flyangler

Oops, the SCOTUS seems to have crippled Article 2, Obstruction

Rate this topic

8 posts in this topic

Uh, who has been arguing this? I mean other than me, half a dozen others here and man more smart folks in the outside world?

 

Someone CANNOT claim they are being OBSTRUCTED unless THEY have done their UTMOST to legally compel the behavior that THEY seek.

 

You CANNOT claim OBSTRUCTION when you demand something (witnesses or documents), the other party says no for the following reasons, and you DO NOT  take them to court to have your claims adjudicated.

 

You CANNOT CHOOSE to QUIT when you have NOT pressed the full case and EXHAUSTED every available legal remedy. 
 

Yet, the Dems have done so and created Article 2 of their impeachment claims based on their HALF-ASSED attempts to get compliance from the Administration. 
 

I have argued for a couple of months that the Dems did not want their impeachment inquiry to be placed before a judge. The rationale is that the Dems fear an adverse ruling from a judge who might toss their claims completely based on the proper Constitutional separation of power and Executive Privilege. This is why they have not pursued court rulings in their soft subpoenas, including for Bolton, Pompeo and Mulvaney, and why they chose to withdraw the subpoena from Kuperman who filed a counter-suit. 
 

Anyway, Dershowitz argues that the fact that the Supreme Court has agreed to hear lower court rulings on various subpoenas indicates that the Administration has grounds in its arguments which appear to eviscerate the Democrats arguments that they’ve done all the can and have been OBSTRUCTED. 
 

Alan Dershowitz writing at The Hill: 

Supreme Court ruling pulls rug out from under article of impeachment

The decision by the Supreme Court to review the lower court rulings involving congressional and prosecution subpoenas directed toward President Trump undercuts the second article of impeachment that passed the House Judiciary Committee along party lines last week.

That second article of impeachment charges President Trump with obstruction of Congress for refusing to comply with congressional subpoenas in the absence of a final court order. In so charging him, the House Judiciary Committee has arrogated to itself the power to decide the validity of its subpoenas, as well as the power to determine whether claims of executive privilege must be recognized, both powers that properly belong with the judicial branch of our government, not the legislative branch. The House of Representatives will do likewise, if it votes to approve the articles, as is expected to occur on Wednesday.

 

President Trump has asserted that the executive branch, of which he is the head, need not comply with congressional subpoenas requiring the production of privileged executive material, unless there is a final court order compelling such production. He has argued, appropriately, that the judicial branch is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between the legislative and executive branches. Therefore, the Supreme Court decision to review these three cases, in which lower courts ruled against President Trump, provides support for his constitutional arguments in the investigation.

 

The cases that are being reviewed are not identical to the challenged subpoenas that form the basis for the second article of impeachment. One involves authority of the New York district attorney to subpoena the financial records of a sitting president, as part of any potential criminal investigation. The others involve authority of legislative committees to subpoena records as part of any ongoing congressional investigations.

 

But they are close enough. Even if the high court were eventually to rule against the claims by President Trump, the fact that the justices decided to hear them, in effect, supports his constitutional contention that he had the right to challenge congressional subpoenas in court, or to demand that those issuing the subpoenas seek to enforce them through court.

 

It undercuts the contention by House Democrats that President Trump committed an impeachable offense by insisting on a court order before sending possibly privileged material to Congress. Even before the justices granted review of these cases, the two articles of impeachment had no basis in the Constitution. They were a reflection of the comparative voting power of the two parties, precisely what one of the founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned would be the “greatest danger” of an impeachment.

 

House Democrats should seriously consider dropping this second article in light of the recent Supreme Court action. In fairness, this development involving the high court occurred after Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee made up their minds to include obstruction of Congress as an impeachment article. Yet the new circumstances give some Democratic members of Congress, who may end up paying an electoral price if they support the House Judiciary Committee recommendation, meaningful reason for voting against at least one of the articles of impeachment.

 

It would be a smart way out for those Democrats. More important, it would be the right thing for them to do. It would be smart and right because, as matters now stand, the entire process smacks of partisanship, with little concern for the precedential impact which these articles could have on future impeachments. If a few more Democrats voted in a way that would demonstrate greater nuanced recognition that, at the least, the second article of impeachment represents an overreach based on current law, it would lend an aura of some nonpartisan legitimacy to the proceedings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The dims don't care that their efforts were half-assed.  They just needed to have their show go on to get it on the record, as even they are not stupid enough to think they really presented a case of anything impeachable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang everyone that was involved including Obama and those Clinton’s for treason or this behavior will continue. Our country deserves much better than this. The tax payers deserve better 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Trump is guilty of anything it is keeping himself clear of the efforts to impeach him. If not cooperating in this scam impeachment is obstruction, they got him.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Victory Girls blog:

 

If the Senate sticks to the record that the House has created regarding the articles of impeachment, and then makes the House defend the articles solely on their own record of witnesses, it makes the case for impeachment look incredibly weak and pathetic. This has been a rush job, because Democrats were so convinced that their would be a pony in the pile of manure if they could just get that phone call transcript.

I continue to believe that President Trump absolutely pulled the rug out from under the Democrats when he released the transcript without a court battle. When the transcript didn’t fulfill all their fever dreams, the Democrats decided to keep rushing through. The problem is that they didn’t actually subpoena witnesses. They invited several administration officials to testify. Those officials told the Democrats to issue a subpoena, but they would end up fighting those subpoenas in court – as is their legal right to do. So the Democrats didn’t even bother with the subpoenas, especially in the case of former National Security Advisor John Bolton.

“We would welcome John Bolton’s deposition and he did not appear as he was requested today. His counsel has informed us that unlike three other dedicated public servants who worked for him on the NSC and have complied with lawful subpoenas, Mr. Bolton would take us to court if we subpoenaed him,” the official said in a statement provided to CNN.

 

The official continued, “We regret Mr. Bolton’s decision not to appear voluntarily, but we have no interest in allowing the administration to play rope-a-dope with us in the courts for months. Rather, the White House instruction that he not appear will add to the evidence of the President’s obstruction of Congress.”

THAT is how House Democrats cooked up their completely idiotic article of impeachment about “obstruction of Congress.” When administration officials didn’t willingly come to testify, and told the House that they could fight it out in court as the law provides, the HouseDemocrats said “nah, can’t wait for the facts” and claimed “obstruction” instead.

 

There is no defense for that article of impeachment, and Graham’s take is to simply let the House Democrats come into the Senate and try to spin it. There is merit to that tactic, as it will make the Democrats look extremely foolhardy and stupid.

Which is why Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer is now saying to Majority Leader MitchMcConnell, “hey, can we call some witnesses here?”

In the letter obtained by CNN, Schumer, a New York Democrat, called for at least four witnesses to testify, including acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, former national security adviser John Bolton, senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff Robert Blair and Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey.

 

“We believe all of this should be considered in one resolution. The issue of witnesses and documents, which are the most important issues facing us, should be decided before we move forward with any part of the trial,” Schumer wrote in the letter, adding that he would be “open to hearing the testimony of additional witnesses.”

Ohhhhhhhhh, so NOW we need witnesses. The House Democrats didn’t need no stinkin’ witnesses if they actually had to WORK for them, but the Senate Democrats are suddenly looking at those articles of impeachment and thinking what the rest of us are: that this is some weak tea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I still believe a crime must have been committed before Congress can  subpoena Trump’s financial records.  Not let’s subpoena Trumps financial records to see if he has committed any crimes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to register here in order to participate.

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.