• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Scholars Call Trump’s Actions on Ukraine an Impeachable Abuse of Power

Rogue Valley

Rogue Valley

Lead or get out of the way
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 18, 2013
Messages
94,313
Reaction score
82,704
Location
Barsoom
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Scholars Call Trump’s Actions on Ukraine an Impeachable Abuse of Power | New York Times

Democrats and Republicans clashed over the Constitution and President Trump’s conduct as the House Judiciary Committee formally began its impeachment proceedings.

merlin_165418983_53f391e2-e8f6-401e-a0b8-1f3b7af5520e-articleLarge.jpg

Constitutional scholars testify before the House Judiciary Committee.

12/4/19
WASHINGTON — The House Judiciary Committee opened an epic partisan clash over the impeachment of President Trump on Wednesday at a hearing where Democrats and Republicans offered up dueling legal scholars who disagreed over whether the president’s conduct rose to the constitutional threshold to warrant his removal from office. At the start of a new phase in Democrats’ fast-moving push to impeach Mr. Trump, three law professors they invited to testify declared that the president’s move to press Ukraine to investigate his political rivals constituted an abuse of power that was clearly impeachable, crossing crucial boundaries established by the nation’s founders to ensure the sanctity of American democracy. The appropriate and necessary remedy, they argued, was impeachment. “If what we’re talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable,” Michael J. Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolina, told the panel. “This is precisely the misconduct that the framers created the Constitution, including impeachment, to protect against.” A fourth witness, called by Republicans, said that might be the case, but argued that Democrats had failed to prove their case against Mr. Trump and risked dangerously lowering the standards for impeachment for decades to come if they drove forward with a “fast and narrow,” and entirely partisan, process. The dispute unfolded as members of both parties braced for a historic confrontation in the weeks to come over whether to make Mr. Trump only the third president in history to be impeached.

Inside the House Ways and Means Committee’s hearing room, the political divisions briefly receded amid a loftier debate among the constitutional scholars about executive power and accountability, and the standards by which Congress should move to oust a sitting president. Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard, argued that Mr. Trump’s decision to withhold a White House meeting and military assistance from Ukraine while he demanded political favors from its president was a classic impeachable abuse of power. “If we cannot impeach a president who uses his power for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy,” Mr. Feldman said. “We live in a monarchy or a dictatorship.” Democrats and Republicans also sparred bitterly over the findings of the two-month-long House Intelligence Committee investigation, concluded a day earlier. In a 300-page report released on Tuesday, the Intelligence panel asserted that Mr. Trump abused his office by pressuring Ukraine to help him in the 2020 presidential election, while withholding a coveted White House meeting for Ukraine’s president and $391 million in security assistance, and then tried to conceal his actions from Congress. Republicans submitted dissenting views that rejected any wrongdoing. Pamela S. Karlan, a Stanford law professor, told lawmakers that the president’s attempt to “strong-arm a foreign leader” would not be considered politics as usual by historical standards. “Drawing a foreign government into our election process is an especially serious abuse of power because it undermines democracy itself,” Ms. Karlan said.
Click to expand...

If Donald Trump's abuse of presidential power is not checked, future presidents could strong-arm foreign governments to assist them in winning US elections. This is precisely what the principle authors of the Constitution (Jefferson and Madison) most feared - foreign government (at the time British) interference in American elections. Donald Trump's Obstruction of Congress also needs to be addressed. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that subpoena's issued in the course of the impeachment process are legal and valid subpoena's. Trump has ordered subpoenaed witnesses not to testify before the House impeachment Intelligence/Judiciary Committee's, and subpoenaed documents to not be provided to the House.

Republicans need to carefully think about the above. If Trump can employ such illicit tactics without consequence, then another president, perhaps a Democrat president, can follow suit and also employ such Trumpian lawlessness while in office.

A standard will be established here. Will it be a Constitutional standard, or a Trumpian standard?
 
That's what they were brought in to do. This show was put on explicitly to give the media something to talk about. It wasn't to bring new information into the process and it wasn't about vetting any of the information already under discussion. All it does is give the committee the appearance of exercising due diligence in this process. I repeat, only the appearance of due diligence.
 
Lutherf said:
That's what they were brought in to do. This show was put on explicitly to give the media something to talk about. It wasn't to bring new information into the process and it wasn't about vetting any of the information already under discussion. All it does is give the committee the appearance of exercising due diligence in this process. I repeat, only the appearance of due diligence.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. How is it not actual due diligence?
 
Well, 3 of the 4 did.
 
A never trumper and two progressive Trump haters. More opinions. Few facts. One of which was apparently tweeting about impeaching the illegitimate Trump before he even took office.
Duh, wonder what her take will be?
 
OrphanSlug said:
Well, 3 of the 4 did.
Click to expand...

And the fourth argued in 1998 that Bill Clinton should have been impeached. I wonder what 1998 Jonathan Turley would make of 2019 Jonathan Turley.
 
Lutherf said:
That's what they were brought in to do. This show was put on explicitly to give the media something to talk about. It wasn't to bring new information into the process and it wasn't about vetting any of the information already under discussion. All it does is give the committee the appearance of exercising due diligence in this process. I repeat, only the appearance of due diligence.
Click to expand...

And I disagree. What Trump has done - Ukraine/ignoring legal subpoena's - is egregious and is intended to ruin a delicate balance of power between the three branches.

The concept of Checks and Balances is trashed if Trump prevails.

Just remember Luther, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Republicans will no doubt rue the day if they allow such unchecked Executive power to be the new norm.
 
Lutherf said:
That's what they were brought in to do. This show was put on explicitly to give the media something to talk about. It wasn't to bring new information into the process and it wasn't about vetting any of the information already under discussion. All it does is give the committee the appearance of exercising due diligence in this process. I repeat, only the appearance of due diligence.
Click to expand...

Well buddy, we've checked ourselves and found that we are right. We've given ourselves a trophy for it. Wanna see it? Joe Biden has it, and he calls it his lizard. So just ask Joe to show you his lizard.
 
Rogue Valley said:
And I disagree. What Trump has done - Ukraine/ignoring legal subpoena's - is egregious and is intended to ruin a delicate balance of power between the three branches.

The concept of Checks and Balances is trashed if Trump prevails.

Just remember Luther, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Republicans will no doubt rue the day if they allow such unchecked Executive power to be the new norm.
Click to expand...

If Trump prevails, he's going to use the full powers of his office to openly cheat in the 2020 election in ways you and I never even knew existed. 2020 isn't going to be a free and fair election.
 
Craig234 said:
Nonsense. How is it not actual due diligence?
Click to expand...

Finding people that agree with your thought process isn't due diligence. That's called "confirmation bias".
 
Rogue Valley said:
And I disagree. What Trump has done - Ukraine/ignoring legal subpoena's - is egregious and is intended to ruin a delicate balance of power between the three branches.

The concept of Checks and Balances is trashed if Trump prevails.

Just remember Luther, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Republicans will no doubt rue the day if they allow such unchecked Executive power to be the new norm.
Click to expand...

What the House has done with regard to Trump is an egregious abuse of legislative branch authority. They have manufactured a theory regarding Trump's intent, given no credence whatsoever to his side of the story and engaged to impeach him. If that kind of legislative abuse is allowed to continue it will destroy the government.
 
Lutherf said:
That's what they were brought in to do. This show was put on explicitly to give the media something to talk about. It wasn't to bring new information into the process and it wasn't about vetting any of the information already under discussion. All it does is give the committee the appearance of exercising due diligence in this process. I repeat, only the appearance of due diligence.
Click to expand...

Yours is a rather typical FoxNews-styled argument.

Sorry, but if you people were honestly interested in "new information" and the "facts", you'd join the rest of the public in calling for direct and PUBLIC testimonies from the primary sources (i.e. Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Sec. Pompeo, Chief of Staff Mick Mulveney, former WH Counsel Don McGahn, etc. etc.).

Republicans whine and complain about "hearsay" and "2nd hand or 3rd hand testimonry", etc....yet they fully support the Trump WH's obstructive efforts (i.e. like ignoring Congressional subpoenas, etc.).

You people don't want the facts. You and your ilk only want to complain about the process, and promote your fakenews lies and conspiracy theoriesj about the Bidens.
 
Last edited:
Rogue Valley said:
And I disagree. What Trump has done - Ukraine/ignoring legal subpoena's - is egregious and is intended to ruin a delicate balance of power between the three branches.

The concept of Checks and Balances is trashed if Trump prevails.

Just remember Luther, what is good for the goose is also good for the gander. Republicans will no doubt rue the day if they allow such unchecked Executive power to be the new norm.
Click to expand...

The concept of checks and balances dictates that the Judiciary decides if the subpoenas are legal and to what extent the Executive Branch must comply with them. The White House is doing what the Executive Branch has the constitutional right to do when it does not agree with the legality of a Congressional subpoena - it asks the Judiciary to settle that difference of opinion.

What is eroding our checks and balances is Congress acting as though it not only has unlimited power of oversight but can dispense with the Judiciary, unilaterally decide the legality of its own subpoenas and the constitutional scope of Executive Privilege, and if the President disagrees simply set in motion a chain of events to eliminate him too.
 
Last edited:
Lutherf said:
Finding people that agree with your thought process isn't due diligence. That's called "confirmation bias".
Click to expand...

Ever consider that the bias was correct in the first place?
 
Lutherf said:
Finding people that agree with your thought process isn't due diligence. That's called "confirmation bias".
Click to expand...

I hate when right-wingers learn phrases, but almost always not what they mean.
 
Lutherf said:
What the House has done with regard to Trump is an egregious abuse of legislative branch authority. They have manufactured a theory regarding Trump's intent, given no credence whatsoever to his side of the story and engaged to impeach him. If that kind of legislative abuse is allowed to continue it will destroy the government.
Click to expand...

There's nothing to stop impeachment articles from being brought forth from the moment any President gets elected.
 
ultmd said:
Yours is a rather typical FoxNews-styled argument.

Sorry, but if you people were honestly interested in "new information" and the "facts", you'd join the rest of the public in calling for direct and PUBLIC testimonies from the primary sources (i.e. Donald Trump, Mike Pence, Sec. Pompeo, Chief of Staff Mick Mulveney, former WH Counsel Don McGahn, etc. etc.).

Republicans whine and complain about "hearsay" and "2nd hand or 3rd hand testimonry", etc....yet they fully support the Trump WH's obstructive efforts (i.e. like ignoring Congressional subpoenas, etc.).

You people don't want the facts. You and your ilk only want to complain about the process, and promote your fakenews lies and conspiracy theoriesj about the Bidens.
Click to expand...

If the House, actually just committees within the House, are given the power to demand witness testimony from Executive branch personnel, including the president, and allowed to investigate whatever they decide is a valid item of interest and if the ONLY recourse the Executive is allowed is through trial in the Senate after impeachment then the House is no longer a co-equal branch of government but is the de facto principle branch of government. If Trump allowed the House to do what they have been doing uncontested then he would have effectively abdicated Executive power to the Legislative branch. That MUST not be allowed to happen. Without Trump resisting this assault on the Executive we would have already cast off all pretense at being a Constitutional Republic and would have effectively become a Parliamentary Democracy.
 
Acadia said:
There's nothing to stop impeachment articles from being brought forth from the moment any President gets elected.
Click to expand...

Quite right. And that is the precedent that the Democrats have chosen to set.
 
Feldman offered something up like Trump was holding back needs of a crucial ally in the
midst of a war; WHAT?

Whose the crucial ally? Please, not Ukraine
Where is the war?

If Russia wanted to go to war with Ukraine within 4 days they'ed be a the Dneiper surrounding
Kiev and in a week would be at the only region that supported Porky in the latest election Lviv.
Obama knew that, that's why he felt no need to supply Ukraine with anti-tank weapons & Trump
was duped into sending those defensive weapons by the neocon element in congress a bad move.
 
Craig234 said:
I hate when right-wingers learn phrases, but almost always not what they mean.
Click to expand...

Yeah. Sorry about that. I keep forgetting that Democrats are the only ones who know stuff and things.
 
Ok, impeach him, then.
 
Lutherf said:
Quite right. And that is the precedent that the Democrats have chosen to set.
Click to expand...

Under the Democrats chosen interpretation of high crimes and misdemeanors, someone very methodically earlier in the hearing made the point that presidents back to George Washington should have been impeached under their definition. He listed things that occurred during several presidencies that would fall under their definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. Right off the top of my head some names were George Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, and Obama. I wish I could remember the representative's name because no doubt someone has posted his remarks on YouTube because they were that good.
 
Lutherf said:
Yeah. Sorry about that. I keep forgetting that Democrats are the only ones who know stuff and things.
Click to expand...

Failed sarcasm is sad.
 
Rogue Valley said:
Scholars Call Trump’s Actions on Ukraine an Impeachable Abuse of Power | New York Times

Democrats and Republicans clashed over the Constitution and President Trump’s conduct as the House Judiciary Committee formally began its impeachment proceedings.

merlin_165418983_53f391e2-e8f6-401e-a0b8-1f3b7af5520e-articleLarge.jpg

Constitutional scholars testify before the House Judiciary Committee.



If Donald Trump's abuse of presidential power is not checked, future presidents could strong-arm foreign governments to assist them in winning US elections. This is precisely what the principle authors of the Constitution (Jefferson and Madison) most feared - foreign government (at the time British) interference in American elections. Donald Trump's Obstruction of Congress also needs to be addressed. The Supreme Court has previously ruled that subpoena's issued in the course of the impeachment process are legal and valid subpoena's. Trump has ordered subpoenaed witnesses not to testify before the House impeachment Intelligence/Judiciary Committee's, and subpoenaed documents to not be provided to the House.

Republicans need to carefully think about the above. If Trump can employ such illicit tactics without consequence, then another president, perhaps a Democrat president, can follow suit and also employ such Trumpian lawlessness while in office.

A standard will be established here. Will it be a Constitutional standard, or a Trumpian standard?
Click to expand...
I have a very simple litmus test to ask yourself. If everything done was exactly the same except the investigation did not have any ties to a potential polirical rival, would this be an impeachable offense. If you believe it was you should support impeaching him. If you dont believe it would be then you shouldnt be in favor of impeaching him.

The fact is that there is a very credible reason to request and yes even leverage aid if necessary to get them to investigate hunter biden. The fact that his dad is a potential politicsl opponent is irrelevant

Sent from my SM-G965U using Tapatalk
 
vesper said:
Under the Democrats chosen interpretation of high crimes and misdemeanors, someone very methodically earlier in the hearing made the point that presidents back to George Washington should have been impeached under their definition. He listed things that occurred during several presidencies that would fall under their definition of high crimes and misdemeanors. Right off the top of my head some names were George Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, FDR, Kennedy, Johnson, and Obama. I wish I could remember the representative's name because no doubt someone has posted his remarks on YouTube because they were that good.
Click to expand...

They were made narrowly with respect to a single remark, not the overarching claims of abuse of power, etc., of Trump. Sorry, no dice.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom