Update: As was probably expected, a formal impeachment inquiry rules resolution has been crafted (summary) and rules for involvement of Trump's lawyers also were later crafted.
Per one summary, on the day the rules resolution was passed with two Democrats (not Tulsi Gabbard) voting against and no Republican (a few didn't vote; two had family issues, one is on National Guard duty) voted for: "Trump’s counsel will be allowed to participate in the Judiciary Committee’s phase of the process by receiving evidence and staff reports, questioning witnesses, submitting additional evidence and being invited to offer a concluding presentation."
It won't surprise that the Republicans are not satisfied, in part because they aren't really fighting on neutral procedural grounds. Since prudentially, the Democrats are going to want to make things look fair, we don't even have to rest on their general sense of fairness here. This is so even if the rules require majority approval for various things like subpoenas, something basically a check on abuse. Things march on.
Living thru history is a mixed bag. Twenty years ago, Clinton was impeached. There was a sort of unreality about the whole thing. Unlike some, I don't "nothing was there" or anything. It wasn't merely "lying about a bj." In the #MeToo Generation, Bill Clinton's actions as governor and president were troubling, and interfering with an ongoing civil lawsuit alleged sexual wrongdoing would be rather frowned upon. I don't think they went to the level of impeachment, but at the time also didn't like the assumption nothing was there. Still, the stakes were all rather low.
Things are a bit more serious now regarding Trump's actions, which has more of a Nixon cast given the "ratfucking" implications for at least one election (Biden is running for 2020, so the whole Ukraine matter affects that too), this time with special international aspects. There are also other more local, shall we say, problems though even there -- the emoluments issue -- it often includes international actors. Also, there are various acts of obstruction of Congress and justice. Again, more serious than Clinton's misstatements (perhaps perjury) and obstructions.
I have long felt an impeachment inquiry was warranted, but we are getting in "this is serious" mode. There is an assumption now an impeachment trial is going to happen. We are now in impeachment inquiry mode though there was no formal House-wide vote to do so. One is not necessary. The process includes taking testimony, including in secure locations as needed, with members of both parties of the relevent committees present. One person, and really think this should be more well known, is Mike Pence's brother. This is comparable to a criminal investigation, one in which the criminal target does not have (during the investigation) equal rights to cross examine or anything as occurs later on, especially during the trial.
The impeachment inquiry is not the same as with the Clinton impeachment. The basic difference is that there was an independent counsel investigation (Starr) and his findings was released to the House of Representatives. The old law was allowed to lapse though so we are under a different dynamic now. There was a special counsel investigation under Robert Mueller, and while that went on, the people investigated had rights and lawyers and so on. This restrained the investigation in various respects. Now, we are having an investigation of the Ukraine matter too. Likewise, other things such as Trump's taxes are being investigated by relevant committees.
Nothing special is going on here. There is no injustice that I can see or violation of due process. Trump is repeatedly blocking the process, including by broad claims of executive privilege that is the subject of ongoing litigation. I summarize some findings of a recent district court opinion on release of some grand jury materials being held up in this thread on the resolution I will get to momentarily. It also continues my stance that one person (Dilan) has a simplistic view of what "political" means in the context of impeachments. From the beginning -- see, e.g., The Federalist Papers -- the process is phrased in legalistic terms. The House is a sort of "grand inquest" and the Senate is a sort of "trial."
In the 1990s, judge removed by impeachment argued that the rules in place where a fact finding panel was used by the Senate violated its constitutional duty to "try" impeachments. Walter Nixon v. U.S. held that this was a political question, not one the courts will get involved in respecting the proper rules. Three justices would have left open some extreme case (such as a coin toss), but the end result was mostly the same. The grand jury materials case shows that this does not necessarily mean that any impeachment related topic will avoid court review. There will be legal and constitutional issues that possibly will arise. One example might involve the rights of a witness or materials demanded from them.
Trump appears to be abusing the process all the same. My leaving open some room for review is a good idea in general since in practice absolutism falls apart upon scrutiny. But, generally speaking, the House does have "sole" power over impeachments and the Senate has such power regarding trials. This brings forth a broad grant of authority. Claims of executive privilege should not interfere with this process; we are at a point where a possible witness is going to court to get a holding he can do so. This was actually a count against Richard Nixon ("has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas"). Years of litigation can run out the clock.
Republicans, with no grounds to challenge the merits, have cried foul about the process. Fifty so far reportedly (Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, and Lisa M. of Alaska have not signed on yet) have agreed to a Senate resolution that criticizes the process of the House investigation. This is an appalling move on their part to dishonor the role and independence of a coequal house of Congress. Lindsey Graham, self-designated Trump bootlicker and Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (and House manager in the Clinton impeachment), is leading the effort. Such a f-ing asshole.
Trump's "due process" also is not being violated. The blog link I cited includes someone who challenges the very idea since the whole process is "political." But, that is an extreme way to phrase it; anyway, even he agrees that the structure provides certain procedural checks such as a supermajority vote to remove that in practice will require members of both parties to in some fashion agree. (This is less a factor in judicial impeachments though might be in special cases.) In practice, the process provides a general fairness. A lot of it has been in the open, the media has covered it, members of both parties are in the room, Trump has repeatedly asserted privilege and fought things out in court, rules are in place and Trump by the nature of his office has a lot of power.
To the degree there is some "due process" warranted, it has been supplied. The problem is not the concern (see also, Kavanaugh, Franken etc.) necessarily, but treating that term as if everything is akin to a criminal trial. Not that many of these people care too much about the rights of the average criminal defendant. And, here, more is being sought than even present there. It is during the impeachment trial where full confrontation of accusers etc. will occur. A potential criminal defendant does not get to confront accusers during the investigation stage. Concern about the full nature of the accusations also occurs at a preliminary hearing. Trump was not "arrested" or something. If impeachment occurs, eventually, there will be a crafting of impeachment counts as a result of this investigation.
The particulars of the resolution can be challenged easily enough but the basic function is to suggest the process is unfair. This taints the pool and to some degree serves as a "baby blanket" or some such thing (per one analysis I heard) for Trump to show Senate Republicans are being loyal. The head of that thread I referenced argued that the basic resolution is unconstitutional since it interferes with the Senate's duty to not taint its trial responsibility. Find that dubious, but the mindset is correct. It isn't quite as bad, given its symbolic nature, as blocking Garland. Still, it is a violation of its basic responsibilities.
This is a variety of things, including pathetic. I had hoped that more than three (can a resolution be filibustered? will the holdouts force them to use Pence, which sort of seems bad?) senators would at the very least let the House of Representatives do its constitutional duty. Someone like Susan Collins running for re-election and needing campaign funds being a tool is somewhat expected (so, I would not be shocked if she folds). Various Republicans can whine all they want (it's what they do), but this is a formal statement (which they have the raw power to do).
A few can convince themselves it is merely a message on procedure, but it is based on b.s. The message is not merely that maybe there is something there Trump did wrong, but can we just do things more fairly? It is that there is nothing there and the Democrats are left to being unfair. One Republican commenter spoke of some unfair predetermined vote in favor of impeachment. He was a bit less rabid than the usual bunch but had the same basic mentality. If you do not agree with clear evidence, that's on you, it is not the fault of those who (for months now, years regarding the Mueller investigation) are setting forth the case.
This resolution is an example of how the Republicans have totally lost its way in the Age of Trump. We need a new second party.
Per one summary, on the day the rules resolution was passed with two Democrats (not Tulsi Gabbard) voting against and no Republican (a few didn't vote; two had family issues, one is on National Guard duty) voted for: "Trump’s counsel will be allowed to participate in the Judiciary Committee’s phase of the process by receiving evidence and staff reports, questioning witnesses, submitting additional evidence and being invited to offer a concluding presentation."
It won't surprise that the Republicans are not satisfied, in part because they aren't really fighting on neutral procedural grounds. Since prudentially, the Democrats are going to want to make things look fair, we don't even have to rest on their general sense of fairness here. This is so even if the rules require majority approval for various things like subpoenas, something basically a check on abuse. Things march on.
Living thru history is a mixed bag. Twenty years ago, Clinton was impeached. There was a sort of unreality about the whole thing. Unlike some, I don't "nothing was there" or anything. It wasn't merely "lying about a bj." In the #MeToo Generation, Bill Clinton's actions as governor and president were troubling, and interfering with an ongoing civil lawsuit alleged sexual wrongdoing would be rather frowned upon. I don't think they went to the level of impeachment, but at the time also didn't like the assumption nothing was there. Still, the stakes were all rather low.
Things are a bit more serious now regarding Trump's actions, which has more of a Nixon cast given the "ratfucking" implications for at least one election (Biden is running for 2020, so the whole Ukraine matter affects that too), this time with special international aspects. There are also other more local, shall we say, problems though even there -- the emoluments issue -- it often includes international actors. Also, there are various acts of obstruction of Congress and justice. Again, more serious than Clinton's misstatements (perhaps perjury) and obstructions.
I have long felt an impeachment inquiry was warranted, but we are getting in "this is serious" mode. There is an assumption now an impeachment trial is going to happen. We are now in impeachment inquiry mode though there was no formal House-wide vote to do so. One is not necessary. The process includes taking testimony, including in secure locations as needed, with members of both parties of the relevent committees present. One person, and really think this should be more well known, is Mike Pence's brother. This is comparable to a criminal investigation, one in which the criminal target does not have (during the investigation) equal rights to cross examine or anything as occurs later on, especially during the trial.
The impeachment inquiry is not the same as with the Clinton impeachment. The basic difference is that there was an independent counsel investigation (Starr) and his findings was released to the House of Representatives. The old law was allowed to lapse though so we are under a different dynamic now. There was a special counsel investigation under Robert Mueller, and while that went on, the people investigated had rights and lawyers and so on. This restrained the investigation in various respects. Now, we are having an investigation of the Ukraine matter too. Likewise, other things such as Trump's taxes are being investigated by relevant committees.
Nothing special is going on here. There is no injustice that I can see or violation of due process. Trump is repeatedly blocking the process, including by broad claims of executive privilege that is the subject of ongoing litigation. I summarize some findings of a recent district court opinion on release of some grand jury materials being held up in this thread on the resolution I will get to momentarily. It also continues my stance that one person (Dilan) has a simplistic view of what "political" means in the context of impeachments. From the beginning -- see, e.g., The Federalist Papers -- the process is phrased in legalistic terms. The House is a sort of "grand inquest" and the Senate is a sort of "trial."
In the 1990s, judge removed by impeachment argued that the rules in place where a fact finding panel was used by the Senate violated its constitutional duty to "try" impeachments. Walter Nixon v. U.S. held that this was a political question, not one the courts will get involved in respecting the proper rules. Three justices would have left open some extreme case (such as a coin toss), but the end result was mostly the same. The grand jury materials case shows that this does not necessarily mean that any impeachment related topic will avoid court review. There will be legal and constitutional issues that possibly will arise. One example might involve the rights of a witness or materials demanded from them.
Trump appears to be abusing the process all the same. My leaving open some room for review is a good idea in general since in practice absolutism falls apart upon scrutiny. But, generally speaking, the House does have "sole" power over impeachments and the Senate has such power regarding trials. This brings forth a broad grant of authority. Claims of executive privilege should not interfere with this process; we are at a point where a possible witness is going to court to get a holding he can do so. This was actually a count against Richard Nixon ("has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas"). Years of litigation can run out the clock.
Republicans, with no grounds to challenge the merits, have cried foul about the process. Fifty so far reportedly (Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, and Lisa M. of Alaska have not signed on yet) have agreed to a Senate resolution that criticizes the process of the House investigation. This is an appalling move on their part to dishonor the role and independence of a coequal house of Congress. Lindsey Graham, self-designated Trump bootlicker and Chairman of the Judiciary Committee (and House manager in the Clinton impeachment), is leading the effort. Such a f-ing asshole.
- calls on the House of Representatives, prior to proceeding any further with its impeachment investigation into President Trump, to vote to initiate a formal impeachment inquiry;
- calls on the House of Representatives to provide President Trump, like every other American, with due process, to include the ability to confront his accusers, call witnesses on his behalf, and have a basic understanding of the accusations against him that would form any basis for impeachment; and
- calls on the House of Representatives to provide members of the minority with the ability to participate fully in all proceedings and have equal authority to issue subpoenas and other compulsory process.
Trump's "due process" also is not being violated. The blog link I cited includes someone who challenges the very idea since the whole process is "political." But, that is an extreme way to phrase it; anyway, even he agrees that the structure provides certain procedural checks such as a supermajority vote to remove that in practice will require members of both parties to in some fashion agree. (This is less a factor in judicial impeachments though might be in special cases.) In practice, the process provides a general fairness. A lot of it has been in the open, the media has covered it, members of both parties are in the room, Trump has repeatedly asserted privilege and fought things out in court, rules are in place and Trump by the nature of his office has a lot of power.
To the degree there is some "due process" warranted, it has been supplied. The problem is not the concern (see also, Kavanaugh, Franken etc.) necessarily, but treating that term as if everything is akin to a criminal trial. Not that many of these people care too much about the rights of the average criminal defendant. And, here, more is being sought than even present there. It is during the impeachment trial where full confrontation of accusers etc. will occur. A potential criminal defendant does not get to confront accusers during the investigation stage. Concern about the full nature of the accusations also occurs at a preliminary hearing. Trump was not "arrested" or something. If impeachment occurs, eventually, there will be a crafting of impeachment counts as a result of this investigation.
The particulars of the resolution can be challenged easily enough but the basic function is to suggest the process is unfair. This taints the pool and to some degree serves as a "baby blanket" or some such thing (per one analysis I heard) for Trump to show Senate Republicans are being loyal. The head of that thread I referenced argued that the basic resolution is unconstitutional since it interferes with the Senate's duty to not taint its trial responsibility. Find that dubious, but the mindset is correct. It isn't quite as bad, given its symbolic nature, as blocking Garland. Still, it is a violation of its basic responsibilities.
This is a variety of things, including pathetic. I had hoped that more than three (can a resolution be filibustered? will the holdouts force them to use Pence, which sort of seems bad?) senators would at the very least let the House of Representatives do its constitutional duty. Someone like Susan Collins running for re-election and needing campaign funds being a tool is somewhat expected (so, I would not be shocked if she folds). Various Republicans can whine all they want (it's what they do), but this is a formal statement (which they have the raw power to do).
A few can convince themselves it is merely a message on procedure, but it is based on b.s. The message is not merely that maybe there is something there Trump did wrong, but can we just do things more fairly? It is that there is nothing there and the Democrats are left to being unfair. One Republican commenter spoke of some unfair predetermined vote in favor of impeachment. He was a bit less rabid than the usual bunch but had the same basic mentality. If you do not agree with clear evidence, that's on you, it is not the fault of those who (for months now, years regarding the Mueller investigation) are setting forth the case.
This resolution is an example of how the Republicans have totally lost its way in the Age of Trump. We need a new second party.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Thanks for your .02!