• 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!

It's not Illegal if the President does it.

Cordelier

Cordelier

18th Earl of Diddly
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 22, 2017
Messages
13,590
Reaction score
5,290
Location
Driving on the Parkway/Parking on the Driveway
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Slightly Liberal
"Well, when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal." --- Former President Richard Nixon, in his 1977 interview with David Frost.



That sentiment is Watergate in a nutshell. President Nixon felt that the Presidency imbued him with such power that he literally could do no wrong, and this attitude was transmitted to the people around him. The President wants something done, and that's all there is to it. So if the President wants his political rivals and critics discredited, then no holds are barred. If it takes breaking into a psychiatrist's office to find dirt on Daniel Ellsberg or planting surveillance equipment in the DNC headquarters, so be it. If the President wants to use the CIA to get the FBI to stop it's investigation of the Watergate burglary, so be it.

As Santayana warned us, "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it", and so in the spirit of that statement, I think it's time to resurrect some of the discussions that were prevalent during the Watergate investigation. Do we invest the Presidency of the United States with the divine right of Kings? Kings can do no wrong.... they were invested with their office by the will of God. As Louis XIV once stated, "L'etat, C'est Moi" - I am the nation.

It seems to me that we once engaged in a revolution and founded this Republic to throw off the rule of Kings, and as such, the attitude that a President cannot commit a crime is anathema to the Constitution that forms the bedrock of our nation. A President does not rule alone - he only governs as a co-equal partner with the Legislative and Judicial branches. It's seldom - if ever - an easy co-existence between the three. It was never intended to be so. We have a Congress, in large measure, to keep our President from claiming the divine right of Kings... and to fulfill this solemn duty, we have imbued them with the power to conduct oversight of the actions the of Executive branch and to hold it accountable. It's not for a President to decide he will not cooperate with the Congress or provide it with the information it needs to perform it's duties - his duty is to cooperate fully and completely with such requests. To deny the legitimacy of Congressional requests is akin to denying the legitimacy of Congressional oversight itself - in effect, the President is claiming the right of Kings.

This can not, must not, and will not be allowed to stand. Nothing less than the continuance of our republican form of government depends on it.

Now, before someone starts engaging in "whataboutism" and brings up the ATF gunwalking scandal and Eric Holder's contempt of Congress citation and President Obama... let me stop you right there. President Obama was flat-out wrong. If I were President and my Attorney General didn't provide documents requested by Congress, then I would have expected his resignation on my desk immediately. Was the Republican Congress going to make a partisan song-and-dance about the documents? You bet they would have... and the fallout probably would have been very embarrassing for the Administration. That's no excuse. That's the way democracy works... sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug. Political embarrassment is not a valid excuse to invoke Executive Privilege - if a President doesn't want to be embarrassed, then perhaps he shouldn't do embarrassing things?

I'd welcome anyone's thoughts on this... I think we all sorely need to have a reasoned and adult discussion of this - but any partisan bomb-throwers of any stripe will be ignored and sent to the kids' table.
 
Cordelier said:
"Well, when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal." --- Former President Richard Nixon, in his 1977 interview with David Frost.



That sentiment is Watergate in a nutshell. President Nixon felt that the Presidency imbued him with such power that he literally could do no wrong, and this attitude was transmitted to the people around him. The President wants something done, and that's all there is to it. So if the President wants his political rivals and critics discredited, then no holds are barred. If it takes breaking into a psychiatrist's office to find dirt on Daniel Ellsberg or planting surveillance equipment in the DNC headquarters, so be it. If the President wants to use the CIA to get the FBI to stop it's investigation of the Watergate burglary, so be it.

As Santayana warned us, "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it", and so in the spirit of that statement, I think it's time to resurrect some of the discussions that were prevalent during the Watergate investigation. Do we invest the Presidency of the United States with the divine right of Kings? Kings can do no wrong.... they were invested with their office by the will of God. As Louis XIV once stated, "L'etat, C'est Moi" - I am the nation.

It seems to me that we once engaged in a revolution and founded this Republic to throw off the rule of Kings, and as such, the attitude that a President cannot commit a crime is anathema to the Constitution that forms the bedrock of our nation. A President does not rule alone - he only governs as a co-equal partner with the Legislative and Judicial branches. It's seldom - if ever - an easy co-existence between the three. It was never intended to be so. We have a Congress, in large measure, to keep our President from claiming the divine right of Kings... and to fulfill this solemn duty, we have imbued them with the power to conduct oversight of the actions the of Executive branch and to hold it accountable. It's not for a President to decide he will not cooperate with the Congress or provide it with the information it needs to perform it's duties - his duty is to cooperate fully and completely with such requests. To deny the legitimacy of Congressional requests is akin to denying the legitimacy of Congressional oversight itself - in effect, the President is claiming the right of Kings.

This can not, must not, and will not be allowed to stand. Nothing less than the continuance of our republican form of government depends on it.

Now, before someone starts engaging in "whataboutism" and brings up the ATF gunwalking scandal and Eric Holder's contempt of Congress citation and President Obama... let me stop you right there. President Obama was flat-out wrong. If I were President and my Attorney General didn't provide documents requested by Congress, then I would have expected his resignation on my desk immediately. Was the Republican Congress going to make a partisan song-and-dance about the documents? You bet they would have... and the fallout probably would have been very embarrassing for the Administration. That's no excuse. That's the way democracy works... sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug. Political embarrassment is not a valid excuse to invoke Executive Privilege - if a President doesn't want to be embarrassed, then perhaps he shouldn't do embarrassing things?

I'd welcome anyone's thoughts on this... I think we all sorely need to have a reasoned and adult discussion of this - but any partisan bomb-throwers of any stripe will be ignored and sent to the kids' table.
Click to expand...


It would be a lot easier if you clearly and concisely stated what specific, objectionable behavior by Trump you are referencing. For instance:

It's not for a President to decide he will not cooperate with the Congress or provide it with the information it needs to perform it's duties - his duty is to cooperate fully and completely with such requests.
Click to expand...

This statement can be true or false depending on the specific facts of what is being requested.

Essentially, your post is a generalized, broad statement most reasonable people can agree upon but such a generalized premise tells me nothing as to how and why Trump is running afoul the premise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NotreDame said:
It would be a lot easier if you clearly and concisely stated what specific, objectionable behavior by Trump you are referencing. For instance:



This statement can be true or false depending on the specific facts of what is being requested.

Essentially, your post is a generalized, broad statement most reasonable people can agree upon but such a generalized premise tells me nothing as to how and why Trump is running afoul the premise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Fair enough... I'm referring specifically to the White House refusal to cooperate with the House Committee subpoenas as outlined in the White House Counsel's Letter of October 8.
 
Cordelier said:
Fair enough... I'm referring specifically to the White House refusal to cooperate with the House Committee subpoenas as outlined in the White House Counsel's Letter of October 8.
Click to expand...

Until the question is answered whether a legal impeachment committee needs a majority house vote, thus creating a committee that gives Trump due process, he can ignore the House demands.

Right now they are running a secret court, using partisan leaks as their weapon.
 
chuckiechan said:
Until the question is answered whether a legal impeachment committee needs a majority house vote, thus creating a committee that gives Trump due process, he can ignore the House demands.

Right now they are running a secret court, using partisan leaks as their weapon.
Click to expand...

I disagree... right now we're in the process of gathering evidence. The Congress doesn't have a law enforcement capability at its disposal to do this task - what it has instead are Oversight Committees and subpoena power. How much due process is a criminal suspect due in a police investigation? Can they tell the police they're not allowed to investigate a particular allegation?
 
Cordelier said:
I disagree... right now we're in the process of gathering evidence. The Congress doesn't have a law enforcement capability at its disposal to do this task - what it has instead are Oversight Committees and subpoena power. How much due process is a criminal suspect due in a police investigation? Can they tell the police they're not allowed to investigate a particular allegation?
Click to expand...

No, but they can tell police they have a right to remain silent and refuse to answer their questions.
 
Cordelier said:
I disagree... right now we're in the process of gathering evidence. The Congress doesn't have a law enforcement capability at its disposal to do this task - what it has instead are Oversight Committees and subpoena power. How much due process is a criminal suspect due in a police investigation? Can they tell the police they're not allowed to investigate a particular allegation?
Click to expand...

Impeachment, in return for due process, allows the House greater subpoena powers, thus the noise that the Republicans won’t cooperate. They won’t cooperate because nothing has changed in the separation of powers exemption only granted by legal impeachment.

BTW, the Executive branch decides what is privileged. The House can only go to court demanding it isnt.
 
I think it's accepted now that a person committing a crime cannot be indicted while serving as President of the USA.
 
chuckiechan said:
Impeachment, in return for due process, allows the House greater subpoena powers, thus the noise that the Republicans won’t cooperate. They won’t cooperate because nothing has changed in the separation of powers exemption only granted by legal impeachment.

BTW, the Executive branch decides what is privileged. The House can only go to court demanding it isnt.
Click to expand...

I agree with that... and when the House feels it has evidence sufficient to launch a formal impeachment inquiry, then it will submit a Resolution to that effect and if that Resolution passes, they will impanel an impeachment committee. But we're not at that stage yet.... the matter is still being investigated via oversight committees. I'd suggest it'd be premature to go down that road unless and until the preliminary investigation is completed, wouldn't you?

Executive privilege can only be invoked by executive employees conducting official business and can only come into effect when it impairs governmental functions. How would that cover any matters related to the actions and activities of Rudy Guiliani with regard to the Ukraine?
 
If I understand the Republican position:
If you elect a bad President, suck it up. He/She can do as much damage as possible, with impunity, until the next election cycle. Let's face it, if there was a Republican run House right now, we would not even know that there was a whistle-blower.

If you have a President that is more concerned in establishing strong relationships with Countries which house Trump properties, so be it.
You have no laws that require a candidate to release tax returns and you have no laws, with teeth, that forbids a President from running the office in a way that best serves private interests. So be it.

In short;
If you have laws that allow you to elect a fraudster as President, then from time to time, you get a fraudster.
Bitch and moan if you want, it is your system.
If you want to see some real outlandish behavior, you need only re-elect him.
 
chuckiechan said:
Until the question is answered whether a legal impeachment committee needs a majority house vote, thus creating a committee that gives Trump due process, he can ignore the House demands.

Right now they are running a secret court, using partisan leaks as their weapon.
Click to expand...

Chucklechan:

There is no constitutional requirement for a vote before the inquiries begin. There is some strong precedent however. Which ever way this breaks, that vote is irrelevant to due process.

The argument that the Administration needs the House of Representatives to vote for an inquiry in order to have due process before House committees is not really relevant as the House does not conduct a trial, so no due process is needed. Think of impeachment inquiries as a very complicated affidavit processes where no judge is required. The Senate conducts the trial, so by that time the House will have voted to impeach. The House's role is to collect evidence and decide whether or not to impeach. The Senate's role is to try the president or any impeached official, should they be impeached by the House. Then there is a vote on whether the president is guilty of a crime or misdemeanour or is not guilty. If found innocent by the Senate, it's game over and things continue on as before. If found guilty, the Senate can do nothing, can censor the president, can remove the president from office or can remove the president and block him/her from running for high office again.

So the argument that the Hose must vote before a fair trial can happen does not apply in this situation. The House will have voted if this goes to trial in the Senate.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
NotreDame said:
It would be a lot easier if you clearly and concisely stated what specific, objectionable behavior by Trump you are referencing. For instance:



This statement can be true or false depending on the specific facts of what is being requested.

Essentially, your post is a generalized, broad statement most reasonable people can agree upon but such a generalized premise tells me nothing as to how and why Trump is running afoul the premise.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

You don't have to see it, the house of representatives decides. For some reason folks on the right seem to be having a very, very difficult time with this fact.
 
chuckiechan said:
Until the question is answered whether a legal impeachment committee needs a majority house vote, thus creating a committee that gives Trump due process, he can ignore the House demands.

Right now they are running a secret court, using partisan leaks as their weapon.
Click to expand...

He can ignore them indeed, you are correct there. However, you nor the executive branch gets to make the rules on how the house proceeds. Why is this crap repeated over and over?
 
bongsaway said:
You don't have to see it, the house of representatives decides. For some reason folks on the right seem to be having a very, very difficult time with this fact.
Click to expand...

So, there’s no objective standard for determining whether some specific conduct engaged in by Trump has run afoul of Cordlier’s premise but is determined by a majority vote in the House? Whether Trump has run afoul of Cordlier’s premise is entirely up to a determination of the House?

Yet, that isn’t right. Executive privilege does exist under the U.S. Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers. Simply, depending on the nature of the information, testimony, and evidence requested, the President can a constitutional privilege to not comply and that is not subject to revocation by the House.

But this is to just comment upon the inherent error associated with the breadth of your remark. To have a constructive dialogue requires an identification of the conduct by Trump that is not privileged, thereby subject to Congressional oversight, and why that is so.

Your argument of “because the House said so” is as misguided, myopic, and erroneous as Nixon’s defense it is not illegal if the President does it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Evilroddy said:
Chucklechan:

There is no constitutional requirement for a vote before the inquiries begin. There is some strong precedent however. Which ever way this breaks, that vote is irrelevant to due process.

The argument that the Administration needs the House of Representatives to vote for an inquiry in order to have due process before House committees is not really relevant as the House does not conduct a trial, so no due process is needed. Think of impeachment inquiries as a very complicated affidavit processes where no judge is required. The Senate conducts the trial, so by that time the House will have voted to impeach. The House's role is to collect evidence and decide whether or not to impeach. The Senate's role is to try the president or any impeached official, should they be impeached by the House. Then there is a vote on whether the president is guilty of a crime or misdemeanour or is not guilty. If found innocent by the Senate, it's game over and things continue on as before. If found guilty, the Senate can do nothing, can censor the president, can remove the president from office or can remove the president and block him/her from running for high office again.

So the argument that the Hose must vote before a fair trial can happen does not apply in this situation. The House will have voted if this goes to trial in the Senate.

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
Click to expand...

House does not conduct a trial, so no due process is needed.
Click to expand...

This would be a stronger point of it didn’t ignore the one ton elephant crammed in the elevator of whether Due Process is applicable to the investigative phase by Congress. After all, if Due Process is applicable to the investigation by the House, then your conclusion doesn’t follow and your argument is, well, nonexistent.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
NotreDame said:
So, there’s no objective standard for determining whether some specific conduct engaged in by Trump has run afoul of Cordlier’s premise but is determined by a majority vote in the House? Whether Trump has run afoul of Cordlier’s premise is entirely up to a determination of the House?

Yet, that isn’t right. Executive privilege does exist under the U.S. Constitution and the doctrine of separation of powers. Simply, depending on the nature of the information, testimony, and evidence requested, the President can a constitutional privilege to not comply and that is not subject to revocation by the House.

But this is to just comment upon the inherent error associated with the breadth of your remark. To have a constructive dialogue requires an identification of the conduct by Trump that is not privileged, thereby subject to Congressional oversight, and why that is so.

Your argument of “because the House said so” is as misguided, myopic, and erroneous as Nixon’s defense it is not illegal if the President does it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It's quite clear the president is counting on the courts having to get involved to settle these questions...and he'll lose. To think there are people who still believe this president has done nothing to deserve impeachment, is beyond my capacity to understand.
 
chuckiechan said:
Until the question is answered whether a legal impeachment committee needs a majority house vote, thus creating a committee that gives Trump due process, he can ignore the House demands.

Right now they are running a secret court, using partisan leaks as their weapon.
Click to expand...

Where does it say in the bylaws that a vote must be held? Certainly, if you are this sure, you should be able to cite the statute, chapter and verse.
 
NotreDame said:
This would be a stronger point of it didn’t ignore the one ton elephant crammed in the elevator of whether Due Process is applicable to the investigative phase by Congress. After all, if Due Process is applicable to the investigation by the House, then your conclusion doesn’t follow and your argument is, well, nonexistent.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

It's not. The Impeachment Inquiry is much like a Grand Jury. They are there to gather evidence to see if there is enough evidence to go to court. Due Process is not needed during the investigatory phase. If Trump's Due Process is withheld during the trial phase, then there is a problem, but as of right now, there is no trial. The House is only gathering evidence to see if there is even enough reason to go to trial.
 
Cordelier said:
"Well, when the president does it … that means that it is not illegal." --- Former President Richard Nixon, in his 1977 interview with David Frost.



That sentiment is Watergate in a nutshell. President Nixon felt that the Presidency imbued him with such power that he literally could do no wrong, and this attitude was transmitted to the people around him. The President wants something done, and that's all there is to it. So if the President wants his political rivals and critics discredited, then no holds are barred. If it takes breaking into a psychiatrist's office to find dirt on Daniel Ellsberg or planting surveillance equipment in the DNC headquarters, so be it. If the President wants to use the CIA to get the FBI to stop it's investigation of the Watergate burglary, so be it.

As Santayana warned us, "Those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it", and so in the spirit of that statement, I think it's time to resurrect some of the discussions that were prevalent during the Watergate investigation. Do we invest the Presidency of the United States with the divine right of Kings? Kings can do no wrong.... they were invested with their office by the will of God. As Louis XIV once stated, "L'etat, C'est Moi" - I am the nation.

It seems to me that we once engaged in a revolution and founded this Republic to throw off the rule of Kings, and as such, the attitude that a President cannot commit a crime is anathema to the Constitution that forms the bedrock of our nation. A President does not rule alone - he only governs as a co-equal partner with the Legislative and Judicial branches. It's seldom - if ever - an easy co-existence between the three. It was never intended to be so. We have a Congress, in large measure, to keep our President from claiming the divine right of Kings... and to fulfill this solemn duty, we have imbued them with the power to conduct oversight of the actions the of Executive branch and to hold it accountable. It's not for a President to decide he will not cooperate with the Congress or provide it with the information it needs to perform it's duties - his duty is to cooperate fully and completely with such requests. To deny the legitimacy of Congressional requests is akin to denying the legitimacy of Congressional oversight itself - in effect, the President is claiming the right of Kings.

This can not, must not, and will not be allowed to stand. Nothing less than the continuance of our republican form of government depends on it.

Now, before someone starts engaging in "whataboutism" and brings up the ATF gunwalking scandal and Eric Holder's contempt of Congress citation and President Obama... let me stop you right there. President Obama was flat-out wrong. If I were President and my Attorney General didn't provide documents requested by Congress, then I would have expected his resignation on my desk immediately. Was the Republican Congress going to make a partisan song-and-dance about the documents? You bet they would have... and the fallout probably would have been very embarrassing for the Administration. That's no excuse. That's the way democracy works... sometimes you're the windshield, sometimes you're the bug. Political embarrassment is not a valid excuse to invoke Executive Privilege - if a President doesn't want to be embarrassed, then perhaps he shouldn't do embarrassing things?

I'd welcome anyone's thoughts on this... I think we all sorely need to have a reasoned and adult discussion of this - but any partisan bomb-throwers of any stripe will be ignored and sent to the kids' table.
Click to expand...


The first few sentences effectively describe a monarchy. In the olden days, the clergy, servants and subjects believed the King or Queen were divinely inspired and couldn't be wrong. Of course human nature took over and the tyrants that ruled the peasants oppressively often over taxed, abused and severely punished anyone for not obeying.

It seems we're approaching the same kind of emotional mob rule that preexisted the age of free thought, reasoning and democratic republics.
 
The process of removal from office is a legislative procedure, NOT a legal one.

The House starts the process by embarking upon the impeachment phase. The House can set up its inquiry any way it wants to. Courts are only involved for the House to sue for information not given or other similar circumstances. The subject of the impeachment can likewise use the courts to keep information from being recovered.

The House does NOT need to a crime to embark on the process of impeachment. Let me repeat that: the House does NOT need to a crime to embark on the process of impeachment. A president or judge or whomever can be impeached for removed from office for a variety, non-criminal acts. Most impeachments involve conduct, not crimes. For example, one of the articles brought against Johnson for his impeachment was that...he was rude to Congress.

Once the House finishes its inquiry, it will vote to see if the process continues. If the person is impeached, then it goes to the Senate. It is up to the Senate to then determine guilt and punishment, whatever that may be.

And again, the Senate procedure of removal requires a presiding judge. Now, the Senate can use any number of punishments other than removal like censure. If they find the person guilty of the offenses.

So, for those of you who are trying to be Perry Mason or Matlock over the impeachment process...stop. It doesn't apply. The Constitution says so. Not a pundit, not Trump, not anyone....but the Constitution. Don't like it? Fine....then try to have the Constitution amended.
 
Last edited:
bongsaway said:
You don't have to see it, the house of representatives decides. For some reason folks on the right seem to be having a very, very difficult time with this fact.
Click to expand...

A drowning man grasps at straws.
 
Superfly said:
It's not. The Impeachment Inquiry is much like a Grand Jury. They are there to gather evidence to see if there is enough evidence to go to court. Due Process is not needed during the investigatory phase. If Trump's Due Process is withheld during the trial phase, then there is a problem, but as of right now, there is no trial. The House is only gathering evidence to see if there is even enough reason to go to trial.
Click to expand...

They are calling themselves an impeachment inquiry when they are not. And they are accusing the Administration of obstructing their probe when they don’t have the investigative powers to get what they are demanding.
 
NotreDame said:
This would be a stronger point of it didn’t ignore the one ton elephant crammed in the elevator of whether Due Process is applicable to the investigative phase by Congress. After all, if Due Process is applicable to the investigation by the House, then your conclusion doesn’t follow and your argument is, well, nonexistent.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

NorteDame:

Impeachment and senatorial trial are fundamentally political processes, not legal ones. That being said, I was rushed and sloppy in my description above in one matter. A vote should happen in the House before a formal committee of inquiry is struck for reasons of smoothness of operation and to clearly define the comittee's mandate and limitations. That point has not been reached yet. However that is not a legal or constitutional requirement as yet in the inchoate process of US impeachment. As the process continues forward there will be growing political pressure to have such a vote. The rules are being made as y'all go along on this political and incomplete roller coaster ride together. Everyone is pushing the constitutional envelope here, because there is no envelope!

Cheers.
Evilroddy.
 
chuckiechan said:
They are calling themselves an impeachment inquiry when they are not. And they are accusing the Administration of obstructing their probe when they don’t have the investigative powers to get what they are demanding.
Click to expand...

Where does it say in the bylaws that a vote must be held?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom