Full Release of Whistle Blower and IG letter.

Does the President need to break the law to be impeached? Or is it just "abuse of power"?

originally posted by: HanyManny
Does the President need to break the law to be impeached? Or is it just "abuse of power"?

It's starting to look like it doesn't matter, the Democrats would impeach Santa Clause if they could.

a reply to: HanyManny

it has to be either treason(very specific criteria) bribery, or the vauge and never defined "high crimes and misdemeanors" i think thats all of them but am a little scatter brained today

a reply to: Sookiechacha

They should have had it 3 weeks ago.

The complaint was first not consistent with the legal definition of "credible and urgent." The statute is written for employees and employees of contractors for the IC, not for the President; the President does not work for the DNI (literally, the DNI works for him). There is also this thing called Executive Privilege; the President's private conversations cannot be forced from a witness in the name of National Security. If you were to talk to the President and later tell what he said to a news outlet, you could be arrested for violating Executive Privilege. So can any Executive Branch employee, including the DNI.

Maguire could not legally comply with the whistleblower statute concerning this case because the President had not waived Executive Privilege. It was illegal for him to do so. Once the transcript was declassified and released by Trump, that was an abdication of Executive Privilege in that matter and the DNI was free and clear to forward the complaint. He was actually under no legal obligation to do so, because the complaint, despite what the IG had concluded, did not meet the statutory definition of "credible and urgent." I am glad he did, just pointing out that he was not under any legal requirement.

Schiff needs to understand something: when he says "no one is above the law," that applies to him as well. The President does not work for the Congress, and the Congress does not work for the President. Schiff has no authority to demand that the DNI, acting or no, violate Executive Privilege. Only the Supreme Court can order that. Congress' duty of oversight does not include the ability to take over another branch of government. If they want to force violation of Executive Privilege, they have to go the legal route and appeal to the Supreme Court.

I really wish the DNI had been more forceful at the hearing. The Congressmen were playing 'gotcha" questions left and right. It really was a sad thing to watch, how low our leaders are willing to stoop and how much they are willing to ignore the Constitution, in order to get their man. In the immortal words of Johnny Van Zant:

TheRedneck

a reply to: HanyManny

Does the President need to break the law to be impeached? Or is it just "abuse of power"?

Technically no, Congress is given no Constitutional restrictions on the President's actions beyond "high crimes and misdemeanors." However, impeachment is a very serious action as it is invalidating the votes of, in this case, approximately half the country. It is not to be taken lightly, as this particular bunch seems to think.

I believe it is possible a case could even be made to the Supreme Court to halt the impeachment attempt as being devoid of any "high crimes and misdemeanors." Maybe I'm wrong on that (it has never been tried), but I see reason in the idea.

If they try to actually impeach, especially over something this frivolous, there will be hell to pay at the voting booths. There was hell to pay after Clinton was impeached, and he actually violated a law (perjury) in front of the entire nation. No one needed that explained to them... it was painfully obvious he lied under oath.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thanks for your response. I learned something.

a reply to: RalagaNarHallas

Thanks - I saw that in a document I read.

originally posted by: HanyManny
Does the President need to break the law to be impeached? Or is it just "abuse of power"?

Hey mysterious new puppet account!

Please feel free to show proof of either!

a reply to: TheRedneck

The complaint was first not consistent with the legal definition of "credible and urgent."

It was deemed credible and urgent by the ICIG. That's his job. It's the job of the DNI to send the complaint to Congress, not to overrule the ICIG.

But you're right, that (and executive privilege) is what was argued, unsuccessfully, because the report was sent to Congress.

a reply to: Sookiechacha

It was deemed credible and urgent by the ICIG. That's his job. It's the job of the DNI to send the complaint to Congress, not to overrule the ICIG.

Actually, it is his job to oversee the ICIG, with advise from the DoJ where applicable. Director of National Intelligence. That means he oversees everything in the IC. In this case, the issue of Executive Privilege as well as the legal definition of "credible and urgent" were inconsistent with the requirement to forward the complaint to Congress.

But you're right, that (and executive privilege) is what was argued, unsuccessfully, because the report was sent to Congress.

OK, you are not following the legal requirements and timeline here. The complaint would not have been released to Congress if the President had not abdicated Executive Privilege. Congress did not get the complaint released to Congress; the President did by declassifying and releasing the transcript.

There was no successful argument that Congress could overrule Executive Privilege.

Congress' power is not unlimited. Again, the President is not above the law but neither is the Congress.

TheRedneck

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

The complaint was first not consistent with the legal definition of "credible and urgent."

It was deemed credible and urgent by the ICIG. That's his job. It's the job of the DNI to send the complaint to Congress, not to overrule the ICIG.

But you're right, that (and executive privilege) is what was argued, unsuccessfully, because the report was sent to Congress.

So it was sent to Congress before executive privilege was waived? Can you source that?

It is certainly going to be fascinating watching the events play out. I think that it is worth just considering that Trump may have just messed up. Hes no diplomat, for sure. The potential cover up might be as problematic. In any event, I think:

1. Mitch McConnell is going to push Pence to be ready, and will allow Trumps removal.

2. If Trump makes Pence resign, who does he try to get approved by the Senate? Ivanka? McConnell will betray Trump at some point.

Not that I'm rooting for it.... it's just the logical thing the establishment man, Mitch M. would do. It would probably save him control of the Senate in 2020, which doesnt look good right now. Mitch would do it.

a reply to: HanyManny

I believe the turn of phrase is "the Congress can impeach on a ham sandwich." If I paraphrased that wrong, I apologize, but basically here's how it works:

1. Someone in the House of Representatives introduces a resolution of impeachment:

Impeachment proceedings may be requested by a member of the House of Representatives on his or her own initiative, either by presenting a list of the charges under oath or by asking for referral to the appropriate committee.

wiki

The House then votes on that resolution, and if passed by 2/3 majority it is referred to the Senate.

2. The resolution is adjudicated in the Senate as a trial, presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court(currently Justice Roberts.)

The proceedings unfold in the form of a trial, with each side having the right to call witnesses and perform cross-examinations. The House members, who are given the collective title of managers during the course of the trial, present the prosecution case, and the impeached official has the right to mount a defense with his or her own attorneys as well. Senators must also take an oath or affirmation that they will perform their duties honestly and with due diligence. After hearing the charges, the Senate usually deliberates in private. The Constitution requires a two-thirds super majority to convict a person being impeached.[24] The Senate enters judgment on its decision, whether that be to convict or acquit, and a copy of the judgment is filed with the Secretary of State.[18] Upon conviction in the Senate, the official is automatically removed from office and may also be barred from holding future office. The trial is not an actual criminal proceeding and more closely resembles a civil service termination appeal in terms of the contemplated deprivation. Therefore, the removed official may still be liable to criminal prosecution under a subsequent criminal proceeding. The President may not grant a pardon in the impeachment case, but may in any resulting Federal criminal case.[25]

same link as above.

It is my opinion that Trump is goading Pelosi and the House Democrats into initiating an impeachment inquiry, knowing that it is a non-starter. Hope this helps.

best!
z

ETA: I should clarify; the charges in the resolution to impeach are not required to be criminal charges. They could be accusations of tit-for-tat, as we're seeing here today, they could be any number of charges of impropriety. If the official in question claims to be a vegan(under oath), yet eats a ham sandwich, the charge could be perjury. Point is, if a member of the House presents a charge, or list of charges which gain a super-majority upon vote, the resolution is referred to the Senate. These need not be criminal charges, they could be civil, or accusations of griefing on a Minecraft server. Doesn't matter. Even the standard "high crimes and misdemeanors" doesn't apply. That refers more to former precedent set by previous successful impeachment efforts.

a reply to: SparkyMcBurny

What's more interesting is that, in a deadlock vote in the Senate, the Vice-President, being the President of the Senate, casts the deciding vote. What an upset that would be!

originally posted by: OccamsRazor04

originally posted by: Sookiechacha
a reply to: TheRedneck

The complaint was first not consistent with the legal definition of "credible and urgent."

It was deemed credible and urgent by the ICIG. That's his job. It's the job of the DNI to send the complaint to Congress, not to overrule the ICIG.

But you're right, that (and executive privilege) is what was argued, unsuccessfully, because the report was sent to Congress.

So it was sent to Congress before executive privilege was waived? Can you source that?

Lol, you KNOW the answer to that.

It won't matter either. I spent six pages posting texts from an actual treaty and the UN organization created by the treaty to enforce and oversee the treaty in question, and that poster still wanted to argue their "unique" contrary understanding as though it was fact.

a reply to: Zelun

A couple of corrections to your post:

• Impeachment is by a simple majority in the House.
  
• Conviction/removal in the Senate is by a supermajority (2/3). Pence would likely not be involved in that decision, since there is no "tie vote." If one Senator abstains and the rest vote 66:33 to convict, it is a conviction. If that one abstain votes no, making it 66:34, there would be no conviction.
  
• "High crimes and misdemeanors" is not precedent; it is stated in the US Constitution. Thus far, there has been no exact legal definition on what exactly constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors," which is why I believe there is standing for the Supreme Court to weigh in.

The rest is accurate.

TheRedneck

a reply to: TheRedneck

Thank you!