The articles are lame.
On abuse of power, the articles claim “President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2030 United States Presidential election.” But nothing of the sort has been demonstrated by any factual evidence.
There is no reported statement by Trump that he wanted Ukraine to interfere in our election. Moreover, the president’s direct requests of Ukraine are all otherwise consistent with known and established national interests. As a result, there is no demonstrable abuse of power beyond guesses and inferences.
On obstruction of Congress the articles claim, “Donald J. Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its ‘sole Power of Impeachment.” But the congressional powers are not superior to those of the executive. They are at most co-equal.
Moreover, the sole Power of Impeachment is arguably voided when the House doesn’t allow conflicts over subpoenas to be settled by the Judiciary.
I would argue, too, that by design of the Framers and by definition in the Constitution, the office of the presidency is incapable of abuse of power. It remains capable of high crimes and misdemeanors, for which impeachment and removal of the president are the remedy. But no high crimes or misdemeanors are spelled out in the articles.
Thus, the president will have two powerful lines of defense at trial in the Senate:
a) The articles are unconstitutional on their face, and
b) The president’s actions which are alleged to be high crimes and misdemeanors are not in fact so.
Put another way, the articles of impeachment as given are grossly incompetent.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Short of exterminating 8 million people, Republicans would consider any reason lame.
“But wait! Hitler only exterminated 6 million Jews.”
“No you got the picture.”
LikeLiked by 3 people
Your attack on the articles is lame.
You hear (read) what you want in the summary (NOT transcript) of the July 25th call. You don’t believe Trump wanted an investigation opened by the Ukrainians so that the aid would be released because you don’t WANT to believe it. I need you to do me a favor, though sound familiar? Reasonable folks see (read) what was there. And the aid was not released until the nature of the call came to light.
Congressional oversight is written into the Constitution. Just because a president doesn’t want to play doesn’t mean he can take his ball and go home. Article I is just that because the founders believed that the Legislature should be above the Executive to prevent a monarchical system to come about. Plus, if he did nothing wrong, why not have those subpoenaed appear and testify with exculpatory evidence?
Your (and Bill Barr’s) idea of executive privilege is detrimental to this country and the democratic republic that it is.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “You don’t believe Trump wanted an investigation opened by the Ukrainians so that the aid would be released because you don’t WANT to believe it.”
Not true. I’m fine with the president wanting an investigation in exchange for aid, and have said so many times in this very forum. I’m not fine with the inference that the president’s sole purpose was to gain Ukrainian interference in the 2020 election. I find that inference to be unreasonable.
RE: “Congressional oversight is written into the Constitution.”
Congressional superiority to the Executive is not.
RE: “Your (and Bill Barr’s) idea of executive privilege is detrimental to this country and the democratic republic that it is.”
Your idea of executive subservience would destroy our democratic republic by substituting a parliamentary system. The framers considered this possibility, and expressly rejected it. You should, too, if you are a patriot.
LikeLike
Co-equal is where it should be. But that indicates a willingness to work toward a common goal. If Congress has an issue with the way the President is going about the business of this country, it is their duty to find out what is going on and INVESTIGATE. The President is obligated to cooperate with said investigation so that the answers are forthcoming. Provide the information requested and the situation can be rectified.
When the president stonewalls (a blast from the past) in the manner Trump has, he is not cooperating with the investigation. Just because he doesn’t like the fact his work is being questioned, which IS the duty of Congress. Trump was given a free ride by the majority GOP for two years. HE could do whatever he wanted and they wouldn’t question ANYTHING. Not healthy in a representative democracy.
…” I’m not fine with the inference that the president’s sole purpose was to gain Ukrainian interference in the 2020 election”… He asked for an announcement of an investigation into 2016 information that had been repeatedly debunked. The server being held in Ukraine by Crowd Strike, ACTUAL corruption by the Biden’s, none of it is true. Also, there is a procedure, especially with Ukraine to request an investigation be done on an American citizen. Open an investigation here in the states, provide evidence to show that the potential crime extended into the foreign country, and ask for an investigation, supported by evidence, be opened. Not “I want you to do me a favor, though”….
The Senate has already predetermined that they will acquit Mr. Trump, possibly without hearing from any witnesses. Witnesses subpoenaed by the House but refused to testify on orders of Mr. Trump. If nothing was wrong, why were people like Pompeo, Bolton and Mulvaney not allowed to testify. Exculpatory evidence could have ended all of this. Could it be that there is no exculpatory statements to be made UNDER OATH?
If nothing was done wrong, though others believe there was, why not prove it instead of just saying “nah-nee, nah-nee boo boo. You can’t catch me?”
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “The President is obligated to cooperate with said investigation so that the answers are forthcoming.”
No, he isn’t.
RE: “The server being held in Ukraine by Crowd Strike, ACTUAL corruption by the Biden’s, none of it is true.”
You don’t actually know that. No one does.
RE: “If nothing was wrong, why were people like Pompeo, Bolton and Mulvaney not allowed to testify?”
Why should they testify in the House where they may have felt they would not be treated fairly? Arguably, refusing to testify was their Constitutional duty to preserve our system of checks and balances.
RE: “If nothing was done wrong…why not prove it…?”
In our system the burden is on the accuser to prove wrongdoing. To operate on some other basis, as your question implies, is contrary to the rule of law. Guilty-until-proven-innocent is how witch hunts work.
LikeLike
“You don’t actually know that. No one does.” Actually I do. The server is in the basement of the DNC headquarters. If you watched a little MSM every now and then, you would know that. Also,the FBI has a digital copy of the hard drive from said server.
As far as corruption goes, if there were any, why has no one, including Fox News, Breitbart, Zero Hedge, or PJM not reported VERIFIED acts of corruption by the Bidens? If there were any, they would be screaming it from their parents’ basement.
The President has an obligation to cooperate with Congress. Otherwise, he is an autocratic dictator. I have seen more proof of wrongdoing than just the attempted shakedown of Ukraine. You haven’t because you think the sun rises and sets in Trump’s pants.
So by your reasoning, the president IS above the law. Thanks for playing. I’ll make sure to remember that the next time you take issue with a Democratic POTUS.
LikeLike
RE: “If you watched a little MSM every now and then, you would know that.”
I don’t need to watch MSM very much to know that a DNC server may well be located in Ukraine. There could be another in Moscow or Timbuktu for all we know.
RE: “As far as corruption goes, if there were any, why has no one, including Fox News, Breitbart, Zero Hedge, or PJM not reported VERIFIED acts of corruption by the Bidens?”
Bits and pieces have, in fact, been published in those venues, and others. One example is the Politico article published in January 2017, which I shared here in the forum awhile back. ZeroHedge has reported extensively on allegations of Biden corruption. There’s such an extensive body of open source material on this subject that only the ignorant claim there is no evidence of Biden corruption.
RE: “The President has an obligation to cooperate with Congress. Otherwise, he is an autocratic dictator.”
Not at all. If the president wishes to act as an autocratic dictator, it is his prerogative to do so. Washington, Lincoln, Wilson, FDR, JFK, LBJ and Obama all operated as autocratic dictators in some capacity; none were impeached, or impeachable, for it.
RE: “So by your reasoning, the president IS above the law.”
I’ve never said so. A president who commits high crimes and misdemeanors can be impeached.
LikeLike
Conspiracy fueled speculation from Trump supporting “media” organizations to muddy the waters of the campaign is NOT evidence of corruption. It is Trump supporters throwing mud against the wall and HOPING beyond hope that something, anything will stick.
And I should have said THIS president, when referring to who you believe is above the law.
LikeLike
“ Congressional superiority to the Executive is not.”
Congress is the only Branch with the powers of impeachment. They can also police themselves.
It declares war and approves treaties. It also has the final say on presidential appointments. The president may command the military, but Congress funds it.
Finally, it can override vetoes.
So the president can do a lot of actions, but he has to adhere to both Congressional oversight and judicial approval of executive actions should he be challenged.
In other words, with a well run Congress that has spine, the president has to behave or begone.
“Though the Constitution does not define who constitutes a civil officer, Congress has exercised its power to impeach two presidents, one senator, one cabinet official, and 15 federal judges; of these, only eight individuals—all federal judges—were convicted on the charges of impeachment and removed from office.”
https://ballotpedia.org/Impeachment_of_federal_officials
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Congress is the only Branch with the powers of impeachment.”
And that is a limited power. It does not apply to disliking the president or disagreeing with his policies. Nor can it legally be used to compel the president to commit any action. It can only be used in response to the commission of a high crime or misdemeanor.
LikeLike
Regarding the investigation, there was a legitimate public purpose for investigating the Burisma corruption and the Biden’s connection. If a VP was corrupt, we should know that. If the truth also takes Biden out of the running for President, so what? Do you want a corrupt President? So long as there was a public purpose, it doesn’t matter if the truth coming out helped Trump. Had the truth exonerated Biden, he would have benefited.
Regarding the subpoenas, at least some of the questions those subpoenaed would be asked would be subject to executive privilege. But executive privilege can only be invoked by the President or and agency attorney acting on his behalf. Schiff, and later Nadler, were not allowing agency attorneys to accompany those subpoenaed, thus making executive privilege unavailable. Trump was right to challenge that in court. The court could then have ruled on the validity of the subpoenas and resolved the representation issue. Schiff and Nadler made the choice not to wait on the court, not Trump.
At this point, no honest Democrat Senator could vote to convict, much less any Republicans.
But go for it, the GOP will destroy the Democratic party in the Senate trial.
LikeLike
“… there was a legitimate public purpose for investigating the Burisma corruption and the Biden’s connection.”
And, in this country, when we suspect a high official of corruption, we open a DoJ investigation, and the DoJ conducts that investigation in confidence.
We don’t coerce a public announcement by a foreign investigative service.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Had Trump set the FBI to investigating Biden, you would be screaming that it was an abuse of power to use the FBI to investigate an rival(though of course that is exactly what Obama did to Trump)
LikeLike
No, I wouldn’t. That’s what Republicans do. Having dealt a few times with the FBI, I trust the process. There really is no deep state, no black helicopters. There are, on occasion, government officials who abuse their positions, but not as often as you think in most cases, and more often than they should in one particular case.
LikeLike
“Do you want a corrupt President?” – Well, no. But IMHO, we already have one.
There is NO PROOF of any corruption by Biden. You keep braying that like a Donald Trump jackass. Follow the procedures laid out in the treaty to ask for an investigation. I’ve only posted that four times already. The only purpose was to ask that an investigation be announced just so Trump had something to attack Biden on besides calling him “Sleepy Joe”.
The GOP run “trial” has already been determined. Full acquittal before even hearing one witness.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Follow the procedures laid out in the treaty to ask for an investigation. I’ve only posted that four times already.”
Perhaps you should stop posting it. I provided a link to the treaty itself some time ago here at Tidewater Forum. There’s nothing in it which ties the president’s hands in making his wishes known to a foreign head of state.
LikeLike
No,but it spells out the agreed to procedures for requesting an investigation of an American citizen by a foreign power. Why not adhere to the treaty? Oh, right. Trump doesn’t have to follow the agreed to procedures. Because he is so freakin’ smart.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Why not adhere to the treaty?”
Trump did.
LikeLike
Uh, no he didn’t. There was no investigation opened into the Bidens in this country. He directly requested the President of Ukraine to open an investigation in his country. Sorry, but that goes against the treaty.
And telling Zelenskiy to talk to Giuliani, who holds no official position in the US government? Seriously, Mr.Roberts. That alone is reason to question the motives of this president.
LikeLike
“Follow the procedures laid out in the treaty to ask for an investigation.”
I don’t believe that treaty lays out the procedures for the US to ask for an investigation by the other country (and vice versa), it only lays out the procedure for asking for assistance by the other country with an existing DoJ investigation (and vice versa).
LikeLiked by 1 person
The reason they are lame is because there is no factual provable evidence of a crime, only the warped opinion of a fanatical party hell bent on impeaching Trump before he even took office. That fanatical party, DEMOCRATS, thinks the people, VOTERS, are too stupid and therefore subservient to them to make the choice for president in 2020 and openly admit that is their motive. The GOP in the Senate will use the complete lack of any legal basis and will rip the democrats a new oriface for this baseless charade and abuse of power in their quest to override the electoral process.
LikeLike