Why Trump should be impeached by anyone who believes in the Constitution
 

The charge that the president asked the government of Ukraine to give him personal political favors is serious. Proving it will require overcoming presidential stonewalling, building a carefully-constructed case on the model of criminal law, and relying on dozens of Republicans to reverse positions they have already taken publicly.

Cipollone’s or Trump's letter to Congress is a game-changer precisely because it is not about the president’s conduct—which Democrats are always primed to attack and which Republicans are forever willing to excuse. It sweeps away the clutter of Trump’s outsized personality to clarify the constitutional stakes. The letter is not a constitutional crisis. It is a constitutional opportunity.

On the basis of Cipollone’s letter alone, the House could immediately debate articles of impeachment rooted in abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. That would clarify the question for Congressional Republicans, which is not whether they are willing to apologize ad infinitum for President Trump personally—they are—but rather whether they are willing to go on record as foregoing their power of oversight of future Democratic administrations. Democrats will eventually occupy the White House and Republicans will eventually control the Congress. Whether that happens in 2021 or beyond is not the point. The survival of congressional oversight is.

The stakes are no less than that. The important fact about the Cipollone letter is not that it concocts legal grounds for resisting the House inquiry but rather that it reserves for presidents the right to judge whether impeachment proceedings are legitimate. Is there a circumstance in which a future president would acknowledge that they are?

That those in power will someday find themselves in opposition—and consequently should make decisions on the integrity of institutions rather than the behavior of individuals—is both one of the most important, and one of the most easily forsaken, tenets of constitutionalism.

Democrats forgot that principle with respect to President Obama’s assertions of unilateral executive authority over domestic issues such as health care and immigration. Yet some of the president’s most shameless apologists have retained a residue of institutional concern. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, for example, has defended the legislative filibuster on the grounds that Democrats are using it today, but Republicans may need it tomorrow.

A charge of obstruction of Congress would compel senators like McConnell to weigh the same considerations with respect to Congressional oversight. Is protecting this president today—an individual whose four-year term is a fraction of the Constitution’s centuries—more important than preserving Congressional power for all time? Could, for example, the Benghazi investigation have occurred at all if President Obama had been able to withhold the testimony of Senate-confirmed officials or documentary evidence on the claim that the process was partisan?

That presidents and legislators—especially senators—are chosen on different electoral clocks helps force these considerations. A senator elected alongside President Trump in 2020 will serve two years beyond his term and consequently should consider constitutional issues on a time horizon that exceeds one administration.

Oversight of the administration’s antics in Ukraine can continue, of course. But the obstruction case is ready for trial. The evidence is indisputable, and indisputably clarifying.

What is on trial is not the transient fabulism of Donald Trump but rather the enduring architecture of the Constitution.

Remember which side of this you fell on when the next administration comes along and claims that their powers are unlimited and pushes it further.
And it has precedent to provide cover.

https://thebulwark.com/continue-the-...e-impeachment/

Do you blah blah blah blah blah much PeteF?
Seriously,
And more bulwark....
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Apparently you’ll be happy when a dem wins and does whatever they want claiming Congress can’t investigate
Like Benghazi, Whitewater, IRS, etc
That’s the precedent
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Oh, so you're concerned about precedent. Interesting.

And you claim to be an originalist, or is it sometimes a living document?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

No.

What do you claim?

I claim Trump is totally ignorant of it
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Maybe not happy but I won’t lose my mind.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Interesting precedent you're setting. Verification by accusation.

A claim much like impeachment is not verification or adjudication that comes later in the case of impeachment in the Senate. Trump is also confused by that.
Trump insists “I have an Article II, where I have the right to do whatever I want as President.”
True or false?
“I have the absolute right to declare a national emergency”
True or false?
Just this week the president flatly rejected any notion of congressional oversight. No administration officials will come before Congress to answer questions and no documents will be provided. Preposterously, the letter his lawyer sent to Congress deemed impeachment proceedings—clearly vested in Congress by the Constitution—unconstitutional!
True or false?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

It's a rather irrelevant precedent. Even the article you posted said "The letter is not a constitutional crisis." In spite of the letter, Congress can continue to investigate. And it can charge obstruction of justice. None of that is obliterated by the Cipollone letter. And the Congress can abuse its power by impeaching simply by gathering enough votes to do so and totally rejecting any constitutional mandate that impeachment must be based on high crimes and misdemeanors. And there seems to be no concern about such a precedent. Nor about all the precedents that Progressive "interpretation" have already foisted on the Constitution transforming it into the "living document" you refer to. A document that has no basis for existing since it can be "interpreted" anyway five Justices choose, regardless of what the Constitutional text actually says. A meaningless document whose utility is merely to provide some fictive cover for the tyranny of an all powerful Court which can legitimize the wishes and machinations of an all powerful government.

Your concern over precedent is hollow. So long as the precedent institutes what you like, it is justified and need not be considered a nefarious tool used by future administrations.

Maybe that's why you couldn't answer what you claim as your view of what the Constitution is or how it should be interpreted.

Irrelevant. Congress can go about its business regardless of what his lawyer thinks. And it has powers and means to get documents. And if a document is protected by privilege or any other legal stipulation, then it will have to continue without it. That all is legally correct and justified.

Verbiage as usual
Least transparent administration ever
G7 case in point driving foreign and domestic money to your own property would be defined as corruption by State Department in any banana republic
Chosen from 12 but we won’t tell how decision was made
Keep believing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

I wonder if people will be under investigation for the stock market manipulation Trump has been undertaking, just another nothing burger I know.

In the last 10 mins of trading on 8/23 as mkts were roiling in the face of more bad trade news, someone bought 386,000 Sep e-minis. 3days later,Trump lied about getting a call from China to restart the trade talks-S&P shot up nearly 80 points. The potential profit +1.5bn

So just what does Trump tell his closet cabinet on the late night calls
I think Hannity’s trades will be interesting and they are being looked at
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Dodge as usual.

Perhaps I am exaggerating.
That justifies anything.
I assume CNN will use that as a defense against Trumps demand.

Here's the oath he took, perhaps he had his pinkies crossed, no exaggeration.

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.

He's protecting and defending as well as all the other politicians, better than some and better than the Progressive SCOTUS Judges. Yeah, a whole lot of our federal officials, perhaps, had there pinkies crossed.

He never lies

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYUUjGUHKRs