In case you’re interested, here’s the legal brief the House impeachment managers filed today.
Click to access in_re_president_trump_house_impeachment_trial_brief_and_sof_1.18.20.pdf
The president’s legal team published a response (not a legal filing), which you can read here:
Based on first impressions, I’d say the House brief looks indefensible. The very first sentence of the introduction states: “President Donald J. Trump used his official powers to pressure a foreign government to interfere in a United States election for his personal political gain, and then attempted to cover up his scheme by obstructing Congress’s investigation into his misconduct.”
I don’t doubt that President Trump “used his official powers to pressure a foreign government” to do something the President wanted. But I have yet to see evidence the President wanted a foreign government “to interfere in a United States election,” whether to the President’s “personal political gain” or for any other reason.
To be blunt about it, show me the President saying in writing or in front of witnesses, “I want Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 election.” If you can’t do that, then the President’s defense team is correct: “The Articles of Impeachment are constitutionally invalid on their face.”
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
Thanks.
Actually, all we need to know is that Trump hired Dershowitz. Be it Mike Tyson, Jim “Jesus told me to do it” Bakker, OJ, or Claus von Bulow, Harvey Weinstein, Epstein; the only people that hire Dersh are the guilty ones.
LikeLiked by 3 people
With respect to;
LikeLiked by 1 person
The Scream Team…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, the King of Victims has established an appeal — incompetence of representation.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Thanks for posting the brief.
Quibbling about the use of the word “interfere” is pretty weak sauce. It is ILLEGAL for anyone to solicit (much less extort) the aid of a foreign actor – especially a government) for a political campaign. Doing so is soliciting the interference of that actor in our election process.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “It is ILLEGAL for anyone to solicit (much less extort) the aid of a foreign actor – especially a government) for a political campaign.”
Ok then, prove that the president solicited the aid of a foreign actor for a political campaign. Show us, for example, where the president said in writing or in front of witnesses, “I want Ukraine’s aid for my political campaign.”
LikeLike
Clarity of statement is not a necessity. For example, John Gotti wasn’t convicted for saying, “I want you to kill him.” He was convicted for saying, “Yea okay, whack ‘im.”
“Depends on what your definition of ‘is’ is.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Clarity of statement is not a necessity.”
No, but clarity of intent is a necessity. And for that we need evidence.
To use your example, John Gotti’s intent was clear. There’s nothing comparable to it in Trump’s case.
LikeLike
“ Show us, for example, where the president said in writing or in front of witnesses, “I want Ukraine’s aid for my political campaign.”
Mulvaney, Bolton, et. al., could very well be the witnesses. Which is, of course, why hiding them behind “executive privilege” has been the defense. Parnas’ revelations along with Giuliani’s record are making a very good case for witnesses and several Republicans are on the fence.
If Trump wins this (if impeached but not convicted is really winning) then a precedence is set for expanding the power and immunity of future presidents from any Constitutional restraint.
For those that would like a more authoritarian form of governance, this is good news. For those who believe the founders were wary of creating another de facto monarchy, we are in dangerous waters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “If Trump wins this…then a precedence [sic] is set for expanding the power and immunity of future presidents from any Constitutional restraint.”
Executive privilege is already a long-established constitutional precedent. George Washington himself resorted to it, as did Thomas Jefferson. The principle, however, is even older, having been recognized in common law before the United States was founded (Wikipedia).
More to the point here, though, we have a charge that the president abused his power, but not a lick of evidence to support the charge. That’s not how law or the Constitution are supposed to work.
LikeLike
“… not a lick of evidence…”
Oh, there is plenty of evidence. And more is arriving as we write.
The issue of executive privilege as it pertains to covering up an abuse of power is really the question.
If you shot someone in front of two witnesses and they refused to testify, then the “smoking gun”, the dead body, the fingerprints, etc., are still solid evidence of a murder.
What you are suggesting is that because neither witness is available and you didn’t say “I shot the person”, there is no crime.
Of course in your case, the two witnesses would be prosecuted as accessories of some sort. Executive privilege doesn’t apply. Just as it shouldn’t in this impeachment trial.
Unless you hold that the president is above the law. Which is the position of Barr and associates.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Oh, there is plenty of evidence. And more is arriving as we write.”
So you and others keep saying, but without producing any. To use your analogy, you seem to think a murder was committed, even though we have no witnesses, no body, no smoking gun, and no fingerprints.
You are promoting the idea that a person can be charged with a crime for no good reason.
LikeLike
Nah. You’re wrong. There is so much evidence, with more to come, that Trump abused his office.
The real question before the jury is not whether Trump is guilty, but whether anyone of the GOP cares enough to give a flying #$%@.
I think what Americans, patriots or not, are having a hard time dealing with is a president who couldn’t care less about truth, loyalty, patriotism, respect, morals, shame and at the same time hold all Americans in contempt which is evidenced by his words and actions.
Trump is a wake up call as to what happens when a nation is so divided that, while all the infighting is going on, we elected an amoral con artist.
All in my mostly humble opinion, as usual.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Nah. You’re wrong. There is so much evidence, with more to come, that Trump abused his office.”
It should be easy to show I’m wrong, then. But again, you show nothing.
LikeLike
“ It should be easy to show I’m wrong…”
For gosh sakes, it is all in the impeachment articles, the hearings, the developing information.
If I spent hours repeating it all, you’d still disagree.
I’m not a god. I can’t make the blind see or the deaf hear.
And I certainly can’t make a Trump apologist listen to reason or facts.
No matter what is either right or the will of the citizens, Trump owns the Senate, and with the fix set, that is all he needs.
For my part, I just hope there are enough GOP Senators with a modicum of moral responsibility to at least vote for witnesses. Conviction or not, at least we can make the GOP go on record as to what they think our country stands for.
That’s my opinion.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “I’m not a god. I can’t make the blind see or the deaf hear.”
Maybe if you were a god you could make yourself see and hear. If it is too hard to show me to be wrong, maybe its because I’m not.
LikeLike
If we are looking at the same evidence and disagree, one of us is blind.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Roberts
You seem to be very confused about the concept of “Executive Privilege.” It is a very narrow privlielge focused on the ability of the President to receive direct advice from subordinates in complete confidence. You seem to think it means something much broader such as the “privilege” to start “military adventures” or to extort personal favors from foreign governments.
LikeLiked by 1 person
You assume too much, and make things up.
LikeLike
I am assuming nothing and making nothing up. You DO seem to be very confused about what is covered by Executive Privilege. No assumptions needed. What you write makes that painfully clear.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “I am assuming nothing and making nothing up.”
You assume I don’t understand executive prvilege, and you made up the claim that I think it covers military adventures and extortion. Since I cited Wikipedia as a source supporting my comment, both your assumption and your claim are bogus, dishonest, in fact.
LikeLike
@Roberts
Come on. Get real. The proof is compelling. Multiple witnesses have provided evidence that the extortion was aimed to get a public declaration from the President of Ukraine that the Biden family was under investigation. Given that Joe Biden was leading the Democratic field at that time, there is no reasonable or credible reason for the President extorting such a public declaration other than to help his 2020 re-election campaign. When the purpose of an action is clearly evident there is no need for a statement of that purpose by the perpetrator.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Multiple witnesses have provided evidence that the extortion was aimed to get a public declaration from the President of Ukraine that the Biden family was under investigation.”
None of them said they had personal knowledge or documentation to support their presumptions and inferernces. When asked if they did, all said no. Hence, no evidence.
RE: “Given that Joe Biden was leading the Democratic field at that time, there is no reasonable or credible reason for the President extorting such a public declaration other than to help his 2020 re-election campaign.”
That’s pure magical thinking. Biden’s status as a candidate doesn’t make him immune to investigation.
LikeLike
@Roberts
“None of them . . .”
Not entirely true. Sondland had personal knowledge of Trump’s intentions and when finally cornered testified to the truth. And at least two others overheard Trump speaking to him on an unsecured phone connection to a restaurant in Kiev.
But those officials who could provide the best first hand evidence one way or another (e.g., Pompeo, Giuliani, Mulvaney) are refusing to comply with lawful subpoenas. How stupid do you have to be to believe that Trump is blocking testimony that would help his case?
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: ” Sondland had personal knowledge of Trump’s intentions”
Nope. Sondland testified that his knowledge ot Trump’s intentions consisted solely of “presumptions” (Sondland’s word). In fact, Sondland testified that when he called Trump on the phone and asked the question directly, “What do you want?” Trump’s answer contradicted Sondland’s own prior presumptions. Hence, no evidence.
RE: “But those officials who could provide the best first hand evidence one way or another (e.g., Pompeo, Giuliani, Mulvaney) are refusing to comply with lawful subpoenas.”
The subpoenas may have been lawful, but it was also lawful for the president to challenge them. How stupid do you have to be to not realize that because the House chose not to litigate the president’s challenge, it automatically invalidated its own second article of impeachment?
LikeLike
@Roberts
Buzzz! Fail.
Sondland said a lot of things. But in the end he had to tell the truth because other people testified that they overheard his conversation with Trump discussing – not corruption – but the status of the public declaration of a Biden investigation by Ukraine.
Again, how stupid do you have to be to think Trump is blocking testimony that would exonerate him? You did not answer, so I will . . . Pretty damn.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Right. A loud phone call overheard by eaters at a restaurant represents ground truth in your world.
When you come back to reality from outer space, let us know.
LikeLike
@Roberts
If that overheard conversation were the only evidence of this months long extortion conspiracy you would have point. Obviously it is not the only evidence. It is a small piece of a huge collection of undisputed facts. There is literally no doubt whatsoever that Trump did EXACTLY what he is accused of. His defense now is one that will be familiar to you . . . . “Yeah, I did it. So what?”
LikeLike
RE: “It is a small piece of a huge collection of undisputed facts.”
It is an undisputed fact that Sondland imagined he understood the president’s intentions. It is also an undisputed fact that other than his vivid imagination Sondland provided no evidence to support his own presumptions.
And so it goes with rest of the so-called evidence of wrongdoing on the part of the president.
LikeLike
Wouldn’t it be interference for a foreign country to conceal corruption by a US political candidate?
If Trump asked the Ukraine to frame Biden, that would be soliciting interference, but asking only that the truth come out is not, unless you believe Biden is above the law.
LikeLike
Trump and his cronies only asked to “anonce” an investigation. He could care less how corrupt things are in Ukraine.
Folks supporting Mr. Trump keep saying there is no evidence of the abuse of power. There is more evidence of that then of Biden (zero evidence, just wishful thinking) being corrupt.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Folks supporting Mr. Trump keep saying there is no evidence of the abuse of power.”
If you have any, let’s see it.
LikeLike
If you haven’t seen it is because you are either blind, deaf, incompetent or you just don’t WANT to see it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
If you can’t describe it, then it isn’t real.
LikeLike
Try watching real news stories, reading real newspapers and stop living in Trump world where nothing is real unless Trump says it is.
LikeLike
RE: “Try watching real news stories…”
You should take your own advice.
LikeLike
@Tabor
Your “analysis” is laughable.
Biden is not above the law but guess what – Ukraine has nothing to do with the law. Extorting them to investigate an American citizen without ANY due process or probable cause is in itself unlawful. Your “analysis” is particularly laughable when you sanctimoniously invoke the rule of law while ignoring these two foundations of it – due process and probable cause.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Extorting them to investigate an American citizen without ANY due process or probable cause is in itself unlawful.”
It is certainly true that extortion is illegal. Now you have to prove the president committed extortion. But you have no evidence, so good luck.
Also, since the articles of impeachment don’t mention extortion your quest is quixotic.
LikeLike
@Roberts
There are literally dozens of high crimes and misdemeanors committed by Trump that deserve inclusion in the Articles of Impeachment. Their omission only shows that the Democrats are trying to keep it simple so that the simpletons who support Trump might be able to understand.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “There are literally dozens of high crimes and misdemeanors committed by Trump that deserve inclusion in the Articles of Impeachment.”
So you say, but since they were left out, they aren’t at issue, and needn’t be considered.
Carry on with your quixotic fantasies.
LikeLike
The point that Mr Roberts makes on proving intent is the crux of the phony presumption the Democrats have pushed since the beginning. In fact it can’t be proved without a direct statement or in writing like Biden’s statement of withholding appropriated funds to get a Ukrainian prosecutor fired. For the life of me, I don’t get why left wingers dont get in a fit about that but that it’s a Democrat so its ok. No crime has been alleged, only what the Democrats claim is illegal by making up their own version of the facts and law.
LikeLike
Why American patriots don’t get into a fit over Biden’s actions:
““Daria Kaleniuk, an American-educated lawyer who founded Ukraine’s Anti-Corruption Action Center, expressed frustration that two recent front-page stories in the New York Times, on how the conspiracy theory is being used to attack Biden, failed to properly debunk the false accusation. According to Kaleniuk, and a former anti-corruption prosecutor, there is simply no truth to the rumor now spreading like wildfire across the internet.
The accusation is that Biden blackmailed Ukraine’s new leaders into firing the country’s chief prosecutor, Viktor Shokin, to derail an investigation he was leading into a Ukrainian gas company that the vice president’s son, Hunter, was paid to advise.
The truth, Kaleniuk said, is that Shokin was forced from office at Biden’s urging because he had failed to conduct thorough investigations of corruption, and had stifled efforts to investigate embezzlement and misconduct by public officials following the 2014 uprising.”
https://theintercept.com/2019/05/10/rumors-joe-biden-scandal-ukraine-absolute-nonsense-reformer-says/
Shokin lied when asked about this. After all, he was the fired prosecutor. And Lutsenko, Shokin’s successor, was arranging a business deal with Giuliani for $200,000
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/12/16/21024076/impeachment-giuliani-trump-biden-conspiracy-theory-ukraine-burisma
That’s why.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Daria Kaleniuk made her statements to the media. Viktor Shokin made his statements in sworn testimony as a witness in a court case.
A little Googling also reveals that Kaleniuk has ties to the Clinton Foundation and the DNC. Since the latter has been accused of conspiring with Ukrainians to produce dirt on Donald Trump (in part via Paul Manafort) for use in the 2016 presidential campaign, Kaleniuk’s motivations are questionable.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Back to the Putin defense again?
“Ukraine did it.”
Ties to the Clinton Foundation? Perhaps. The Foundation did receive money from the private Pinchuk Foundation, but notably not the government. But the same foundation gave Trump $150,000. Well, actually his “foundation”, but we all know it was a Trump personal expense account.
Like I said, the fix is in, so it is just a matter of what kind of “show trial” Mitch allows. With permission from the regime, of course.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “Back to the Putin defense again?”
Do you deny that Ukraine interfered in our election?
Daria Kaleniuk’s public statements to the media are insufficient to invalidate Viktor Shokin’s legal affadavit. At most, her statements create a he-said-she-said puzzle.
Since you have presented Kaleniuk’s Intercept interview twice recently as if it disproves Shokin’s claims, you should be aware that it doesn’t, really.
LikeLike
“ Do you deny that Ukraine interfered in our election?”
Of course. There may have been some opinions that favored Clinton over Trump, but so were opinions all over the industrial world since he managed to insult everybody.
We know from testimony and our own intelligence that Putin interfered and is now casting blame on Ukraine because Trump believes it from internet and FOX rumor mongering.
But believe what you will.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “But believe what you will.”
I intend to, since the facts support my belief.
Ukraine’s interference in our election hit mainstream news in January, 2017, through a story reported in Politico. I posted it here in the Forum a couple of months back.
Your denial and your reasoning are uninformed.
LikeLike
And the story was debunked by ACTUAL news organizations.
You continue to be delusional.
LikeLiked by 1 person
As far as Ukraine interfering in our election, which Trump has blown totally out of proportion, as usual, here is a later analysis.
“ “When you dig down into the details,” the efforts by Ukraine and Russia were “very, very different,” Stern said on CNN in July 2017. “What we said in the article is that we don’t have, as far as we can see, the type of top-down and wide, broad attack on the American election that was being alleged.”
https://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2019/dec/03/what-we-know-about-politico-story-heart-ukraine-co/
So to make you feel better, you were right about some Ukrainians trying to message a few things about Manafort. But that is different than Ukraine as a nation doing it.
But the narrative from Russia that Trump laps up like an obedient puppy is still BS.
LikeLiked by 2 people
RE: “you were right about some Ukrainians trying to message a few things about Manafort”
In other words, you were wrong to deny Ukrainian interference, and your talk about Trump and the “Putin defense” was a red herring.
LikeLike
“ In other words, you were wrong to deny Ukrainian interference…”
Not really. Interference by some Ukrainians is more correct. There is a difference.
Trump is still Putin’s lapdog. As are his most ardent supporters and defenders.
They just don’t know it or they do and don’t care.
IMO
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Trump is still Putin’s lapdog.”
You are wrong about this, as well.
LikeLike
He said, she said. So bottom line is you are saying Biden himself lied and boasted on camera about withholding appropriated funds to get the prosecutor fired, you know extortion according to Paul?
LikeLike
Not really. The US was only about 5% of the loan guarantees that were being held up. The international community was doing the same pressure, for the same reason but with about $18 billion in loan guarantees.
No money or supplies was actually appropriated as in Trump’s case.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@BobR
“Extortion” is a word that does not apply when an officer of the government is acting to implement legitimate foreign policy objectives on behalf of the President. And that is what Biden was doing when he demanded – on behalf of the United States government – that Ukraine replace a prosecutor who was known by all to be corrupt. There is zero legitimate comparison with Trump extorting political favors on behalf of his campaign while ILLEGALLY blocking resources approved by Congress to help Ukraine resist Russian aggression.
LikeLiked by 1 person
The President calls the shots on foreign policy and it is his job to ensure that US taxpayer $$$ is not squandered or stolen. It is also his job to establish communication channels between US and foreign officials.
To that point, we have the transcript of the call, which proves that he was doing just that. “There’s a lot talk about Biden’s son, that Eiden 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.”‘
As for obstruction, pfft . . . that charge is pitiful . . . just pitiful. For invoking privileges has been SOP in conflicts between the WH and Congress since the days of Mr Washington. House Dems could have challenged it in the courts, but they sidestepped that option. That is not Mr Trump’s fault.
Within two or three weeks, Mr Trump will be unmistakably, unambiguously and absolutely exonerated.
LikeLike
He’ll be acquitted, not exonerated.
There is a difference.
And he will always be impeached.
Here’s the thing, however. If a trial with witness testimony proves that Trump had no idea what was going on, which is his defense anytime a name or event pops up, then it would seem to be a political advantage for him.
Or an insanity plea.
Either way, his base loves him even if he shoots someone on Broadway in addition to Fifth Avenue.
Win win.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Witnesses . . . ? I don’t know, but I have hunch Messrs McConnell and Graham have a better understanding of how this gonna play out than anyone else — and they say it will be disposed of by the SOTU address.
Honestly, I don’t think there will be any additional witnesses.
The fakestream media has ignored it thus far, but several weeks ago, Lindsey Graham’s committee opened up an investigation into Ukrainian corruption, Marie Yovanovitch and 2016 election interference. Once impeachment is disposed of, Mr Graham will restart the investigation and Rudy Giuliani will be one of the first witnesses that his committee will hear from.
(Rudy began investigating Ukrainian corruption and 2016 election interference long before Uncle Joe ever announced his candidacy. )
LikeLike
“ Giuliani was feuding with Yovanovitch partly because she was blocking efforts by his clients, Parnas and Fruman, to pursue deals with Naftogaz, the Ukrainian natural gas company, that could have made millions for Giuliani’s friends.”
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/12/16/rudy-inc/?arc404=true
You are right. Giuliani has been involved with Ukraine and corruption long before Biden threw his hat in the ring. And it has come to light just recently.
Trouble is, Rudy “Rudy G” Giuliani was, and is, part of the corruption.
Oh, what webs we weave…
LikeLiked by 2 people
Don’t mess with Rudy, for he has put away far worse bad guys than the ones he has been investigating recently. Mr Trump turned him loose to look into various Ukrainian issues. However, Rudy did not have any Ukrainian connections, nor does he speak Ukrainian.
That’s where Lev Parnas comes in. According to SDNY, he was Rudy’s translator and Rudy freely admits that he facilitated his contacts with Ukrainians during his investigation.
marie yovanovitch george soros
Enter the foregoing into a Duck Duck Go tab (not google) and you will discover some interesting facts re Ms Yovanovitch. Durng the 2016 campaign, she worked with former Alexandra Chalupa and President Petro Poroshenko, to dig up dirt on Mr Trump. She promised him that HRC would win the election and when that didn’t happen, she panicked.
The following yr, when Volodymyr Zelensky was elected on an anti-corruption platform, Ms Yovanovitch opposed him and attempted to block a number of investigations. Those are just a couple of the reasons that she was fired. As noted, you will be leaning more about these matters from Rudy.
LikeLike
…”I have hunch Messrs McConnell and Graham have a better understanding of how this gonna play out than anyone else”…
(Your leaving out of your statement the article “a” (I have A hunch…) could be telling, Comrade. There are no “articles” in the Russian language.)
Of course they do. They are orchestrating the entire “trial” in accordance with direction from the White House. That could easily make them party to the cover up attempt. Ask some of Nixon’s staff how that worked out for them.
As far as Graham’s investigation goes, I think maybe, just maybe, it will turn up as much as the IG investigation at the FBI and Durham’s investigation, which was/will be so little to garner attention from Fox News or any other news organization because there is no there there.
Rudy went looking for dirt in Ukraine to find out who he could get the most help from in his own dirty endeavors. Also, an attempt to deflect from the actual Russian interference that occurred in 2016. It’s part of the Trump playbook.
LikeLike
LOL . . . You’re still hung-up on that Russian bogeyman stuff, eh?
As for the IG report: “The activities we found here don’t vindicate anybody who touched this.” – Michael Horowitz
Indeed, Mr Horowitz’s report proves that the Obama administration was the most diabolically corrupt in US history.
LikeLike
@Thad
“Indeed, Mr Horowitz’s report proves that the Obama administration was the most diabolically corrupt in US history.”
That is, of course, complete nonsense. I noticed your return and the fact that one or two of your posts were not totally imbecilic. That didn’t last long.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “That could easily make them party to the cover up attempt.”
Resorting to conspiracy theories now?
LikeLike
Nope. If the GOP fast tracks the “trial” with no new evidence, no witnesses and no real dig into the facts, then it is a cover up of Watergate proportions. IMHO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Thad
He will not be exonerated. He likely will be “acquitted” because the GOP in the face of egregious Presidential incompetence, banality and corruption and in the face of voluminous evidence of criminal behavior are willing to accept Trump’s final “defense” . . .
“Yeah, I did it. So what?”
Obviously you are too.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Well, if Dems thought that Mr Trump had broken any actual laws, they should have alleged something other than Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress. For neither of those charges rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Heck, they do not even rise to the level of jaywalking!
In America, there is this little thing known as presumption of innocence. Dems will not prove otherwise, thus, as noted, Mr Trump will forever be unmistakably, unambiguously and absolutely exonerated from shampeachment.
LikeLike
“ Or suppose that a president were to announce one morning that henceforth he would take no account of congressional statutes or administrative regulations and would instead rule by decree. That is, so far as I know, no crime. But does anyone doubt that such a decree would be impeachable?
Or suppose, to bring the case still closer to home, a president were to subordinate himself and the interests of his own country to a foreign power because he or his family could make money by doing so. Or because the foreign country agreed to help him secure reelection. Does anyone seriously suggest that the question of whether such behavior is impeachable turns on the niceties of ethics rules or campaign-finance laws?”
https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/10/what-does-high-crimes-and-misdemeanors-actually-mean/600343/
“high crimes and misdemeanors” also includes other offenses, applicable only to a public official, for which the standard is “preponderance of evidence”. Holding a particular office of trust is not a right, but a privilege, and removal from such office is not a punishment. Disablement of the right to hold any office in the future would be a punishment, and therefore the standards of “proof beyond a reasonable doubt” would apply before that ruling could be imposed by the Senate.“
“It should be noted, however, that when an offense against a statute is also a “high crime or misdemeanor”, it may be, and usually is, referred to by a different name, when considered as such. Thus, an offense like “obstruction of justice” or “subornation of perjury” may become “abuse of authority” when done by an official bound by oath. As such it would be grounds for impeachment and removal from office…”
https://www.constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm
So the determination in the Senate, after the investigation in the House, would be “do Trump’s actions constitute impeachable offenses whether or not they are actual crimes?”.
A corollary to all this is whether there are limits to presidential power that our nation and Constitution will not cross?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You seem confused by a few things, Mr. Rothman.
It is true, as you say, that high crimes and misdemeanors are not defined by statute violations, but you don’t grasp that high crimes and misdemeanors are defined by crimes and misdemeanors in the sense that the accused must have done something wrong or improper.
The challenge for those who support the Democratic impeachment is to show that the president did something wrong or improper. So far, no supporter of the Democratic impeachment has done so.
In this forum in particular, the best any impeachment supporter has done is to claim that there is ample evidence to show wrongdoing, but when asked to present the evidence, they just claim the evidence is abundant.
I get it, but if impeachment supporters are going to claim that others are blind, then they must show that they, themselves, are not blind. Otherwise, rational people are justified to suggest that impeachment supporters are seeing things that don’t exist.
In your case, I hope you will come to appreciate that statutory law, constitutional law and natural law represent different categories of analysis. For this reason, the quibble you raise about statutory law doesn’t cut any mustard.
LikeLike
I confuse easily.
“ I get it, but if impeachment supporters are going to claim that others are blind, then they must show that they, themselves, are not blind. Otherwise, rational people are justified to suggest that impeachment supporters are seeing things that don’t exist.”
Ok, so you are saying I need to write a 50 page analysis and review of what has already been done so you can disagree.
Get real. You are just goading and repeating the goad because it makes you fell good or whatever.
You disagree. I think you are wrong. But so do all the Trump supporters and his sycophants.
So there you go.
The truth, the rebuttal and the analysis all wrapped into one.
Besides, like I said, the fix is in and you along with about 40% of the country don’t care about anything else.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He tends to use lots of words to say … very little. He would save a lot of his own time if he would just say “Trump and I are right, those that don’t kiss Trump’s ass are wrong. Go F&^% yourself.”
He’s happiest when he spins us. But we still don’t let him get away with his bull puckey.
LikeLike
RE: “Ok, so you are saying I need to write a 50 page analysis and review of what has already been done so you can disagree.”
If you need 50 pages to prove your point, then your point is either unprovable or incapable of being communicated. Either way, that’s your problem, no one else’s.
LikeLike
“If you need 50 pages to prove your point, then your point is either unprovable or incapable of being communicated”
You mean like Trump’s team’s “defense” which the MAJORITY of Constitutional scholars has called, nicely, weak, but in fact they seem to be throwing a big yellow bullshit flag on it.
Hell, even Dershowitz can’t get out of his own way to say he has flip flopped on impeachment since Clinton because he is getting a very big check from Trump.
LikeLike
RE: “Hell, even Dershowitz can’t get out of his own way to say he has flip flopped on impeachment since Clinton”
How has Dershowitz flip flopped? It is widely reported that he opposed the Clinton impeachment for largely the same reasons he gives for opposing the Trump impeachment.
LikeLike