President has a country to lead. The American people elected him to do this job, and he remains focused on fulfilling his promises to the American people. He has important work that he must continue on their behalf, both at home and around the world, including continuing strong economic growth, extending historically low levels of unemployment, negotiating trade deals, fixing our broken immigration system, lowering prescription drug prices, and addressing mass shooting violence. We hope that, in light of the many deficiencies we have identified in your proceedings, you will abandon the current invalid efforts to pursue an impeachment inquiry and join the President in focusing on the many important goals that matter to the American people.
“President cannot allow your constitutionally illegitimate proceedings to distract him and those in the Executive Branch from their work on behalf of the American people” Impeachment IS constitutionally LEGITIMATE. Work for the American People? Other than two (2) SCOTUS Judges, a lot of unqualified and mostly white, male, bigoted judges
and a bogus Tax Cut
For the first time in history, U.S. billionaires paid a lower tax rate than the working class last year
What has Trump accomplished? I know he is trying to go 1 for 9 by abandoning the Kurds!
“The American people elected him to do this job, and he remains focused on fulfilling his promises to the American people.” Sadly, this is NOT true. He tweets and plays golf.
“strong economic growth, extending historically low levels of unemployment,
https://data.bls.gov/timeseries/LNS14000002
Obama
White 7.1 4.3(-2.8)
Black 12.7 7.7(-5)
Asian 6.1 3.7(-2.4)
Hispanic 10.1 5.8(-4.3)
Women 7.0 4.7(-2.3)
Trump
White 4.3 3.5 (-0.8)
Black 7.7 5.5 (-2.2)
Asian 3.7 2.5 (-1.2)
Hispanic 5.8 3.9 (-1.9)
Women 4.7 3.4 (-1.3)
“negotiating trade deals“
Zero ratified Trump Trade Deals.
“fixing our broken immigration system“
NO!
“lowering prescription drug prices“
NO! No end in sight to rising drug prices, study finds
“and addressing mass shooting violence.“
No!
U.S. mass shootings in 2019
Sadly @realDonaldTrump parrots @nra talking points
Signed
Pat Cipollone
Counsel to the President
Trump Finally Has His Lawyer
An awesome thread:
