The Impeachment of President Donald Trump
Post #2 (January 15, 2020)
It seems appropriate that the polarizing impeachment of President Trump is the first topic I address in this blog. The impeachment of President Trump by Democrats is led by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff. Nadler and Schiff have been selected as two of the impeachment managers for the House of Representatives. The Democrats have made several statements publicly, giving their reasons for initiating an impeachment inquiry into the President. Some are worthy to note: President Trump invited outside interference into the 2020 election by pressuring President Zelensky of Ukraine to investigate Democratic primary candidate Joe Biden during a phone call in July 2019; he violated the Constitution; he withheld military aid to Ukraine in a quid pro quo for an investigation into the Bidens; he betrayed his oath of office; and Trump is not above the law. The one reason Democrats seemed to have relied on the most is that they have a constitutional responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution. This newfound regard for their constitutional responsibility has led to Trump being impeached on two Articles of Impeachment, Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress.
In making an objective assessment of the Democrats' case against the President, I think you must start off by looking at the constitutional requirements for impeaching a president. Impeachable offenses that are identified by the Constitution are treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. As noted above, the Articles of Impeachment against President Trump passed by the Democrat led Congress along party lines are for Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress. One of the strongest arguments against impeachment are that the articles of impeachment against Trump do not appear to fall within the impeachable offense standard of the Constitution. He is not accused of committing treason. He is not accused of bribery. He is, however, being charged with obstructing Congress. 18 U.S.C. Section 1505 makes obstructing congressional and administrative proceedings a crime that can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. This appears to satisfy the constitutional requirement of 'other high crimes and misdemeanors.' However, when taking a look at the elements of Section 1505 and applying the facts of the case, the only reasonable conclusion is that 18 U.S.C. Section 1505 is not applicable to this impeachment case. The relevant portion of Section 1505 requires someone to corruptly, by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influence, obstruct, or impede or endeavor to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper inquiry under which any inquiry is being held by either House or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress. The Obstruction of Congress article appears to be based on President Trump's refusal to allow certain current and former members of his administration to testify during the impeachment inquiry after they were subpoenaed. He claimed executive privilege.
Clearly, the framers of the Constitution did not mean for a high crime or other misdemeanor to include a President claiming executive privilege because this would undermine the separation of powers doctrine which provides for co-equal branches of government. Any dispute between the President and Congress as to whether this privilege applies to Trump officials testifying in an impeachment inquiry is to be settled by the Judicial Branch of government. 18 U.S.C. Section 1505 itself also does not apply to a claim of executive privilege. Section 1505 applies in those situations where someone corruptly obstructs or attempts to obstruct the due and proper administration of the law during a congressional inquiry when there is no arguable basis for claiming a right or privilege. From the legal standpoint of the Constitution, it certainly appears that the Democrats' case is weak and has little to no credibility. The Democrats' case is further weakened by a crucial fact that is not emphasized during the polarizing debate over impeachment. Hidden by all the partisan rhetoric is the fact that there is no claim by Democrats that President Trump asked President Zelensky of Ukraine to make up any false claims against the Bidens during the infamous phone call on July 25, 2019.
According to the transcript of the phone call, President Trump said that he wanted President Zelensky to do us a favor because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. Trump told Zelensky that he wanted him to find out what happened with "this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike." Trump didn't say do me a personal favor. He said do "us" a favor. The implication here is that he was asking for a favor on behalf of this country. Certainly, it is a big stretch to conclude that asking for a favor is pressuring someone to do something especially when the person being asked subsequently states that they felt no pressure. President Zelensky has stated on more than one occasion that he did not feel pressure to conduct investigations into the Bidens. It's important to note that Ukraine never initiated an investigation into the Bidens, and they eventually received the military aid in question. Furthermore, Zelensky said that any investigations would be done "openly and candidly" President Trump's response to this statement by President Zelensky was "good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair." As to the Bidens, Trump stated that there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Trump said that Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it. It sounds horrible to me. How in the world can you call this a pressure campaign or a shakedown, as Democrats have said on many occasions, when the President says "whatever you can do" and "if you can look into it." Just as he said he wanted Zelensky to do "us" a favor, when he said a "lot of people want to know about that" implies that he was making the request for an investigation into the Bidens on behalf of the United States and not as a personal favor in order to benefit him politically. So far, no evidence has been presented to suggest that Trump meant to invite Ukranian interference into the 2020 presidential election.
When considering whether to impeach a President, Congress should keep in mind the constitutional requirements and the intent of the framers. It is indisputable that the framers of the Constitution meant for impeachment to be used rarely and only in those cases where the conduct of the President is so egregious that removal from office is the only reasonable option to preserve democracy and protect the Constitution. It was meant for cases that are so shocking that there is bipartisan support and support from a large majority of Americans for removal of the President. That clearly does not appear to be the case with this impeachment. There is not a claim or suggestion that Trump asked or pressured President Zelensky to create a fictitious reason for investigating the Bidens; nor did he ask Zelensky to create any false allegations against the Bidens that would be politically damaging. All Trump asked Zelensky to do, if it was possible, was to find out what happened with Crowdstrike, and to find out what happened with former VP Biden's stopping of the prosecution into the company that employed his son Hunter Biden. There can be a legitimate debate about whether it was proper for President Trump to ask a foreign country to investigate a presidential candidate who was a potential opponent in the upcoming 2020 election. However, there can be no credible debate that Trump committed impeachable offenses based on his July 25, 2019 phone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine. The impeachment of Trump by Democrats appear to be motivated by hatred and a desire to stain Trump's legacy and damage him politically for the 2020 election. The withholding of the Articles of Impeachment for the purpose of ensuring that witnesses will be called in the upcoming Senate trial was nothing more than a political stunt, since none of the potential witnesses are likely to testify that Trump pressured Zelensky to make false claims or create false facts about the Bidens. From the indisputable evidence, the transcript of the July 2019 phone call, any investigation into the Bidens were to be "openly and candidly." Even if you want to believe it was improper for Trump to ask a foreign country to investigate a current presidential candidate, there is no evidence whatsoever in the transcript of the phone call on July 25, 2019 that the President committed offenses that are impeachable under the Constitution. Unless any of witness(s) come forward and say with corroborating evidence that President Trump asked President Zelensky to create dirt on Joe Biden with the specific intent of undermining the Biden campaign, President Trump should be exonerated in the Senate's trial on his impeachment.
It seems appropriate that the polarizing impeachment of President Trump is the first topic I address in this blog. The impeachment of President Trump by Democrats is led by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff. Nadler and Schiff have been selected as two of the impeachment managers for the House of Representatives. The Democrats have made several statements publicly, giving their reasons for initiating an impeachment inquiry into the President. Some are worthy to note: President Trump invited outside interference into the 2020 election by pressuring President Zelensky of Ukraine to investigate Democratic primary candidate Joe Biden during a phone call in July 2019; he violated the Constitution; he withheld military aid to Ukraine in a quid pro quo for an investigation into the Bidens; he betrayed his oath of office; and Trump is not above the law. The one reason Democrats seemed to have relied on the most is that they have a constitutional responsibility to protect and defend the Constitution. This newfound regard for their constitutional responsibility has led to Trump being impeached on two Articles of Impeachment, Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress.
In making an objective assessment of the Democrats' case against the President, I think you must start off by looking at the constitutional requirements for impeaching a president. Impeachable offenses that are identified by the Constitution are treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. As noted above, the Articles of Impeachment against President Trump passed by the Democrat led Congress along party lines are for Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress. One of the strongest arguments against impeachment are that the articles of impeachment against Trump do not appear to fall within the impeachable offense standard of the Constitution. He is not accused of committing treason. He is not accused of bribery. He is, however, being charged with obstructing Congress. 18 U.S.C. Section 1505 makes obstructing congressional and administrative proceedings a crime that can be charged as a misdemeanor or a felony. This appears to satisfy the constitutional requirement of 'other high crimes and misdemeanors.' However, when taking a look at the elements of Section 1505 and applying the facts of the case, the only reasonable conclusion is that 18 U.S.C. Section 1505 is not applicable to this impeachment case. The relevant portion of Section 1505 requires someone to corruptly, by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influence, obstruct, or impede or endeavor to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper inquiry under which any inquiry is being held by either House or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress. The Obstruction of Congress article appears to be based on President Trump's refusal to allow certain current and former members of his administration to testify during the impeachment inquiry after they were subpoenaed. He claimed executive privilege.
Clearly, the framers of the Constitution did not mean for a high crime or other misdemeanor to include a President claiming executive privilege because this would undermine the separation of powers doctrine which provides for co-equal branches of government. Any dispute between the President and Congress as to whether this privilege applies to Trump officials testifying in an impeachment inquiry is to be settled by the Judicial Branch of government. 18 U.S.C. Section 1505 itself also does not apply to a claim of executive privilege. Section 1505 applies in those situations where someone corruptly obstructs or attempts to obstruct the due and proper administration of the law during a congressional inquiry when there is no arguable basis for claiming a right or privilege. From the legal standpoint of the Constitution, it certainly appears that the Democrats' case is weak and has little to no credibility. The Democrats' case is further weakened by a crucial fact that is not emphasized during the polarizing debate over impeachment. Hidden by all the partisan rhetoric is the fact that there is no claim by Democrats that President Trump asked President Zelensky of Ukraine to make up any false claims against the Bidens during the infamous phone call on July 25, 2019.
According to the transcript of the phone call, President Trump said that he wanted President Zelensky to do us a favor because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. Trump told Zelensky that he wanted him to find out what happened with "this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike." Trump didn't say do me a personal favor. He said do "us" a favor. The implication here is that he was asking for a favor on behalf of this country. Certainly, it is a big stretch to conclude that asking for a favor is pressuring someone to do something especially when the person being asked subsequently states that they felt no pressure. President Zelensky has stated on more than one occasion that he did not feel pressure to conduct investigations into the Bidens. It's important to note that Ukraine never initiated an investigation into the Bidens, and they eventually received the military aid in question. Furthermore, Zelensky said that any investigations would be done "openly and candidly" President Trump's response to this statement by President Zelensky was "good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair." As to the Bidens, Trump stated that there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Trump said that Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it. It sounds horrible to me. How in the world can you call this a pressure campaign or a shakedown, as Democrats have said on many occasions, when the President says "whatever you can do" and "if you can look into it." Just as he said he wanted Zelensky to do "us" a favor, when he said a "lot of people want to know about that" implies that he was making the request for an investigation into the Bidens on behalf of the United States and not as a personal favor in order to benefit him politically. So far, no evidence has been presented to suggest that Trump meant to invite Ukranian interference into the 2020 presidential election.
When considering whether to impeach a President, Congress should keep in mind the constitutional requirements and the intent of the framers. It is indisputable that the framers of the Constitution meant for impeachment to be used rarely and only in those cases where the conduct of the President is so egregious that removal from office is the only reasonable option to preserve democracy and protect the Constitution. It was meant for cases that are so shocking that there is bipartisan support and support from a large majority of Americans for removal of the President. That clearly does not appear to be the case with this impeachment. There is not a claim or suggestion that Trump asked or pressured President Zelensky to create a fictitious reason for investigating the Bidens; nor did he ask Zelensky to create any false allegations against the Bidens that would be politically damaging. All Trump asked Zelensky to do, if it was possible, was to find out what happened with Crowdstrike, and to find out what happened with former VP Biden's stopping of the prosecution into the company that employed his son Hunter Biden. There can be a legitimate debate about whether it was proper for President Trump to ask a foreign country to investigate a presidential candidate who was a potential opponent in the upcoming 2020 election. However, there can be no credible debate that Trump committed impeachable offenses based on his July 25, 2019 phone call with President Zelensky of Ukraine. The impeachment of Trump by Democrats appear to be motivated by hatred and a desire to stain Trump's legacy and damage him politically for the 2020 election. The withholding of the Articles of Impeachment for the purpose of ensuring that witnesses will be called in the upcoming Senate trial was nothing more than a political stunt, since none of the potential witnesses are likely to testify that Trump pressured Zelensky to make false claims or create false facts about the Bidens. From the indisputable evidence, the transcript of the July 2019 phone call, any investigation into the Bidens were to be "openly and candidly." Even if you want to believe it was improper for Trump to ask a foreign country to investigate a current presidential candidate, there is no evidence whatsoever in the transcript of the phone call on July 25, 2019 that the President committed offenses that are impeachable under the Constitution. Unless any of witness(s) come forward and say with corroborating evidence that President Trump asked President Zelensky to create dirt on Joe Biden with the specific intent of undermining the Biden campaign, President Trump should be exonerated in the Senate's trial on his impeachment.
Comments
Post a Comment