Oh please, this is not a situation in which we examine the past and debate our (constitutional) way forward. This is flat out publicly displayed criminal conduct by an organized (OK, sorry to the Mafia dudes out there, the term 'organized' here is used loosely) cabal in what used to be our executive branch.
5
Am I correct that Cipollone is Italian for "big onions"?
4
Why can't congress "send its sergeant-at-arms to the White House to enforce its subpoenas"? We're at that stage now. It would be so fun to watch.
5
This is on the republicans for running scared from Trump and then rather than admit fault and disgrace continued to support someone with no experience in governance or self self control. A waste of our time and talents having to deal with a narcissus and a person with such damaged goods. Goonies On Parade is Trump's party now.
2
I call on the pope. Pope Francis: Threaten to excommunicate each and every "justice" who refuses to rule justly. And while you're at it, excommunicate every "justice" who denies basic human rights to LGTBQ people. If this doesn't have an effect, then we will all know where their loyalties really lie, and we already know full well it is with neither God nor America.
2
I hope you're right.
So I got this terrible chilling thought. What if tanks start rolling through Washington D.C.? Really, what does all this lead to? And it it comes to that, what is next? === Never thought I would entertain such a thought.
2
What is so hard here? Vote to impeach him and then let the senate have their vote. What pray tell is the crisis?
Common Sense would be a good solution.
I have to wonder how Mike Pompeo’s West Point classmates / alumni feel about him now.
1
Great! So now we have elected kangaroos in Congress sitting over kangaroo courts issuing subpoenas like cookies which apparently have no substance or teeth. Wow. The local Sheriff has more power. At least he can drive up to you with a pair of handcuffs and take you in.
This is a WORLD crisis, not just a constitutional crisis!
------------------------------------------------------------------
If Trump has his way, democratic government may fall, globally.
We have to say to the "US of Trump" people, enough is enough.
If Trump continues to dominate, democracy will likelly fall...
Let me again, suggest the "Democracy" song, of Leonard Cohen.
"Democracy is coming to the USA"
I ask the Times to focus on a new democracy wave and the song:
"Democracy is coming to the USA"
------------------------------------------
2
40 percent of the country are for a dictatorship as long as it returns the culture back 50 years.
3
Take to the streets and don’t leave until Trump and Pence are gone.
2
The first two thirds of this article acts like there’s no recourse when clearly having the courts enforce the subpoenas is the recourse. Then the article acts like it found the recourse out of thin air, and declares the recourse is not “reassuring.” What is the point of this article? It’s so oddly written.
Has anyone checked to see if VP Pence’s copy of the Constitution is bookmarked to the 25th Amendment?
2
And remember he'll win again because no rules apply to him which he has proven over and over, and he will have the backing and support of Russia, while we all play by the rules. Nice job Republicans in office. You have destroyed the United States in only 3 years. Don't worry about history though, we won't be here to reflect on your traitorish behavior thanks to global warming.
4
The mental health people gave their warnings years ago and no one acted. The victims, writers and researchers of authoritarianism called the Trump regime a name that is taboo in America. Please review the premises behind that label and make up your own mind.
The 14 Characteristics of Fascism (Dr. Lawrence Britt)
1. Powerful and continuing nationalism.
2. Disdain for human rights.
3. Identification of enemies as a unifying cause.
4. Supremacy of the military.
5. Rampant sexism.
6. Controlled mass media.
7. Obsession with national security.
8. Religion and government intertwined.
9. Corporate power protection.
10. Labor power suppressed.
11. Disdain for intellectuals and the arts.
12. Obsession with crime and punishment.
13. Rampant cronyism and corruption.
14. Fraudulent elections.
Call it what you will, but know it is systemic, supported by one of two political parties and once enthroned will sustain its power through any means necessary.
God Bless America.
Pray!
2
Come on, NYT, you can't do any better than this "on the one hand, on the other hand" as if there were any equivalency between A Schiff's clear, moderate, careful and legal approach and Trump and his minions' criminal nonsense? Take a stand!
5
This is how it ended. This is how America became a dictatorship.
1
Once we (Jefferson, Washington, Franklin, et al) stood against a tyrant. Now it is our turn. Where are the patriotic Republicans?
5
The constitution is clear, article 1, section 2: The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment. And it also lays out that the congress conducts its business independently. The language is clear. There is NO grey area. The president is breaking the law through his noncompliance. You and I would be in jail by now - guilty until proven innocent. This cannot stand and is outrageous. He must be stopped, he is ruining our country and the trust we have had with our allies. Every day that he is not held accountable is another opportunity for him to "perform" another Syria debackle. Come on people, open up your eyes!
2
We should be thanking the Mercer family for this! NPR’s Fresh Air told the story on today’s show!
Mercer’s funded Schweizer’s book, he’s written a oped piece that’s still found in today’s Times. Apparently mainstream media had a little article about Schweizer’s book about Biden and Ukraine, but the conservative media picked it up and ran with it and that’s where Trump and Crazy Rudy saw the story and then asked Ukraine to investigate personally, got to love a conservative backfire like that! Impeach him Now!
1
Crisis! Impeachment has been on the table for 3 years already...per Maxine Waters.
Maybe a two week recess is not enough for them to handle this “crisis”?
1
What bloviating nonsense of an article. Stir the pot, inflame as many people as possible. Here are the facts. The President was duly elected, per the rules of the Constitution. If the House doesn't want him there for whatever reason, call the vote on impeachment. Hyper-partisan House committee and Adam Schiff ("secret witnesses") are a joke.
Otherwise, stop dividing this country.
P.S. There is an election next November. You know, the constitutional process.
The person who has flouted the norms of American political behavior, broken Federal and State laws, has engaged Russia, Ukraine, and even China to interfere in our election process, imprisoned asylum seeking families contrary to law and international practices, has stolen Congressionally appropriated funds from the Pentagon and Treasury for a non-authorized wall, shutdown government, has used his personal attorney to conduct foreign affairs, and withheld Congressionally appropriated funds while coercing Ukraine to reopen a closed investigation to smear his political opponent, has threatened friendly neighbors, trading partners, and our traditional allies, while embracing foreign adversaries and despots, now wants to dictate the process by which the co-equal branch of our Federal government conducts its impeachment process?
Since when do Mafia chiefs dictate where, how and for what crimes they will be tried? Since when do accused individuals have the right to suppress evidence and silence witnesses?
Since when has anyone had the right to decide which laws they will obey the laws? Since when has anyone been so far above the law that they are a King?
Our Constitution is filled with checks and balances. The prerogative to impeach Federal officers, including the President, resides in the elected members of the House of Representatives. All members of the Executive branch are employed by the people of the United States, not the President.
Congress must act! Now!
3
Crisis, my foot! Let’s take a two week recess kinda of crisis?
We are really finding out that our country could actually become the kind of country none of us want to live in. All it takes is one pathetic narcissist who thinks he should be able to do what his "unequaled wisdom" tells him to do.
1
Horowitz's report is due soon and Durham has apparently expanded his investigative team substantially which hints at criminal activity they are uncovering. Democrats seem scared to death of what Durham & Horowitz will find & allege. Hence the rush to impeachment & indictment - they fear what may be coming.
Maybe conservatives will be proven wrong here. But my sense is the morass surrounding the Democrats is deep & putrid. God help America when all of this breaks.
Now is the time for alll good men (& women) to come to the aid of their country.
If the courts can still resolve the issue, it’s not a constitutional crisis yet! (Just more unconstitutional — and impeachable — behavior for which the president ought to be held accountable.)
If the president refuses to comply even after losing in court though... Then you’ve got a constitutional crisis on your hands.
Come on Democrats! What is this pat a cake approach to someone ignoring a subpoena? Is there no end to the embarrassment us Americans must endure. Find some teeth!!! Act like we're a country of lawfulness. Use the law!
1
We don’t have to call him “Mr.” Trump in the comments just because the Times does that as a longstanding matter of style.
And if you ask me, the Times should break that tradition with this fella.
Genteel, he is not.
2
Good people should not despair though. The dynamic has shifted. At this point the fact the senate will likely protect the great wise one will not be to their benefit- at least in swing states.
In fact if the senate keeps him in office he will hurt the party and also lose himself say 57/43 give or take.
What matters is that the senate goes democratic and the senate will bless us with their grotesque conduct, Lyndsey Graham we love you! Some one give that man a magaphone!
I am confident that Biden/ Warren can do it and do it well, bringing along enough of middle America to create a majority that could last a generation.
We can. We must. We are going to prevail!
Jail everyone who doesn't comply.
1
Trump cares not a gnat's behind what he is doing to the country.
2
The House should vote in favor of an impeachment inquiry today. Then, we can see what Trump does. Let's remember that the Senate isn't going to convict him. We will need to vote the bum out in 2020. So hold your horses on the constitutional crisis.
Michael Che recently told a timely joke on SNL's "Weekend Update" ...
"I’ll bet somebody explained how long impeachment takes to John Wilkes Booth and he was like 'Well OK, where's he at right now?' "
1
Maybe we can do like the Puerto Ricans and street-protest him out of office!
The Supreme Court will ultimately be the arbiter of this mess. And, although some jerks sit in borrowed/stolen robes, I have more confidence in them upholding the rule of law and protecting democracy from this corrupt lunatic, than I do the good folk in the voting booths. The House must stay the course, continue to collect incriminating evidence, and keep Trump's mike switched on.
15
The whole world is watching.
1
Perhaps the stalemate is the solution...just as the founders intended...with neither side able to force the issue? Just a thought.
Ah, the irony.
Trump and the Republicans crying about Dems not being fair, not following procedures re impeaching a presidents, etc etc etc.
The same folks who threw out norms and traditions to cram their justices on the SC, Nunez running through the night to the WH, Barr manipulating the Meuller report., Trump and his thousands of lies, etc, etc etc.
2
The Democrat leadership wants an impeachment inquiry but doesn’t want Members of Congress to have to put their names to it, just in case it goes wrong. That tells me that they don’t think their case for impeachment is that strong. Time to put up or shut up.
What happens when the Supreme Court rules in favor of the Congress and Trump's response is "drop dead"?
2
The conservative members of the Supreme Court would not "find themselves in a quandary" if this obstruction of justice went before them. They would have a clear choice of upholding the Constitution, which they are sworn to do, or upholding the illegitimate declaration that this ignorant, screeching little man has made that he is de-facto King. So far, no Con has shown the patriotism or backbone put country over partisanship, and the Democrats are too bloody scared of their own shadows to use the authority they have.
Too bad "No Fear" was just a clothing line and not an American value in our politics.
1
An impeachment is a prosecution, and subpoenas in the inquiry are absolutely enforceable, absent a privilege applying for specific evidence that is sought. That’s the rule in our judicial system, generally, not just in prosecutions. A Supreme Court that ignores this reality will face shame and ridicule as it has never before experienced. If Trump is counting on this court, he might be forgetting that most Americans think he is a fool, a knave and worse. No doubt a majority on the court agree. Ultimately, Trump will be forced out. Let’s see what happens after that.
1
I cannot shake the feeling that future historians will be kinder to Trump than to the McConnells and the Pompeos. A fool who thought of himself as a genius, Trump could not help himself. What is the excuse the enablers have?
This is the most important fight and it really matters who wins. Yes Democrats, where are your street fighting skills?
What happens next?
It’s time to clean house and use the full force of the law to get to the bottom of the rampant corruption in our government from the White House to Congress AND the Supreme Court. Collusion has brought the US to the brink of endangering its future.
I say fire them all!!
1
Can we please just split in to 2 countries? It wouldn't mean that the USA is a “failed experiment”.... it’s just the way things evolved over time. Let’s agree to disagree, split, and each move forward ( or backward as the case may be.)
1
#sendthesargeantatarms (no, really... use unconventional means to counter an unconventional president)
1
I am not an oracle but when POTUS 45 was elected I said to my family and friends that 3 things would happen during this administration
He would lead us into war
He would create a constitutional crisis
He would force us [I am Latino] to wear a Yellow Tortilla on our shirts to identify our ethnicity.
We are now in the Constitutional Crisis
We missed a war with Iran by minutes and may still go to war to divert from the Constitutional Crisis if SCOTUS rules against him; or if he is convicted at the Senate trial; or if he does not win the 2020 election. I do not believe he will go peacefully
I am not wearing a Yellow Tortilla, instead I am wearing a virtual target that his rhetoric placed on the backs of Latinos that allowed [perhaps encouraged] a Racist to target us with an AR in a WalMart in El Paso.
As i did prior to the 2016 election, I believe that if POTUS 45 prevails in this Crisis and/or in 2020:
The USA that I and my son served and swore to protect while in the Armed Forces will be no more
Deportations of non-white minorities or other solutions devised by POTUS 45 and Stephen Miller will begin.
He will have no restraints on him to prevent this; he has removed all with opposing opinions. All that remains is his "great and unmatched wisdom."
Where is Sen Margaret Chase Smith and Sen John McCain when we need them?
I don’t understand why the sergeant-at-arms can’t enforce subpoenas. Who is above the law? The president? OK, who else? Pence? Barr? Everybody the president doesn’t want spilling the beans?
Houston, we have a problem.
What a strange and wonderful country the United States. You have Stanford, Harvard, MIT. You have silicon valley, Apple, Tesla. You have the NYT. You have science and technology. At the same time, you have a presidential system that allows the least voted candidate to win. So you have Trump. And your democracy seems to have reached a breaking point.
1
I wish the Fox News pundits would read this on air.
Crisis? What crisis? This is a coup disguised as a tantrum.
1
If not too much trouble, may I suggest the following? Folks who are not happy with Sondland might want to consider boycotting these Sondland hotels:
The Revolution Hotel; Boston, Massachusetts
Villa Royale; Palm Springs, California
Lora; Stillwater, Minnesota
The Old No. 77 Hotel & Chandlery; New Orleans, Louisiana
Hotel Theodore; Seattle, Washington
Hotel Max; Seattle, Washington
Hotel Murano; Tacoma, Washington
Woodlark; Portland, Oregon
Dossier; Portland, Oregon
Hotel Lucia; Portland, Oregon
The Heathman Hotel; Portland, Oregon
Hotel deLuxe; Portland, Oregon
Sentinel; Portland, Oregon
Hotel Preston; Nashville, Tennesee
2
"What happens next?"
Nothing, Status quo.
House is incompetent to do anything and white house hunkers down.
Why are we not in the streets? because we lost our way and there's no there, there anymore. Additionally have you seen those trucks filled with pods pulling into Orange County, CA. Have you ever wondered why all millenials valley speak.
Will the last one in the Republic please turn off the lights?
Dirty Donnie has gone full rogue. Is anyone surprised? He needs to be prosecuted and sent to Riker's Prison, ASAP.
Pat Cipollone should hang his head in shame and his name will now go down in infamy along with the other lawyers who have enabled Trump’s claims that he is above the law and the constitution.
1
Drain the Swamp does not mean blow up the Constitution.
Donnie must have been absent when Checks and Balances was taught in 7th grade history.
What would the Founding Fathers have done if a self-important, petty, idiot of a tyrant and his coterie of insipid sycophants tried to impose their will on the majority without regard to the principles of justice, mercy, or equity? Oh. Wait. We already have that answer and the so-called "conservatives" of the GOP don't care.
Ah. It's a good time to be an Originalist.
If trump gets away with his amoral and unethical behavior and wins a second term, newspapers like the "liberal" NYT and WAPO will be shutdown before the end of trump's second term. Also CNN, MSNBC, NPR, PBS, C-SPAN will have their FCC licenses revoked. Then it will be hunting down "traitors" like me and you, GULAGS, mass arrests, martial law, and misery for all decent human beings. In my very humble opinion that is what trump wants and I see nobody stopping him, especially the US "Supreme" Court!
2
Roberts won't use his vote to increase the power of a president who has only a year left and will likely be succeeded by a liberal. Sure Roberts is partisan, but he's also quite far from stupid.
2
Forget the subtle niceties, schedule a vote to impeach tomorrow morning & impeach him by the end of the week. We have obstruction from the Mueller report, we have a smoking gun w the White House transcript, we have him publicly asking China for help, we have him lying about everything - thats enough. And when his minions need a favor, like getting their budgets passed, make it hard for them & Trump. The House has the power of the purse, us it!
1
When AG Sessions wouldn't recuse himself from the Mueller investigation, Trump cried, "Where's my Roy Cohn?" Now we all need to cry, "Where's our John Dean?" Where's the one Trump insider who realizes this isn't going to end well for them and agrees to testify to all Trump's impeachable offenses? Where's the anonymous Op-Ed writer and supporters now?
Why does it need to go to the Supreme Court at all? Impeach this criminal President already. The evidence is there. The Will of the People is there. Impeach him and let the GOP cowards in the Senate continue to stand on the side of criminality, lawlessness, and treason, if they dare.
4
The Republican Party in the House and Senate now need to stand up for the Constitution and make this a non-partosan issue. Will it? We must all hope so, since all the other possible solutions are truly frightening. We're facing an abyss.
1
Politicians, pundits, and citizens routinely express their disbelief that so many Republicans would jump on, or even push, Trump’s cock-and-bull bandwagon. Conspiracy theories, transparently bogus constitutional argument, even disputing the clear intent of Trump’s own words. We shouldn’t be. This country jettisoned culpability for reckless acts years ago. After Trump is long gone from the White House, the craven GOP hacks who back Trump now will be welcomed back to politics with nary an objection. It will be as if Sen. Ron Johnson announced on national television his distrust for this country’s entire national intelligent service. That hypocrisy will fade in the mist, and the merry-go-round will begin again.
1
Meanwhile, Trump has essentially allowed a war in Turkey to divert the attention of the media and cover over anything happening in Congress, though truth be told the Dems are pretty pathetic at anticipating what any ordinary citizen could have told them was going to happen: Recalcitrance and refusal to appear before the Committee. DOH! What a surprise? NOT.
As Trump sucks the oxygen out of DC, he is also usurping the power of Congress to make law because the leader of the Senate is simultaneously part of the Republican’s decade’s long effort to lock in party power. McConnell prevents just about any legislation that originates in the House from becoming law by preventing it from being discussed and voted on in the Senate.
So all you citizens who are complaining about the lack of Congressional action on just about anything these are the reasons why and how you are being stiff armed. And if you think Trump’s remaining in power will save you — guess again!
2
I too listened to the Daily this morning and having grown up in an even more poor and forgotten Michiana it frightened the hell out of me. Much of rural & small town America distrust government and believe Trump & Fox News both doctrinal and irrefutable, honest & working to help them, somehow. When the rule of law GOP can accept Trump's refusal to consent to Congressional oversight and we doubt that the SCUS would vote 9-0 to support any impeachment investigation I wonder how Jefferson, Hamilton or Madison would have reacted to a President rejecting impeachment authority by the House? MAGA believers may never trust government or the honest press and that's a serious problem we must address directly (Fox, lead?) but today we must demand Trump submit to the Constitution and rule of law without delay. Do members of Congress believe Trump has a right to "just say no" to the a legal demand for evidence and testimony by the House? His only right is to defend himself in the Senate after the House charges him. Trump attacks anyone he wishes with impunity: Congress, Courts, (his) FBI & CIA, even his cabinet, tells congresswomen to leave the country while attacking at will anyone not as white or wealthy as himself. The evidence he wishes to hide and public servants he is silencing only add to his obstruction of justice, abuse of power, damage to US trade, abuse of allies, and abandoning the defenders of liberty in Iraq. Every day Trump refuses should add 1000 marchers to the cause.
2
Nothing happens next, I'm afraid. When you have someone who tears up the rule book, all bets are off. And the "civilized" are terminally handicapped. Question is, do the good guys start to play dirty too, and if so how?
1
Do the Republicans not understand that, should they anoint Trump king, they don't become little kinglets?
Why do they so want to win reelection if they will have no real power? Are the trappings of office so attractive that they are willing to be bootlickers for the remainder of their careers?
Is it money? Up until now, one could make more money on K-Street or cable TV than in Congress, but I'm sure King Donald will let them still hand out a contract here, or a contract there, and with no Justice Department to worry about.........
If Donald Trump is still president the day after Inauguration Day, it's game over.
4
Justice Department lawyers on Tuesday used the example of Richard Nixon’s impeachment inquiry to argue that the House Judiciary Committee should be denied its request to obtain information about grand jury materials assembled under special counsel Robert Mueller’s probe of President Donald Trump.
Lawyers from the Justice Department surprised the judge, Beryl Howell, by arguing that the decision by former Chief Judge John Sirica to release normally secret grand jury materials to the House in 1974, when Nixon faced impeachment, was incorrect, and that those materials should have been kept from Congress at the time, according to NBC News
Justice Department asks judge to block House from getting Mueller grand jury materials, says Watergate decision was wrong
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/10/08/justice-department-objects-to-house-getting-mueller-grand-jury-info.html
1
Trump is a media hound. If he is not in the spotlight, he says or does things to put himself in the spotlight. He revels in the adoration his supporters show him. He also fancies that he himself has almost all the power of a king. He certainly acts that way. He tells us all that whatever he does is "perfect." Meanwhile, because of this constitutional controversy (a very real controversy), nothing get done domestically, and to complicate matters further, with a wink and a nod, he is condoning the slaughter of some of our Kurdish Allies.
2
A pity that the Democrats wasted so much credit and credibility with their Russiagate investigation.
1
Trump and his handlers are functioning as though there is no Constitution. They break the law, trash accepted norms, shift blame and, when cornered, assert that others have committed the same crimes. Trump hasn’t merely created a Constitutional crisis; he’s obliterated the Constitution altogether. He lumbers along, committing whatever crime he deems acceptable that day, all with seeming impunity. The crisis is that all of America must be forced to live our lives under the oppression of a lawless president.
2
trump is effecting a coup on our constitution and legal system. I fear our democracy is quickly turning into an autocracy/dictatorship that is being run by trump’s boss, Putin.
2
The house should do it all: go to court now, pass its resolutions , and fight fight fight. Trump will never play nice!
1
"The White House counsel’s letter, however, strongly signals that Mr. Trump won’t start cooperating even if the House passes a resolution to authorize the inquiry."
He wouldn't cooperate even if a gun were at his back. His mission is to destroy our system of government, and so far, he's doing a mighty fine job of that.
Going to the courts is a waste of time, unless through expedition, it goes to SCOTUS immediately.
The US faces two possibilities: Congress is allowed to get its documents and witnesses or it doesn't. The latter, as well as the outcome of the impeachment process, will dictate if this republic surives or offiically becomes the corrupt, fledgling dictatorship it's heading towards.
We're a long way from colonists declaring independence from an arbitrary king--when so many are embracing the corruption and lies of Donald Trump.
3
Since our political system is broken, maybe it is time for a Constitutional Convention.
A carefully worded House resolution could put members of both parties in the hot seat. It could say something to the effect of, "There is substantial evidence that the president abused his powers to help his re-election campaign, violating a number of criminal laws to do so. Therefore, the House of Representatives has a constitutional obligation to perform an impeachment inquiry." Those voting against the resolution would be voting in favor of commission of crimes, i.e. weak on crime.
The fact that Trump sits in the White House thumbing his nose at the law betrays a serious failure of our criminal justice system. For years, Trump engaged in activity that could be considered criminal, but he was able to buy prosecutorial inaction with well-placed campaign contributions, along with very aggressive lawyers. This allowed him to run for the office of president. Meanwhile, poor people who shoplift $100.00 worth of merchandise go to prison. Trump was taught that being rich and powerful may place you above the law. The chickens are coming home to roost.
If any of the conservative members of SCOTUS move to abstain in this matter their credibility and effectiveness as a Justice is over. Full stop.
The difference between the impasse that occurred with Nixon and trump is that Nixon was at least smart - he knew when to quit.
Quite the opposite for trump, who has no conception of anything outside himself - he will take down the entire government rather than resign. His ego is all-consuming.
1
President Obama was a Constitutional scholar who spent his administration fighting off conservative talking heads, and the GOP, as they claimed he violated the Constitution right and left. They even used "impeach"when the ACA was passed, as an overstep of his authority. They claimed that they were staunch defenders of the Constitution and "rule of law".
For the past three years, these same people have turned a blind eye to Trump running rough shot over the Constitution and "rule of law". Talk about hypocrisy.
The Constitutional crisis started when Trump asked for Russia help to "find" 30,000 e-mails of the Secretary of State and Presidential Candidate Hillary Clinton; in July, 2016. Since that day, Trump has been building on it ever since.
The crises continued with the GOP bending to Trump's will; and doing so willingly.
It gained further momentum, when Trump embraced known dictators of the world. More than likely asking for favors along the way. Only history will tell us what he did, before the so called "Ukraine Affair".
Not outdoing himself, he asked China to violate federal law, by asking their help while he was being investigated for what he did with Ukraine.
And, yesterday he pulled US troops out of Syria and put the Kurdish people at the mercy of the Kurdish people in the hands of a Turkish dictator. The Turks have along history of repressing and killing the Kurdish people.
We're past Constitutional crisis; it is a Constitutional Emergency.
3
So, since this is unprecedented territory for the U.S., how do other banana republics deal with such a crisis?
What a dramatic slope we've fallen from the birth of the concept of democracy during the Classical period in ancient Greece. Philosophers like Plato & his student Aristotle, the "fathers of Western philosophy" developed an intellectual lexicon based on his readings of physics, biology, zoology, metaphysics, logic, ethics, aesthetics, poetry, theater, music, rhetoric, psychology, linguistics, economics, politics and government. Aristotle believed in the ethical governing of communities which were a larger subset of a family with true democracy encompassing all of the citizens rather than governance by the few which he believed was a perversion of government. This quote sums up the current Constitutional crisis as it pertains to the Trump administration & enablers:
“....governments, which have a regard to the common interest, are constituted in accordance with strict principles of justice, and are therefore true forms; but those which regard only the interest of the rulers are all defective and perverted forms, for they are despotic, whereas a state is a community of freemen.”
“For man, when perfected, is the best of animals, but, when separated from law and justice, he is the worst of all...and he is equipped at birth with the arms of intelligence and with moral qualities which he may use for the worst ends. Wherefore, if he have not virtue, he is the most unholy and the most savage of animals, and the most full of lust and gluttony.
― Aristotle, Politics
The level of dishonesty here from Democrats in congress and in the media is profound. The letters from Cipilone calls for the house to vote on a formal inquiry, thereby allowing for an actual bipartisan inquiry that gives Republicans subpoena power. Until they do that, this is not a formal inquiry, its just more nonsense.
"That brings us to the second condition, namely that neither of the key actors seems prepared to back down."
This is not a schoolyard fight between two bullies. One is right. The other is violating the Law.
Congress must not back down. They are following their duties to the country written in the Constitution! Trump is trying to break Congress and rule by fiat. Who knows if he has paid off members of the Court system? The man has no moral compunction whatsoever. He authorized the separation of nursing babies from their mothers. He will certainly not hesitate to bribe public officials, possibly coupled with threats of having the DoJ lock them up for treason if they dare to rule against him.
Congress may well have to send the Seargent at Arms to arrest him. Seriously. The crisis has already happened. They can no longer count on Justice Dept. as their enforcement for Law and Order. The coup has already happened. Trump is our dictator in chief and he only reports to Putin. Say hello to our Russian overlords, indeed. Resistance in the streets may help, and perhaps the states could offer their national guard to help. What would Secret Service do?
1
I think it is pretty obvious. Trump is purposely going to get crazier and crazier. So much so, that DOJ will agree to any preposterous immunity deal for him and his family just to see him leave office. There is a method behind his madness!
More than “What will happen next?” is the question “How long will it take?”
Most probably the 2020 election will be over by then. If Trump is elected, in a year or so after his inauguration he’ll be gone. With that in mind the cabal behind him might prefer to run a different candidate in 2020, and Impeachment won’t be necessary.
Still, it’s a long wait, and a lot of mischief still to be done. The pace of covfefe is picking up.
1
It is time the Mercers, the Kochs, the Spencers, the DeVos, the Wilks, the Uihleins, the Adelsons, maybe the Murdochs, sat down with Mr Trump and explained gently that it is over. Interests have diverged. Trump & select friends and family should quietly pack up and depart for parts unknown without extradition treaties. Pence can take over for a brief period while the cabal finds another marionette, one whose strings aren’t tangled. They have to get back to the business of Oligarchy.
2
The author has forgotten the 4th condition, one that didn't exist for Nixon, and that's the scariest by far.
Tomorrow, Trump will have a rally in Minneapolis. "Security" is being provided by the "Oath Keepers", a far-right, armed private militia. In other words, his own private army of brown-shirts. He's warned us he would go for armed thugs back when he claimed if Hillary won, there'd be a "Second Amendment solutions".
If we don't do what he wants, Trump calls out the armed thugs, answering to no one except The Dictator!
1
We may watching the beginning of the end. Be prepared for it.
1
Maybe this is a dumb question, but is there really no mechanism that allows legal proceedings which are clearly time sensitive, and on a level of objective national importance that essentially cannot be topped - like, for example, enforcement of subpoenas relating to a presidential impeachment inquiry - to be fast-tracked through the courts and dealt with in a matter of days or even weeks, instead of the usual months to years?
Does this now render the 2nd amendment unconstitutional?
Why aren't law schools all over the country involved ... why are they silent.
Where is the DNC? Why are they not supporting the Bidens?
Where are the other candidates? Why are they letter Biden swing in the wind?
Thank you Rep Pelosi ... wish there were more of you.
Nothing the house can do will make the White House comply.
We will need to go full Nixon. The supreme court will or will not insist on the rule of law or let our country drift into dictatorship.
Finally there is the vote. It is a fact that the repubnigents have resisted every effort to address the integrity of our voting machines and process.
Every civilized country [ or the sane citizens] that drifted into dictatorship said the same thing: no one believed it could happen, then when it came most were frozen by fear.
We need a great awakening of the American people and we need it to focus on turning out every republicant and the great darkness himself in 2020.
Responsibility~ of the most serious kind lays upon US.
Ultimately, the reason why the U.S. Supreme Court is "a bit of a gamble" is because the five conservatives currently serving on the Court have shown on numerous occasions that they are willing to overturn Supreme Court precedent with which they don't personally agree. And, Trump's last Supreme Court appointee has said that he believes the Supreme Court erred in forcing former US president Richard Nixon to turn over the Watergate tapes. To refer to these five "Justices" as conservatives is a mistake because fascists is the more apt term.
2
This is not a Constitutional Crisis because of ambiguities in the Constitution. It is because 30-40 percent of the country is willing to trash the Constitution as long as their boy Trump can do as he likes, and that 30-40 percent is 85+ percent of the Republican Party.
Impeachment inquiry is now mandatory, sans a special counsel or prosecutor to investigate Trump, and that isn't happening with William Barr heading the DOJ. I believe actual impeachment is inevitable, given what we already know and Trump's penchant on doubling and tripling down on wrong.
But the purpose is beyond getting Trump out of office, because we pretty much know that this Senate will not vote to remove no matter what Trump is likely to do; perhaps not even if he shot someone in the middle of Fifth Avenue, middle finger raised.
No, the purpose is a test of America: will We The People stand for Trumpism by re-electing Trump and keeping his enablers in control of the Senate? Will we complete the slide towards an authoritarian oligarchic pseudo-democracy that has been happening over the last 60 or so years, like the proverbial doomed frog in a slowly heated pot of water? Latest poll numbers hint that the slice of the public Trump fooled enough to win in 2016 might finally be getting it, at least enough to want to find out the truth.
It's all about November 2020, successful impeachment or not, because without public outrage confirmed by votes, it will morph into same dog, different fur.
2
This may be a constitutional crisis but it is definitely a political crisis.
The Federalist Papers warned about situations like this and recommended a political solution, elections rather a judicial one. We have a standoff between two branches of government. Should the third branch, the judiciary, be involved? Read Hamilton.
We just have to look across the Pond to see the effects of judicial involvement in an essentially political dispute. The problem is more acute in the UK because of Britain's unwritten constitution and its parliamentary system which merges the government, the executive, with the legislative majority, or in the current situation, plurality.
The relatively recent minted UK Supreme Court indirectly intervened in a political dispute over Brexit, ruling that, under the conditions presented, Parliament could not be prorogued (suspended). The result? Parliament reconvened and agreed to a shorter prorogation which commenced on October 8.
If SCOTUS chooses to get involved, I hope it looks at all constitutional issues related to impeachment, including the application of the Sixth Amendment and procedural due process. The latter is most important when you have failure to publicly name the witnesses, provide public access to the proceedings, allow the accused to have representation of counsel and the right of cross-examination and rebuttal. House rulings which affect minority member rights should also be considered. Otherwise, this is a Star Chamber.
1
So, what is professor Feldman suggesting? Not to appeal to the Judicial System so as not to put the Chief Justice in a bind?
1
Although the Chief Justice has made good decisions in the past, especially in terms of Marriage Equality, I have my doubts. I feel there are some members of the Supreme Court, who, like GOP members of Congress, are willing to enable this President to continue to tear up the Constitution, because they hope to stave off social changes which are inevitable given demographics. Many GOP congressmembers, and indeed voters, have made an ideological deal with the devil in Trump, in hopes of overturning Roe v. Wade, which they see as the greatest evil in the past 50 years. Don't underestimate these people--who grossly think Trump's power is divinely ordained for precisely such purposes.
1
Feldman's acknowledgment that, even faced with acts as egregious as Trump's, four of the "most conservative justices....would find themselves in a quandary" and Chief Justice Roberts would risk appearing pro-Democrat tells you all you need to know about the Roberts Court and the damage Republicans have wrought on our institutions. US v Nixon was a unanimous decision by a Republican majority Burger Court.
2
Trump and the Republicans have evidently decided to change our society's rule from that of law and reason to that of force. So even if the Supreme Court decides that Trump should turn over the witnesses and documents that the House needs to investigate his offenses, he will certainly refuse. There's precedent: as Andrew Jackson is said to have exclaimed, after the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the Cherokee nation in Georgia, "John Marshall has made his ruling; now let him enforce it." Expecting that response, Marshall avoided enforcing his ruling. We don't have that option now, and we will have to hope that the institutions of government rally to support the Court's ruling, if it comes to that.
1
I wish I had a pair of ruby shoes I could click together and go back to where I came from to escape what’s going on. Problem is, I was born on the USA and I live in the USA. That said, should I look at other nations to live where the grass may be greener? It’s truly a shame that I’m brought to asking such a question. I’m probably not the only one who is fed up with our governmental processes and leaders. Where are the adults in the room to change our nation for the better? Truly better, and not some fluff that a politician wants us chew on. Adults, make yourself heard, and let’s make our nation better that what we can even dream it to be.
1
Andrew--If you are young, leave. Go to a country where you won't wake up depressed every day. Have an adventure. Meet new people. Feel optimistic again. Enjoy life. You will still have to pay US taxes, but you can also continue to vote in US elections. If you vote and pay taxes, you haven't run away. Down the road, I hope you will be able to return.
We are stuck here in the USA with this insanity. If you want to feel a little better consider that in a parallel universe somewhere, the other Trump lost the election and none of this ever happened. Sorry but I can't tell you how to get there.
As always Noah Feldman articulates the core stress points of the situation, clearly and concisely, and also connecting the points of conflict, while illuminating the broader context.
This Distant Observer can't help but wonder if we aren't watching the death of the American democracy. The framers of the U.S. Constitution back in 1776 were intent on seeing to it that no president assumed the powers of a monarch. The three branches of government were intended to maintain check each other and maintain a balance of powers and democratic rights. Now Donald Trump -- with the tacit and sometimes overt support of the Republican party -- is intent on uprooting and destroying the bedrock of the American democracy. And he's succeeding in doing so. How sad . . . and how frightening. What was it that Thomas Jefferson said about what was needed from time to time to to noursh the tree of liberty . . . .?
3
@Distant Observer
They don't call it the American Experiment for nothing. The wheels could fly off this thing at any time, but even after a Civil War we are still experimenting - This America Thing isn't for wusses.
2
As usual, Professor Feldman presents a clear, concise analysis of the standoff between the two Houses. Baffling, however, is the notion that the Supreme Court would take a side by either refusing to render a decision or ignoring judicial precedent. Doing so would upend American democratic principles and render the judiciary flaccid thus transforming the President into a monarch.
1
But the meta-meta point is this: Everything Trump touches turns to dust (or something smellier). Things he has ruined include the idea of fair elections, the Senate, the English language, the Supreme Court, which has fallen from its lofty, apolitical perch. The American Experiment--democracy itself-- will be his next victim. Surely this makes a clear argument for his impeachment.
9
I see comments predicting civil war, others trusting (or not trusting) the Supreme Court. But before civil war there are general strikes, states like California and New York declare the regime in Washington invalid, citizens withhold federal taxes, etc. And if the Supreme Court continues to make patently anti-democratic or unconstitutional decisions, or fails to act, the House can impeach fraudulently seated justices and states can refuse to recognize their rulings. Of course this is all serious, but it's not open warfare, and it can be settled politically if members of the minority party and the (former) slave states realize that their financial underwriting by the free states (who also pay for the military) may in fact be endangered.
1
The deeply troubling reality to me, is that most people have no clue and do not really care what’s going on in Washington. As long as they can put gas in the tank and buy the next iteration of Oreos and go to the mall, they believe none of this has any real applicability to their lives. Little good comes from such entrenched apathy. Meanwhile, the foundations of this country shake, on the verge of a precipice. I try to tell myself that long-term good can come from such strain, but it is cold comfort.
4
I am not a fan of The Supreme Court's unilateral assertion of authority to define the Constitution as advanced in the case of Marbury v. Madison in which it declined to rule on the merits of Marbury's claim because John Marshall knew that James Madison and President Thomas Jefferson would refuse to follow its mandate, setting up an actual constitutional conflict.
In the same vein, I suggest that the notion that Congress has oversight authority over the Executive Branch is not only without Constitutional support, but violates the fundamental doctrine of "separation of powers."
That said, since impeachment is a political process, were Trump to defy the Supreme Court, the case for impeachment would be greatly enhanced.
2
As a litigator, it is occasionally necessary for me to seek relief from the judge assigned to hear one's case. A trial is only the endpoint of a matter being litigated. An assigned judge's court's responsibility begins when the case is started and encompasses all pre-trial matters. An impeachment procedure involving the president is unique because CJ Roberts is, in effect, the judge assigned to the case. The import of Cippolone's letter (given the fact as WH counsel he may have already participated in the coverup by ordering the hiding of the actual phone transcript) should be immediately taken directly to CJ Roberts only.
4
How fragile your democracy is. It depends on your guess that Judge Roberts would do the right thing (my phrase). First he may not. Second even if he does by that time we will be deep in the electoral cycle.Third, there is every chance that he/they will fudge their answer in technicalities....
...fragile indeed.
4
If this crisis presents to the Supreme Court, Justices who believe in honest presidents need to rule that the president himself resolve the crisis by truthfully answering impeachment inquiries, face to face with the House.
If an impeachment inquiry is conducted like any US criminal or civic law court, do plaintiffs have the right to influence judgment with relentless daily pre-trial inflammatory social media rhetoric?
2
@Michael shenk
My error. "Do the ACCUSED have the right to influence judgment with relentless daily pre-trial inflammatory social media rhetoric?"
"Congress can demand that the president comply, but it can’t very well send its sergeant-at-arms to the White House to enforce its subpoenas."
Power without enforcement it is not power. So enforce the subpoenas and see what happens. We've not even begun to see crazy yet so let's move it along.
9
As a matter of common sense - If Mr Trump refuses to comply with a lawful subpoena then the House may infer that the documents the subject of the subpoena would not assist Mr Trump.
So go ahead and impeach in the House? Surely there is already enough evidence? Send the matter up to the Senate for trial.
Meanwhile the House may (and should) take whatever steps it wishes to enforce its subpoena. Is there is any bar to doing that? It will keep pressure on the Senate.
2
I follow the political developments on a daily basis - from Holland - since Obama became a candidate. I would like to express my perspective and worries.
Since the last president took office, the behavior of the republicans has become increasingly shameless. To the point that the party name of the Democrats currently reflects the actual dividing line in current politics. Those that are democratic: as in respect for the constitution and the rule of law, and those that are not.
In the last days - in the Times and other media - discussions take place about whether there should be peacefull street demonstrations.
The arguments put forward against PEACEFUL demonstrations, such as not wanting to provoke Trump supporters, the danger of violent police intervention and abuse of right-wing media of resulting images etc. are very valid, but actually amount to capitulation.
The current impasse (where the functioning of the political institute is hampered by the white house and its enablers) demands active citizenship. And besides voting, demonstrating is one of the legal means available to the citizen of a democracy if politics renounce, or becomes stuck in a stalemate.
I have put my full name above this article because I think that's how it should be. But I also doubted. Part of the doubt comes from fear, which stems from a lost lack of faith in the American institutions (at least with me). One more reason to get up now and make your voice heard all over 'the Land of the Free?'
10
This confrontation between the executive and legislative branches highlights how fragile the American government has become under a rogue president.
The Constitution is only a framework of ideas but is not specific enough to dictate how to resolve such a crisis.
When the Supreme Court is controlled by a majority of five conservative justices appointed by the president there is little recourse for the average citizen to seek redress.
Just one dangerous choice of a president has placed the entire country in jeopardy!
7
Feldman says Trump's refusal to cooperate with the impeachment process in the House is a constitutional crisis because it puts us in a situation where "the Constitution does not provide a clear, definitive answer to a basic problem of governance." But it does: impeachment. Trump's failure to cooperate doesn't have any bearing on whether he can be impeached, nor on whether he can be convicted. His cooperation is not necessary for these to occur. If after impeachment he refused to leave office, that of course would be a constitutional crisis.
4
The only right thing to do is for the House to take any refusal of a subpoena to a court. If the court refuses to uphold the subpoena, the voters will have a chance to reverse that decision in 13 months. If the court upholds the subpoena and the administration still refuses, the voters can reverse that refusal in 13 months and the new administration can begin legal proceedings against all who conspired to break the law of the land.
4
This crisis, just like the Nixon case, underlines the fact the the Framers got it wrong. It may have arisen because Hamilton worshipped Washington. But the President should be the servant not the equal of the Congress. Presidents have a limited ability to do good and an almost unlimited ability to do harm, a truth only becoming more impressive as the years pass. The Presidency is now a danger to American democracy. In Trump we see the emergence of the "strong man" President and we must guard against it by restraining the Presidency by Constitutional Amendment. The duty of a President should be to see that the laws are faithfully executed and to serve as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. Neither more nor less.
9
I wish the Republicans would stop using the word "unconstitutional" when they go after Pelosi on how she is handling the inquiry and possible impeachment of President Trump. The Constitution says nothing, and I mean nothing, about how the House should conduct it's investigation and impeachment. It gives the House "sole" power to conduct the impeachment. It leaves it to the Senate to conduct the trial. Thats it. So no the Constitution does not require the House to conduct a vote before it begins the inquiry. If it does I would like someone to point to where the Constitution states this.They are required to vote on the articles of impeachment, thats it. What crime are they accusing him of? That is what the inquiry and investigation is for. They could conduct the inquiry and decide not to bring articles to the floor. Abuse of Power is a political term, not a criminal code violation. The Constitution is intentionally vague about what it could be. And the Founding fathers and the Constitution did this on purpose.
7
"Congress can demand that the president comply, but it can’t very well send its sergeant-at-arms to the White House to enforce its subpoenas."
It is not clear to me why the Congress cannot authorize the sergeant-at-arms to hire and arm as many deputies as necessary to physically confront and arrest individuals who ignore Congressional subpoenas. In fact, McGrain v. Daugherty, 273 U.S. 135 (1927) is a case in which the Supreme Court explicitly supported the inherent power of both houses of Congress to perform such arrests. Fines may also be assessed against individuals who ignore valid subpoenas.
Under the McGrain decision, the House has the inherent power to seek out, and to enforce by subpoena, documents and testimony needed for it to carry out its duties of oversight.
If a few individuals were so treated, and forced either to appear any testify (or to appear and take the 5th) or to sit in jail until they responded, that would likely get the majority fo persons subpoenaed to be responsive rather than obstructionist.
In particular, evidence in the form of written documents or electronic files, or federal records generally, are NOT testimony, but rather THINGS. Certainly, even a pardon does not satisfy or excuse the failure to turn over things.
Congress should "play hardball" and get the information it needs to do its job.
14
I suspect the full transcript of the Zelensky call includes at least one clear example of the quid pro quo Republicans claim not to see in the abridged version that the Trump team released. The full transcript must be very damaging for them to choose to fight to the death before releasing it. The Trump team would rather get impeached for obstruction than release that full transcript, and remove all doubt.
9
This is all a good test of the US system of government.
The longer the impeachment crisis drags on, the more
Americans will support impeachment. The courts are
sensitive to public opinion. The House must stand firm
and insist on its constitutional right to impeach. It can impeach while the courts consider, based on what is already
in the public record.
3
Sorry folks, Trump is going nowhere. The Dems thought the Steele dossier could do the job but that did not work out and it is still unverified. The Dems thought the independent council could accomplish their hit job, but that fell through. Now they are accusing Trump of abuse of power, which is what Trump was attempting to have exposed in the Biden related call to Turkey. The Dems are trying to fully control the process and limit Trump's ability to call witnesses and cross-examine testimony. These are rights that are enshrined in any of our national and state legal system. If the Dems think that federal courts will ignore basic legal rights, their law professors must be smoking some of that enhanced weed again.
1
There is no constitutional crisis. The country has been broken for too long. I fear the dysfunction can only be fix if someone is willing to give up on the country they believe in and that does not seem likely.
There has not been any politics for too long and the erosion requires the kind of listening no seems capable of anymore.
There is no United States of America and I can only hope the situation can be resolved without bloodshed.
4
If Trump keeps doubling down and this issue thus makes it to SCOTUS, I would expect it be an unanimous decision again him, a la US v. Nixon; I would be very surprised indeed to see it be a 5-4 decision or anything close to that. The court and its members—all of them, to one degree of another—are very much institutionalists, and can be expected to react strongly against the sort of flouting orf norms, to say nothing of the paper-thin arguments, Trump is pushing here.
3
The House Sergeant at arms could be dispatched to see that laws are fairly executed. Donald Trump does whatever he pleases, so Nancy Pelosi should play hardball......"A Senate committee subpoenaed the attorney general’s brother, Mally Daugherty, to testify and to surrender documents from an Ohio bank that he controlled — but he refused. At that point, the Senate dispatched the sergeant at arms of the Senate to Cincinnati, where he placed Mally Daugherty under arrest and held him in custody."
"This wasn’t the only time during that era that the Senate played this brand of hardball. In February 1928, when Robert Stewart, chairman of the board of Standard Oil Co. of Indiana, refused to answer questions at a hearing, the Senate issued a warrant for his detention until he agreed to testify. The deputy sergeant at arms executed the warrant that same night, holding Stewart overnight in custody in a room in the Willard Hotel"
4
I don’t understand how Trump can claim he’s not being allowed his due process. He’s not facing a criminal court, he’s facing Congress and an impeachment inquiry. The impeachment inquiry IS his due process! It’s his opportunity to present his case for having done nothing wrong. Put it out there! Or... look especially guilty AND double down on the impeachable offense charges by refusing to cooperate.
12
Pat Cipollone, as the White House Counsel, represents the President and President’s interests, and not necessarily Donald Trump’s. Obviously, he’s calling out the Dem Impeachment for what it is, totally unfair, biased, secretive, with little or no input allowed from Republicans. Thus, he’s forcing the issue for the house to vote for an Impeachment Inquiry wherewith there would be legal precedents. To argue that the White House would not cooperate at that point is speculative. Executive Privilege may again be asserted, the difference from Nixon’s failed attempt is that Trump’s communications with foreign leaders may have more credibility as a basis to assert Executive Privilege than Nixon’s attempt to hide Oval Office recordings with regards to covering up a third rate burglary, an real crime that everyone could understand.
If Mr. Cipollone we’re making the same arguments on behalf of a Democrat President to a Republican held House of Representatives, I have no doubt the NYT and the vast majority of comments would be in full support of Mr. Cipollone.
The real crisis, Constitutional or otherwise, would be if Mr. Trump is removed from office prior to his term and overturning the will of the people who elected him. Thank God the founding fathers require a two-third vote of the Senate to convict. It’s not going to happen!
2
@Bill Weber
Just because you cannot understand this crime does not nullify it.
1
Spare me. There's no "constitutional crisis." There's a political contest of wills between the House Democrats and President Trump, that's all. There would be a constitutional crisis if the president were to flout a non-appealable final court order, but he's never done that, and the House Democrats have apparently decided not to seek a court order compelling the Administration to comply with the Democrats' demands. Why, you ask, and Prof. Feldman should have asked. There appear to be two reasons: (1) The Democrats are afraid the courts might accept some of the Administration's privilege claims, and (2) The Democrats are afraid the litigation would not end in time for them to push impeachment articles through before the end of the year. So the crisis, if there is one, is of their own making and can be fixed by them at any time by turning this dispute over to the courts.
The Constitutional crisis began when the Democrats started impeachment proceedings without bi-partisan support. Many thoughtful people, including Speaker Pelosi, advised them against it. But their moral absolutism got the better of them. MADS or Moral Absolutism Derangement Syndrome won the day.
The Dems had a winning formula in 2016: by focusing on pocketbook issues, they flipped 40 Republican seats. That same strategy could have produced similar results in 2020. But the Dems would rather scold than win. BRATS, or Be Right All the Time, is their game.
As a result, they’ve squandered the opportunity to win control of the Federal government, thus leaving their children to grow up in a totalitarian regime.
2
May be it is time to declare the US constitution outdated with its more than 200 year old racist background and small states founded by English landlords. We tell the world about democracy. We need to brong our Democracy to the 3=21st century and make sure that the President be elected by majority of ALL people amd not by any electoral college farce. And that Senate should represent the people and not the sates and be secondary to the House. And like the English parliamentary system. If the House passes the law three times, Senate votes becomes superfuous. May be we may have ti rename the country from United States the Republic of North America, or something like that.
4
Additional story just tonight Trump pressured Rex Tillerson to to stop the DOJ prosecution of a client of Giuliani . Rex Tillerson has already provided interviews disclosing illegal acts Trump asked him to do. If the White House is blocking witnesses and ignoring subpoenas for records, then the articles of Impeachment gets broader and the witnesses' who are not bound by the State Dept. and are free to testify start lining up. This President has continually abused his power to promote his own personal interests before the country. In his "great and unmatched wisdom", the case for impeachment is expanding daily.
7
Bravo! Mr Feldman. Your opinion is tops in my opinion of opinions
for clarity, comprehension and expression. As long as your students practice what they are learning from you, the future us will be in a better place. Question marks rule over periods.
2
what happens next is you get a damaged Lindsey Graham who is supposed to be guardian and protector of a document known as the CONSTITUTION instead he has decided that he is the guardian of an incorrigible president and is requesting that the GOP senators sign a letter stating that Nancy Pelosi should cease the Impeachment Inquiry. so, in essence, a TRUMP minion has made the decision that US citizens do not have the Civil Rights decreed to them by the founding fathers who felt that they represented all peoples, does he not remember the Phrase " We the People (founding fathers) for the People(Population) by the people (voters)" whatever has changed with Graham can only be disappointing to anyone who values a free and independent Democracy, it is expected that people like the freedom caucus, Gaetz, Jordan, Meadows, Radcliff, who only have their interest at heart will come soon to realize that they will be disbanded and have to make a decision to either be a true and Proud Republican or a turncoat and minion to Donald Trump, Mike Pompeo, and Mike Pence have already made their selfish interests known to the good people of the US, Interestingly Trey Gowdy who tried to distance himself from the Trump train and made the reasoning that he wanted to return to private practice as a Prosecutor need remember that his first duty and all Representatives is " I will protect and defend the Constitution of the United States against all attacks foreign and domestic including Donald Trump"
3
It is not a constitutional crisis. NOT. If the executive branch has a dispute with the legislative branch, the judicial branch can step in the the other two branches cannot work things out. That is not a constitutional crisis—it is federal law and the Constitution working exactly as it should. This is just more hyperbole—it is full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
1
@ehillesum It seems you are triggered by the word, "crisis," without understanding of the meaning of "constitutional crisis,". If you researched the verbage prior to having an opinion you may have understood what you were objecting to.
" a constitutional crisis is a problem or conflict in the function of a government that the political constitution or other fundamental governing law is perceived to be unable to resolve. "
"The crisis may arise from a variety of possible causes. For example, a government may want to pass a law contrary to its constitution; the constitution may fail to provide a clear answer for a specific situation; the constitution may be clear but it may be politically infeasible to follow it; the government institutions themselves may falter or fail to live up to what the law prescribes them to be; or officials in the government may justify avoiding dealing with a serious problem based on narrow interpretations of the law. -Wikipedia"
So as you can see, unlike the GOP and Fox News, wordings (political science 101) have definitions that aren't open to your private or public interpretations.
The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.
Winston Churchill
If the Supremes vote against the House impeachment effort, they might as well leave the building. For the days of law will be over, and if we don’t have laws, we don’t need them to tell us what they say.
8
As usual we are getting ourselves worked up due to political wrangling and posturing.
If and when the President refuses to coöperate with the impeachment inquiry, I agree we will have a constitutional crisis. The Dems have wisely held back on a house wide vote to officially open the impeachment inquiry because as long as they do they can utilize committees to exercise their sole subpoena and investigative powers. When the full vote is held and passed both parties will have subpoena rights and the politics will shift back towards the Repubs who are more committed to winning above all else.
1
I think Roberts would go with the constitution that the House has the sole right to a impeachment inquiry.
3
We need to organize round the clock protests at each and every Trump property in this nation (and abroad) until this "president" stops behaving like a dictator.
5
@Rohan vote early and often
Trump loves to create crises because it gives him attention. He wants and needs attention just like a two year old. This situation is no surprise. He will keep on grabbing attention and he does not care if it is good or bzd, but perhaps bad is better because it causes more outrage, which he likes.
Eventually he will escalate to something really nuts and he may do a great deal of harm in the process. He neither understands or cares, he just loves the attention and the diversion.
When you have a damaged person as president, you can expect dire circumstances and complete chaos. He probably has always lived this way. He coopts others into his strange world by vicious threats and reprisals.
When you elect a mafia type, you get crime. Nothing new here. Just more of the same.
6
If the Supreme Court were to uphold the truly absurd notion that the impeachment process is somehow unconstitutional then we will know for certain that the great American Experiment has indeed failed. It is long past time for the 60% silent majority to start making a loud noise or risk a future in our new banana republic.
13
Ignoring House subpoenas: those who do are law-breakers.
The House needs to stop pussy footing around and invoke eminent contempt: lock them up in the House jail. Fine them. Make their lives miserable until they comply.
9
What is the difference between a subpoena and a request. Obviously nothing! Both can refused by the White House with impunity, without consequences!
1
"CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS - WHITE HOUSE LAUNCHES FULL SCALE ATTACK ON THE CONSTITUTION, CHECKS AND BALANCES, AND RULE OF LAW"
Why isn't that the screaming headline from all reputable national and regional news outlets? Truly, I don't understand.
18
The crisis on the border was a real crisis. The homeless problem is a crisis. The mounting national debt is a crisis. Compared to that a full-on partisan confrontation is a made up crisis that has no impact on the real problems facing the country.
4
@Girish Kotwal so you do not think that a president breaking the law over and over is a ''real'' problem- I am sure you would if the President were a D.
6
@Girish Kotwal
Making the US election a feeding frenzy for foreign entities will corrupt the very fiber of our great republic. We can always solve our domestic issues or as you call them "real problems" or attempt to alleviate them if we have a republic. If the precedent moving forward is that it's okay for outsiders to meddle in our house, we won't have a republic and all your "real issues" will be a moot point. If you're facing imminent death by drowning eating healthier is not a "real issues".
2
@bluecairn/2.0 No I do not think the president has broken any law while in office. The real problem is the partisan democrats are making a mountain out of a molehill and are the real problem.
1
One shocking takeaway is that four of the Supreme Court justices can be counted on to ignore the Constitution and Court precedent in order to reach their political goals. And the Chief Justice distinguishes himself among those on the far right by only doing that 90% of the time.
Trump's favorite president, Andrew Jackson, famously ignored a Supreme Court order, saying, "The Court has issued its order. Now let them enforce it." The Court's power is dependent on the public perception of its legitimacy. The right-wing block of justices has already squandered that.
7
Good analysis; but depressing.
The outcome is that the House impeaches, the Senate acquits, he gets reelected and we spend the next few decades trying to undo the harm Trump has done to the credibility and reputation of United States America.
That is, if we can recover at all.
4
We have to hope that enough of the American people notice and understand what is happening. This president is clearly breaking the law in so many ways, clearly working with and or in the pocket of various foreign governments, self serving conduct of the most fundamental nature, subverting a second presidential election, or surely trying to~
We have to hope they care enough about their country, it's ideals, their and their children's future-enough to demand their representatives do their job and hold this so called president accountable.
We also have to hope that the voting process is actually accurate and not tampered with, a dimension of our dire dilemma that should have been addressed in great detail after the Bush v. Gore a catastrophe which opened the door to this darkness.Why the Democrats have not made this a fundamental part of their message since then is a indictment of them, and a real mystery for so many of us.
But we do know for a fact that the Trump admin and the Republicants have resisted every effort to address the matter. Every honest American whose mind has not been rotted out knows who NOT to vote for, under any circumstances- GOP~ for a generation at least.
We can save ourselves,if we do not then we are toast of our own making.
4
@bluecairn/2.0: The present stalemate is locked into place because settling issues extinguishes their value to raise money.
1
@Steve Bolger clearly the money trough is a habit that the normal pols can not break
I still firmly believe that the only way a society can maintain free speech--which is the most essential element in freedom--is to allow all to have their say, in the spirit of "I may not like what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it!"
If all viewpoints are allowed to reach the public domain, the odds are that truth will prevail, as the public essentially will discern where truth exists. Note that a majority of Americans voted against Trump and a majority opposes him. In light of this belief, that exposing all viewpoints to the public , will get us to the most democratic and reasonable conclusion---I would think that it is better for democracy's survival to have more and more oversight of policies and open defense of actions. Let us know why you do these things! So when Trump starts his war against testifying, against telling why you did or did not do something---we enter the domain of dictators who simply command and refuse to explain why.
3
Baloney.
This is no Constitutional crisis.
The path is clearly defined, within the Constitution, and not particularly ambiguous, either.
In the end, any conflict not resolved between the Executive and Legislative branches can be dealt with via the Judiciary.
4
Some commenters are wondering what will happen when (not if) Mr. Trump simply ignores a lawful court order. As things stand, there doesn't seem to be an entity that could go put him in handcuffs, so it looks like he's managed to pave the way for an autocratic coup without a whole lot of effort. But all is not lost - there is still a failsafe lever available to us: returning the Senate to the country (via Democratic control) next November. Then Mr. Trump will be impeached AND convicted and federal law enforcement will be compelled to remove him if he resists. And if he orders the army to physically resist that on his behalf, I think the Posse Comitatus Act will derail that attempt.
6
The WH is looking at everything the Republicans did wrong in Watergate to make sure they don’t repeat it. They are now saying Watergate was wrong because the courts should never have allowed the investigation to go forward.
This way the evidence for the articles of impeachment would not have been gathered, and without that evidence the public wouldn’t have turned on Nixon, causing him to resign.
But the difference between Nixon and Trump is Trump would never resign; he would dare the Republican lawmakers to vote against him. So that’s where we are today.
5
The Supreme Court can decide the subpoena issue without seeming political. There is substantial precedent and if the Court hews closely to the law, the subpoenas will be enforced. The Court will only be following the law.
3
I wish I were confident that the Supreme Court would uphold the Constitution they are sworn to abide by.
10
@Apparently functional As described in this NYT article, the Heritage Foundation, which along with the Federalist Society compiles lists of Republican judicial nominees including Supreme Court justices, has required members of its law-clerk training programs to swear a secret oath to serve its interests throughout their career.
https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/18/us/politics/heritage-foundation-clerks-judges-training.html
How many of the Supreme Court justices have sworn that oath?
1
The outcome of our 2016 election was due to a constitutional crisis with the political establishment. It is not Trump on trial here, but the political structure already in place which is in jeopardy of loosing its position. We have political crisis much broader than the missteps of a first term politician, a crisis so big, that even making Trump walk the Plank won't begin to fix all that needs to be changed here.
4
@Joe Gilkey: The fact that it matters where a vote is cast in a US presidential election is a flat out travesty in today's highly mobile economy.
8
It's a strange time to be alive. I truly hope that the United States can stick around until the next election cycle; for the first time in my life, I can honestly say that I am embarrassed to be from America.
13
It looks like Trump is treating Congress like small businesses and independent contractors in his previous life...If they don't like my terms, they can sue me. The only difference this time is that the taxpayers are footing his attorney's bill.
13
I found this essay most riveting. I believe the Supreme Court will rule along the lines of the precedent set during Watergate and rule against the executive branch. However, adherence to precedent is not an inexorable command.
6
Even an SC ruling that the White House must comply with legitimate House inquiries and subpoenas will not change Trump’s behavior. The man has never respected the law, ethics, established principles, the views or interests of others, or common decency. He isn’t going to start now.
14
@Richard
It might not change his behavior, but it might change the behavior of the U.S. Senate in his impeachment trial.
@Richard
It might not change his behavior, but it might change the behavior of the U.S. Senate in his impeachment trial.
2
Enforcing the rule of law rather than engaging in legal gymnastics should be paramount. The courts should enforce the law.
3
No...this is not yet a constitutional crisis...
It will become one when the House uses hearsay information as the basis of an impeachment charge.
This is currently a politically motivated "investigation" much the way that the Mueller special prosecutor operation was.
Fortunately for the nation, Mueller correctly assessed that the actions that Trump took in the White House had legitimate alternative explanations that would raise reasonable doubt in the minds of a judge and a jury.
I'm not sure that Chairman Schiff is objective enough to see that his wishful thinking does not a high crime or misdemeanor make.
6
I wonder what it would take for Trump's actions that would be considered beyond a reasonable doubt? Actually shoot somebody on 5th Avenue?
3
@The Owl
Let's say your good friend told you that he thinks his neighbor is torturing children in his basement. You decided you need to convey that information to your local law enforcement. Now barging into somebody's house based on hearsay would not be an appropriate thing to do. So your local police officer would start by prudently questioning you and your motives. He discovers that you are particularly biased against your friends neighbor for some personal reason. Should the officer drop his investigation? I think not. I think the prudent thing to do would be to approach your friend for first hand information. If your friend gives specifics about what he/she knows and the police officer determines that your friend is a credible source and that the danger to children seems imminent. What is the prudent thing to do? I think at this point getting a search warrant that essentially violates somebody's civil rights is justified.
Let's take it further. Say the officer found children in the basement. Everything looks consistent with the allegations. There are clear signs of torture on the children. You obviously rescue the children.
Do you arrest the torturer? If we go by your logic, the torturer walks as the arrest is based on hearsay. Does that sound reasonable to you?
I don't think the bias as assessed by the officer is an issue anymore once you have the facts. The "hearsay" was an imputes to an investigation. It has no bearing on the prosection.
If the actions of soliciting foreign powers to intervene in a US election aren’t problematic to you, it can only be assumed that the Benghazi hearings and the whole GOP circus over the Hillary server simply outraged you....
2
Even now, with Gore v. Bush and Citizens United having reduced my belief in a Supreme Court that proceeds from the Constitution to within a nanometer of absolute zero, I am still flabbergasted to hear a learned opinion anticipating that the justices will again simply vote their political preferences in a matter so grave as the current crisis.
9
Mr. Feldman offers the possible reassurance that "Chief Justice Roberts, with his back to the wall, would stand up for the clear constitutional precedent that says the courts will enforce valid congressional subpoenas." And what evidence is there that, regardless of that hopeful scenario, that the Trump syndicate will obey any court orders?
Examples of the last times this country was faced by existential crises stemming from the sort of corrupt leadership presented by Trump and his Republican collaborators required the counter of overwhelming extra-judicial forces of the sort that ended the Viet Nam War or created civil rights breakthroughs . . . or ended slavery.
5
@Max from Mass Congress holds the purse and they have made it clear that any government employee who refuses to comply with a supoena will not get paid.
They can turn out the lights in the white house, they can remove the staff. They can do a lot of things with that purse and they have committed to do so. I think they waited too long to start this fight- but they waited until they had no choice.
That doesn't help those who have lost their lives at the hands of this administration, and as we speak, the body count grows. But I think he's aiming for martial law, so they best get a move on.
I do NOT see this as a constitutional crisis. Really. Schiff is holding his hearings in secret, with no republicans present (I could be wrong but then so would both left and right wing news sources as well) and making public announcements. And making demands. If there is a crisis, it is of Schiff's making.
On the flip side, had there been an actual vote for impeachment, or the 'hearings' had been public and bi-partisian before congress took off a couple of weeks, then yes, Trump not cooperating would be a crisis. But as of now, only Schiff is the crisis.
Quite frankly, and off topic, I am more concerned with Trump having done nothing over the murder of the WAPO reporter and now abandoning the Kurds, a staunch ally. Despicable. But I understand that getting rid of Trump since he was inaugurated is of supreme importance, politically speaking. I view it as more of an axe to grind. Good luck with an impeachment based upon hate and innuendo and lacking in substantiated fact.
4
@old sarge
The House Intelligence Committee (which Schiff chairs) has held some closed-session hearings, whether because of classified testimony or witness protection. To the best of my knowledge, there have been no "hearings" from which the Republican Minority has been excluded; and it's hard to imagine such a scenario. Do you have evidence of this?
3
The word "subpoena" is starting to mean "dawdle". Let's be blunt. We fix it by having a US Marshal, holding handcuffs, waiting outside the door of whoever misses their immediate court date/time.
14
Chief Justice John Roberts may be anticipating his very moment on the horizon. It will be The United States vs. Donald Trump. Like the United States vs. Richard Nixon, it should be a no brainer unanimous decision against this total joke of a president.
8
The crisis is in the lack of consciences in the Republican Senate. For the rest of us, removal of trump is clear and necessary. We have enough proof of his failure to uphold his oath of office. In my opinion, Giuliani and Barr and all the attorneys working for trump on his impeachment charges, should be disbarred. Republicans must be voted out of office in 2020.
Pelosi and company are doing the best for America. They are the heroes of this epic confrontation.
10
Constitutional crisis? Why not look at the Constitution carefully and follow it. There would not be a so-called crisis. Instead we concentrate on a recalcitrant White House and it's antics trying to muddy waters. I am an ignoramus but I really cannot blame the Constitution which is not ambiguous about the crisis we are talking about.
1
Yes it is.
Step 1 towards simple resolution. ARREST those who refuse to comply with a subpoena.
It is time for the House to invoke inherent contempt and use its power, described in the Supreme Court ruling in McGrain v Daugherty, 273 US 135 (1927), to arrest and hold any person subpoenaed for testimony or for document production who ignores the subpoena until such time as the person responds to the subpoena, or the Congressional term ends, whichever happens first. Congress can also fine a person for ignoring a subpoena. There is no reason to treat people who thumb their noses at the law with kid gloves. If you want to disrespect the law, be prepared to pay the associated price. No person is above the law.
Step 2: Repeat step 1
Step 3: Repeat step 1 and 2 until every single one who doesn't comply faces the wrath of the law, AND SWIFTLY.
DEMOCRATS stop faffing around. This must STOP here and now. What else do you need or are waiting for ?
10
what happens next: ask Mitch and your elected Congressional representatives who are to represent you (us), AND uphold/protect the Constitution. to provide for a more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to Ourselves and our Posterity
2
We have a White House, Senate and House that seems to be following a poorly scripted professional wrestling act on our taxpayer money.
I do not expect much from this dramatic episode.
3
Trump continues to play the American presidency the same way he did his various business schemes, some of which were verifiable as scams (Trump University) and virtually all of which involved lawsuits flying back and forth before, during and after completion. He makes decisions after watching what Fox Noise says. He changes his mind after a single call from the iron hand ruler of another nation (Erdogan of Turkey), he cares not one ounce for the massive funds and loss of lives previously spent to fight against ISIS in Syria, he disregards the heavy sacrifices of the Kurdish fighters who helped wipe out and corral the terrorists. In short, he has no idea what he is doing but he has married his ignorance to his own egomania and a hard as nails determination to go it alone.
I have pity for the Trump lovers who have blinded themselves, who believe that everything bad that happens comes from the Democrats or the phony, oft repeated myth of the "deep state", something never defined and never proved but in which millions believe.
This is a generational level of damage to our country here and around the world from which, it is possible, we might never recover.
Let's not forget that the people are the ultimate rulers of America. We own the country, we are not subjects of it or any ruler. Let the Democrats in the House do what they will but we, as citizen voters, should rise up and make sure than no expense or effort is spared to drive this sustained madness out.
7
@Doug Terry except for the fact that nothing has been done to secure our elections. So since 2016, and possibly before- we are no longer a democracy and nobody before Trump bothered to demonstrate the reality.
1
If the President is in ultimate control of the impeachment process, then impeachment becomes a false facade the President can manipulate to sway public opinion in his direction. The Constitution would become a curtain behind which the wizard pumped his bellows and pulled his levers.
If the President has such control, then there has been a successful coup and we are now ruled by a tyrant (and a tyrant's gut). A tyrant is a ruler who has no constraints on his or her power except perhaps the fear of being overthrown. The Democrats are putting that fear into him by trying to overthrow him.
The Democrats would like to overthrow Trump and return to a democracy, but democracy will only come when the Republican Party, as defined by how it and its members currently behave, no longer exists. Democrats have no idea how to bring this about, and neither does anyone else.
5
@sdavidc9 I'm not sure that nobody knows how but I think that both parties oppress voices that do not support their agenda.
1
@sdavidc9
Our current president has undeniably proven to the nation, he should not be put in “ultimate control” of anything.
2
Congress can demand that the president comply, but it can’t very well send its sergeant-at-arms to the White House to enforce its subpoenas.
Congressman Jaime Raskin disagrees and so do I. Congress can do this and sooner than later Congress will.
5
Trump is playing the tough guy to show Putin he can be just as tough as the next guy. One wonders what Putin promised Trump to try to insinuate that Ukraine, not Russia, interfered in the 2016 election. Trump loves playing with the big boys, finally.
2
As is his habit, Trump is surrounded by questionable lawyers who bend truths with religious fervor for a living - many Roy Cohn-like. Some are even in his Administration. The country is not in a “Constitutional Crisis” as is being suggested. But it is facing impediments and potential delays. Given that Trump’s legal arguments lack legal legitimacy and protection, impeachment will go ahead. There are many individuals that Trump can’t prevent from speaking with the Judiciary Committee, so the process can proceed.
2
Yes, there is a simple, albeit uncomfortable solution.
1. The House votes to impeach both the President and Vice President.
They have both obstructed justice.
2. The Senate convicts.
Barring conviction by the Senate, both P and VP will go down in history as betraying the Oath they freely took - uphold and defend our Constitution.
They both deserve to be booted out.
4
And why can't the Sargent-at-Arms arrest Trump & Co at the WH?
Are they limited to the halls of Congress only?
How about Federal Marshalls? How about some elite force that we citizens don't about but which surely exists? How about the Pentagon?
And yes, I agree with the Mainer. We should ALL be in the streets in ALL cities but especially in DC on Weekdays shutting down the city that can't deliver on anything to any of us, We The People.
4
As I have watched president Trump do things that are obviously unconstitutional, and as I have watched president Trump accuse others of committing unconstitutional acts that are obviously constitutional (I have actually read the constitution), I have come to realize that the solution to this crisis is also obvious:
president Trump, in his great and unmatched wisdom, should order someone (ideally a public school teacher) to read the The Constitution of the United States of America to him
If the Republicans had any sense of history or shame, the solution is straightforward. Get 20+ Republican senators to agree to vote for impeachment and get trump out of the White House before Christmas. They then get Pence and they don't have to worry about Trump trying to go after each Senator state by state to primary them. He'll be impotent and fighting for his freedom from a dozen other law suits.
The Republicans can then decide what they want to be. But if they stay with Trump, history will judge them as they deserve - supporting a lawless administration.
8
Likely going to the Supreme Court, then we'll see if he chose the ones that would sell themselves out for him. It puts our entire constitutional system in jeapordy, Once the people lose faith in that, it's anybody's guess,
Certainly shows how fragile democracy and rule of law are, even in the USA,
Once thing any fool can see, for the sake of our future and belief in our values, Trump must go,
2
The Democrats didn't issue subpoenas yet. The UN ambassador was scheduled to go in for a deposition, which he blew off.
The Democrats need to order subpoenas across the board now! If people don't comply, they will be in Contempt of Congress. That is punishable by law with jail-time. The Supreme Court upheld that ruling back 1890s.
I emailed by Representative today calling for Dems to issue subpoenas now.
4
Time for the House to enforce the subpoenas. Just do it.
3
In this crisis there is an element which is too frequently omitted in well-written articles and op-eds like this one by Mr. Feldman — the role being played by Trump’s “base.”
If the unprecedented illegal, unconstitutional, defiant behavior recently exhibited by President Trump resulted in cries of outrage from his steadfast supporters, the jig would be up. If members of his base began to abandon him in droves, Trump would have no reason to carry on. His chance of being reelected would vanish. And no one would attend his self-aggrandizing pep-rallies.
So. The question of what Trump does for his supporters that allows him to commit federal crimes, defy the rule of law and ignore that Constitution to which he took his Oath of Office, is worthy of serious consideration.
Are Trumpists dedicated to the destruction of our constitutional democracy? That can’t be true. Can it?!?
What actions might Trump take that would alienate the faithful? Incomprehensible speeches, flimsy excuses, undignified behavior, thousands of lies, revering tyrants, insulting our allies, turning our country into a laughingstock among the family of nations... None of these shook his followers.
What will it take?
Surely Trump couldn’t murder someone on a New York street and continue to hold onto their loyalty. So there must be a line somewhere he cannot cross and keep the base.
That he hasn’t “crossed that line” in the past week is mind boggling!
Where in the world is THE LINE with these folks???
6
I am as guilty as anyone, but why aren't we marching in the streets?
4
We are. Now there have to be arrests made.
1
“The crisis was resolved only after the Supreme Court ordered the tapes to be turned over and Mr. Nixon resigned.”
Like Nixon, I trust Trump knows transparency would be the undoing of his corrupt, clownish tenure as President.
4
Trump's sycophants didn't get where they are because they have an abundance of courage. When witnesses find themselves fined and jailed for contempt, Congress is likely to obtain the testimony it requires.
3
A new constitution is what should come next. What will come next is anyone's guess.
1
does anyone think that after being the most famous person in america for three years, riding around in an armoured limo and flying in the nicest jet in the world that trump will walk away without force? never. there won't be a free and fair election in 2020. and republicans aren'g giving up power. civil war or tyranny? you decide.
4
Donald Trump won the 2016 presidential election.
He took the presidential oath of office at his inauguration on 1/20/2017 and became the 44th individual to hold the office of President of the United States of America.
“White House Declares War on Impeachment Inquiry, Claiming Effort to Undo Trump’s Election”
Effort to UNDO Trump’s election???
Is there any meaning in those words? Donald Trump has been the POTUS for 33 months! There is no way to UNDO his presidency. These words are nonsense.
They in no way justify the president’s recent actions.
America has struggled in dealing, not only with Trump’s tendency to publicly lie, but also with his frequent usage of vaguely defined words and phrases.
In an unabridged dictionary, “great” has dozens of definitions. To the best of my knowledge, the president has never concisely explained what “Make America Great Again” means.
Trump appears to be particularly inclined to employ vague, meaningless phrases when attempting to excuse his unexcusable behavior.
The 2016 election cannot be UNDONE!
Let us point this out to the president and his supporters and move forward with the impeachment investigations!
Ignoring the many other reasons the president, in the privacy of his thoughts, should be ashamed of himself, he should be particularly embarrassed by the inane, childish excuses and lines of reasoning he has offered the American people. Much of his logic is flawed to the point it is unbecoming to a POTUS.
4
We're watching our democracy burn due to partisan politics. God save us all.
6
@Amy
Agreed. Sadly what you wrote is true.
However, any possible implication that the two major American political parties are equally at fault in this folly, over the past two decades is absolutely false.
The Party of Trump is... well, the Party of Trump.
That sentence speaks volumes.
There is the party that nominated Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court, and the party that (in an unprecedented act) violated the constitution in refusing to consider Merrick Garland.
1
It's amateurish and irresponsible to use the word, 'crisis." when it is clear that the entire Article III judicial process is yet to be invoked re: subpoenas, etc. Likewise, there was no "crisis" in the 2000 hanging chads election, because the courts were open and functioning.
There are 3 options that can and will work :
1. March on the streets of DC until the fellow is evicted and him and his band of sycophants are sent into exile.
2. Spend a few minutes writing to your GOP representatives and senators to express your outrage. Keep it simple and civil.
3. Go to the polls in record numbers next November and say No to the GOP.
In the meantime, boycott the products of advertisers on Fox News and Twitter. Make no mistake - Jack Dorsey is the biggest danger to our society.
4
The current Supreme court is political to its core. It has been doing the Republican's bidding since it gave the 2000 election to Bush, trashed the voting rights act setting up Republican voter suppression tactics, said unlimited money is "free speech", and recently ruled partisan gerrymandering is hunky-dory.
No, I do not trust the current court to up hold the rule-of-law as it relates to this lawless president.
4
Focus on elections!!!
People will decide which one is right, eventually.
2
"Congress can demand that the president comply, but it can’t very well send its sergeant-at-arms to the White House to enforce its subpoenas."
Why not?
2
I no longer have much confidence that the Supreme Court is impartial and that is what Trump is banking on. However, I think Trump's reputation is so badly damaged, he and his crony republican supporters will be wiped off the earth in the 2020 election.
1
The donald and Brett have an agreement in place. It was the basis of Kennedy 's sudden resignation and it will hold in spite of brett's shocking performance during his hearings. Brett is a drunk and trump's team will hold this over him. That's how a syndicated crime family coalesces power.
1
What happened to the last constitution crisis we were supposedly having? Oh, that's right Mueller released his finding. Come on people this is plain old hard ball politics by both sides. The USA will be fine. use to be Russia Russia Russia . Now, its crying wolf, crying wolf, crying wolf.
3
Well my privileged comrades. Authoritarianism isn't so bad - is it? Freedom being what it is - overrated. People really just want to be told what to do anyway.
We got our man running the show now - Greatest American President ever! Come join President Trump Hosting the First Annual Jeffrey Epstein Memorial party at Club Mar a Lago. Cocktails at 4 o'clock, Dinners at 6!
3
This article has terrified me more then anything else I've read regarding the last 3 years. I'm sure Putin is gleeful, knowing that his puppet will succeed vin destroying our democracy and country.
4
Agreed. Try sending the Sargent at arms. They will have a police contingent. It is an intermediary step short of the appeal to SCOTUS if the AG matches and opposes. Play the game
1
We not only have a "Constitutional Crisis" on our hands, we have a NATIONAL SECURITY CRISIS for which an immediate solution is required. The 25th Amendment indicates that a POTUS unable (or unwilling) to carry out their required duties of office, contradicting their Oath of Office BEFORE I might add Chief Justice Roberts, is grounds for removal and replacement. I've said it before (and the NYT's won't print it
for some odd reason), handcuffs would be more than appropriate
to deal with this overstuffed dummy yacking nonsense at us for three dreary and frightening years. We (the American People) made a calculated mistake- that a "successful businessman" was going to MAGA (somehow, whatever that means- actually it means nothing). So not only have we become un-great, but I'm not even sure our representative government can survive this Horrendous
Mistake. Putin of course couldn't be more delighted. This is the USSR's ultimate dream come true, so "tearing down the wall" becomes a mere triviality when Western Europe is eventually going to come under threat. "We will bury you" they once promised. Talk about long memories! We have got to keep our eye on the ball, or it's going to smack us in the head...
P.S.- And what about our allies fighting ISIS, with the Kurdish forces doing most of the work? Have we totally forgotten the damage done both in Iraq and Syria? Is the starvation of children in Yemen with our military aid also one of our great achievements?
2
You have a constitutional crisis simply because Mr. Trump, acting brazenly pro domo sua, does not defend himself IN the impeachment procedure but FROM the impeachment procedure.
1
What is Trump trading for the blood of the Curds?
May we pray that it is something like his joining Snowden beyond the reach of extradition treaties?
Withholding Congressionally-mandated aid from a country in Russia's maw in order to try to manufacture dirt on a potent political opponent may be better than poisoning that opponent, but maybe not. Ron Johnson's bizarre rant against the CIA and FBI tells us: government is not functional. Trump is a dictator.
2
I'm not a lawyer but I see a bigger problem: the complete lack of seriousness of the president's filings (not just in this case) shows that he has utter contempt for the law and the courts. He doesn't care that the arguments are so feeble that he is sure to lose. He doesn't care. He admits to no limits to his power, despite what judges may rule. He is a tyrant.
5
god of any kind: "If you're listening : Help!"
Protect us from the autocrat and his henchmen and women who stole our government, our Constitution, our sanity, and maybe, our future.
Never liked the GOP, but didn't expect them to become traitors to the Constitution for lucre. Strange times we live in.
3
When the issue of ignoring subpoenas goes to the Supreme Court, and it will, if a majority of justices ignore the Constitution and side with the Executive branch, what do you think will happen when Trump loses in 2020? When he says, "The election was rigged, I actually won. We need to investigate the massive voter fraud, and in the meantime, I will be staying in office."? What then? The Supreme Court will have already sided with Trump over the Constitution once, the second time will be much easier.
2
Powerful, clear, concise summary of the optional paths forward in troubled times. Thank you for your excellent delivery of what we need gird for...
The Republican star chamber at some point decided that America needed to come under authoritarian rule. That’s all there is to it. When and where and in what secret room the decision took place, and who was present, we don’t know. But the Senate and the Supreme Court are now stacked.
Republicans at the state and federal level have for years been moving in this direction with election tampering, and Trump has now perfected international election hacking, using Ukraine as a red herring to draw attention away from Russia, which will help Trump again because he just handed them the Kurdish territory oil fields, a gift to Putin. The impeachment process will fall to authoritarianism because the Republican Senators have sold out, under the leadership of Moscow Mitch, who also helped Trump stack the Supreme Court.
Too many Americans have been too low-information to have been paying attention.
2
>The president could always assert executive privilege with respect to particular confidential documents.
After other avenues had been exhausted, I would not be surprised if Trump decided to assert executive privilege for every single requested document. It might stall things quite a bit if the courts had to examine every document to determine whether or not each one merited privilege.
The Supreme Court is likely to give Trump a huge court victory given that Kavanaugh and Thomas have had similar Democratic harassment as Trump and given that their conservative colleagues are now in the majority.
1
Enforce the subpoenas. Use contempt citations jail and fines.
5
There's always Article 25.
If the Cabinet doesn't like him, they can remove him, and it takes a lot fewer votes.
President Trump's betrayal in Syria has cost him a lot of friends.
4
Congress supposedly has the power of the purse. Use it. Start cutting funds. That'll get their attention.
5
We are not (yet) in a Constitutional crisis. The House can exercise its authority to impeach the President whether or not he cooperates. While we may never know the true depths to which this administration has sunk, there is already sufficient evidence in the public sphere to support impeachment. The Senate can then exercise its authority to either convict and remove the President from office or, as is more likely, fail to muster the required 67 votes. The true crisis will come when Trump, having lost both the popular and Electoral college vote in 2020, decides to remain in office citing vague claims of “voter fraud”. There is no Constitutional remedy for that scenario.
4
Trump can do whatever he wants and no one to stop him. So what if the court orders him to honor the subpoena? Trump will simply refuse, then what?
2
Ivanka can add stylish orange jumpsuits to her spring clothing line. Made in China, of course. I’d say this may need to be a big production run.
6
Thank you for a clear, concise, non-biased description of the situation.
As far as Trump following law, I've always believed that if he gets a second term he will then force his way past current law to seek a third. He has already voiced groundwork for this thinking in his claim that his first term "didn't count" because of the high pushback from the American people and the press. What I cannot understand is why people support him. People I love. Support him. I love them not less for it, but it troubles me at a fundamental level. He wants to push past this and then throw it in our faces continually that he faced the ultimate threat to his position as POTUS and survived. And always feeding into that third term thought, I'm sure.
2
Does the constitution state that you cannot request information from another country about a US citizen who works in that country? I did not think this was included there. How can we find out what the employee is up to unless we ask? I am sure this is done all the rime.
2
@KMW yes and the US Government has investigative forces at the President's disposal to utilize. If Hunter Biden has broken the law, (though there is only evidence of that from a lying liar,) it would not be a US crime, Trump has no jurisdiction and no recourse except his endless tweeting. Whether it is true or not Trump will continue his attack because he believes it is effective government. The only reason he could have to demand that a newly elected leader to investigate a crime that has nothing to do with his administration is to influence the election. Or to make the lies for his current dis-information ads on social media more familiar, easier to believe and send to others in the form of dark ads.
Impeachment is our version of a vote of no confidence. In the UK when a politician no longer has the confidence (or the support) of the majority, they must resign. A No confidence vote doesn't necessarily mean the politician did anything wrong, it means that without the support of the people they can no longer govern effectively. Trump does not have to break a law to be impeached and removed, all he has to do to meet the requirements of impeachment is to lie to the American people. He didn't have to do it over 10k times, on a daily basis for three years. He just had to do it once- say, take a sharpie to a US Weather Map and try to convince the public that his obvious and accurately disputed lie was the truth.
1
Trump sees the impeachment process itself as illegitimate. What happens if he is impeached and convicted but refuses to give up the presidency? It's not inconceivable.
2
Pretty neat trick. Trump has gathered a host of players to wreck a fair election in 2020. If he wins, then he crows. If he loses, then he simply points to the foreign interference and nullifies the election, thus remaining in power. Meanwhile, he simply says "no" to every subpoena, and "no" to every court order. While this is playing out, Trump is taking a wrecking ball to the very institutions that restrain him, and to every allied cause and friendship that props up American power and prestige in the world. This doesn't end well. Putin will have a very merry Christmas.
6
I am tired of the absolute corruption that has taken place in the Trump Whitehouse and the little corruption that took place in other administrations (Clinton, Bush). If a democratic nominee gets the top spot, I suggest a thorough house cleaning is in order. I would order the new AG to investigate current members of the justice and state for criminality and either fire or prosecute where necessary. Trump unfortunately is likely to get off Scott free on federal charges but that doesn’t mean we cannot hold Barr, Pompeo, Giuliani, and others accountable to their illegal actions.
6
The first part of Professor Feldman’s essay constituted an appalling exercise in moral equivalency. For Feldman, both Trump and the Democratic House of Representatives are responsible for the present constitutional crisis.
He says a crisis has exploded because the two institutions are at an impasse, not because Trump is assaulting the Constitution, specifically the separation of powers and the checks and balances our founding document established, for all time we wrongly thought.
The last part of the essay -- assessing the contending legal cases -- is quite useful, especially for laymen like me. Here Feldman takes a stand, pointing out that the weightiest of the legal arguments and precedents favor the House of Representives, though no one can be sure of what the Supreme Court will do.
Memo to Professor Feldman and Times’ editors: A coup attempt (really a banana republic style auto golpe) has begun. An elected President, abetted by pettifogging lawyers, wants to establish permanent supremacy over the 1st branch of government. It is time to call the thing by its name, rather than take refuge in "he said, she said" reasoning.
10
If the Supreme Court enforces the subpoena and Trump refuses to comply, I truly believe that the people and the Senate will abandon him. I don't think he can survive with two institutions against him.
1
"It would allow Mr. Trump to argue that the meta-impeachment is illegitimate because it isn’t based on an investigation."
Defying a subpoena is a "High Crime" in and of itself.
6
This is overwrought. The house can vote to impeach him (as opposed to holding hearings in the intel committee about gathering information to maybe someday impeach him). Not a “meta impeachment for refusing to cooperate with an “impeachment investigation,” but an actual impeachment vote with it’s own merit. If the White House then refuses to cooperate with a subpoena issued by the judiciary committee under actual impeachment proceedings (as opposed to whatever you call what Adam Schiff is doing now,) then sue and the Supreme Court can decide.
If, though, the House isn’t able or willing to actually have (and pass) an impeachment vote, I’m not sure what we’re even talking about. Congress can’t issue free-floating subpoenas to the President of the US and act surprised when they’re met with less than full cooperation
3
@RobtLaip
Nonsense. We are talking about two things--whether or not to "formally" initiate hearings, and the impeachment vote itself. The Constitution makes no reference to either informal or formal impeachment hearings.
This is indeed troubling, and yet it is crucial that we keep a level head. We cannot fulfill Putin's goal to foment chaos and division. Moving forward, only dignity, love, and truth can prevail. Let's be mindful not to let our worst fears become our worst intentions...
4
In Watergate, the Supreme Court decision was unanimous for Nixon to turn over the tapes. Nixon has appointed some of those justices.
Would this happen today?
There was no FOX News GOP state media in the '70s molding public opinion across the land.
We still had a law then to prevent media monpolies , to prevent 1 corporation from dominating too much media in a given area. That law was repealed by Bill Clinton/ GOP in the '90. Cable grew. Then Fox grew, now it is Trump media feeding lies to his voters daily.
After Nixon's tapes were exposed, the hearings were on natl TV, and finally the arch conservative Sen Goldwater and other GOP senators walked over to the WH and informed Nixon there weren't enough votes to prevent impeachment.
Will this happen today?
If we can't keep separation of powers, and rule of law, then Trump is Tsar Trump. He and loyal courtiers will align with multi national business, dictators, Putin and Russian oligarchs.
Trump is raising big money from big donors. This is what the Citizens United decision has intensified, weakening the influence on politics of the mass of citizens who can't compete.
We the People will still stand in long lines to cast our vote---for the choices offered, hoping for Representation for Our Taxation. Our media will try to get out the truth, despite FOX and rw radio.
The world is watching.
6
It is regrettable that 2019 Republicans are less likely to act on principle than Watergate-era Republicans were. But I think you’re barking up the wrong tree when your explanation begins with media supposedly having consolidated into monopolies since then
This seems like the first step in Trump's plan not to leave the White House even if he is impeached. By claiming the entire investigation and process is illegitimate he is setting himself up to engage in a true coup.
10
But it would not work. In order for him to be removed 2/3 of the senate would have to vote for removal. This means that at least 20 GOP senators would have needed to vote for removal. The only way that happens is if the polls show that enough Republican voters support it to make sure these 20 senators don't get primaried and lose their own office.
So, if all that happens it means that all the Trump allies will have left the sinking ship. He would have no support for his coup.
1
The real crisis is the American voters. Republicans senators and congressmen back Trump because their voters support Trump.
If American electorate abandons Trump, he will be quickly dispatched.
9
So on the one hand we have the Mueller report declaring that a sitting President cannot be indicted because of Justice Dept. "guidelines," and now on the other hand we have White House attorneys asserting that the current impeachment process is unconstitutional because they say so.. because they get to make up the rules. Unless we're in Alice's Wonderland, it can't be both ways. I hope the Supreme Court will notice the absurdity of it all.
4
Democrats shouldn't be afraid to have the House vote for impeachment. Hard-line Trump supporters will vote for him and Democrats just have the forget about what will be their reaction.
The few people in-between have to be convinced by the facts. Investigate Trump, show his many abuses of power and let people decide. "Faint heart never won fair lady". The lady in question is Miss Liberty.
10
Excellent explanatory piece. All Americans should read it.
7
I'll dare to quote Ronald Reagan here (even out of context): "There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right."
Dr. Feldman here presents a serious and thorough discussion--totally appropriate for the occasion, but regarding a horrible renegade with a long, clear history of malfeasance and who constantly begs the question: What have you got to hide? Legal mechanisms are in place to address offenses that amount to impeachable status. But this situation is unique because of the personality of Donald Trump. It involves him (enabled by a gang being loyal only to him) with no interest in the welfare of the country first but always and only self-interest. Determined legal action must be applied fully and relentlessly to rid ourselves of this person who has always been totally unfit for the office but having lied to a frustrated citizenry to occupy it. He would destroy democratic-republican government before facing justice. And if he and his Republican ilk in Congress have laid the groundwork for a majority in the SCOTUS to add to his enablers, then it's all over, folks, but a fight of a different kind. Now, I'll quote Lincoln: “The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, we must think anew and act anew. We must disenthrall ourselves, and then we shall save our country.”
Does Trump's letter help to "preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States"? I recall that Trump swore (or affirmed) to do so.
4
I'm walking around in a state of high anxiety these days, feeling sort of sick to my stomach. I'm guessing I'm not the only one...
18
This assessment is overly dark. I suspect the vote in at the Supreme Court will be 9-0 against Trump. No Supreme Court is going to support a president claiming blanket authority to determine what congressional subpoenas are valid. The Democrats need to stop whining and take action. Stop calibrating your actions based on political expediency. You have claimed since the day he was elected that Trump is some type of existential threat. He has now now hand-delivered the evidence to support your theory. All your dithering plays into Trump's hands, suggesting this all about electoral advantage. When the Supreme Court rules against him, it will serve to further erode support for him and increase the chances that he will be removed from office. Go to the courts, ultimately to the Supreme Court, and get on with the impeachment. And for goodness sake, just take a vote to start an impeachment inquiry. Yes, I know the Constitution probably does not require it, but what are you afraid of?
14
The Constitution does supply a clear course of action...Impeachment. If refusing to comply with a Congressional impeachment investigation is not a High Crime or Misdemeanor, then what is?
9
Perhaps at this moment Roberts signals his intent in terms of process?
2
The United States has some generally odd notions on law. Elected judges, for example. 87% of U.S. state court judges are elected by popular vote resulting in many unqualified jurists. In France, the four-day test for judges is so rigorous that a mere 5% of lawyers who apply pass. In Texas or Wyoming, judges aren't even required to possess a law degree.
Perhaps that explains the politicization of federal courts and the Supreme Court. The Trump administration's affirmative-action for conservative anti-abortion judges would have resulted in enormous outcry and condemnation in most countries, yet this president and his party boast of the record number of judges appointed and blatantly talk of "our" judges.
The vulgarization of American law appears to be working its way up through the courts.
14
The Federal Courts don’t require it either. Including SCOTUS. I think that’s s good thing.
This is a clear call for John Roberts to publicly throw his weight on the scale,
If conservatives win this conflict, and thus only 'conservative' truth is Truth, what's he got to loose? He's a very, very, conservative judge.
Perhaps we should be careful what we wish for. There really is no telling which side Roberts would favor. He seems to be a man of principle.
Far better he were a good or a wise one.
2
I am incredulous at the thought that the Supreme Court could vote to abstain from deciding between the other two branches of government. It is their job to make decisions! We don't pay them to weasel out of hard decisions that might go against their preferred outcomes. If, per the Supreme Court, Nixon's private tapes didn't fall under "executive privilege," during his impeachment proceedings, then our current Supreme Court must require Trump's submission to Congress in these current proceedings. To do otherwise is to nullify Congress's Constitutional power to conduct an impeachment.
3
This is it. It’s the moment. It’s too late. We’ve lost our democracy
6
@GR
We withstood a horrendous civil war. Have faith in the tenacity of our republic and do your civic duty. We shall persevere. Nothing is lost yet. We only get a republic if can keep it, let's keep it.
1
"...but it can’t very well send its sergeant-at-arms to the White House to enforce its subpoenas..."
Why not? One would hope the Secret Service would comply with a Congressional subpoena and either stand aside or assist enforcement. To guarantee this a future Congress should pass a law mandating the Secret Service to assist with enforcement of subpoenas, at the very least those issued for impeachment inquiries.
6
Even if they can’t arrest the president, there many that can be arrested including the Cabinet Secretaries
Let's not mince words. This is what happens when a corrupted propaganda apparatus teams up with a corrupted political party. Someone once said that Nixon wouldn't have left office prematurely if Fox News had existed back then. I believe this is true. The minds of perhaps as much as 40% of the adult population have been deeply corrupted by the anti-liberal propaganda apparatus, perhaps irredeemably so in many cases. This will continue to be a problem no matter how this constitutional crisis is resolved.
Republicans act as if they are the victims. Indeed they are, like the rest of us. But they are, and will continue to be, victims of their own outrageous corruption, immorality and dishonesty. After decades of feigning obeisance to the Constitution, they will continue to brush it aside, as if it is a mere annoyance to their mission to wield power.
16
It’s this type of situation when a judicial institution, somewhat like the FISA court, needs to be available to immediately resolve and enforce subpoenas public and government officials refuse to honor.
4
It’s well-settled constitutional doctrine that Congress may issue subpoenas for any valid legislative purpose. This doesn't stop Trump and his mouthpieces from insisting that this impeachment is not a valid legislative purpose. Despite your noting that the Constitution gives the House the power to impeach, it does not follow - in many people's minds, anyway - that an impeachment is therefore a valid legislative purpose. This is an easy semantic thing for Trump to exploit and sew confusion over.
2
Yesterday I heard a commentator argue that there is merit in the White House position to the extent that the House rules in this impeachment investigation are different that the rules in both the Nixon and Clinton impeachments. In those, the rules were identical and, for example, both followed a full vote of the House and granted the minority subpoena power. If this is true, whether the current House approach is constitutional or not is beside the point. The process must appear fair to all and avoiding a vote or limiting the rights of the minority seems the opposite.
5
I personally cannot understand why more people aren't more upset - this is our government breaking down. What is next?
16
@DW Next is Trump either not leaving office when he is defeated in 2020, or not leaving office after the end of his second term in 2024.
1
I can accept that we can get rid of Trump but before we do that I'd like to see every single member of the House and Senate defeated. All they do is play politics.
2
@John
I say this often on these threads;
Democrats govern, often poorly but they try real hard.
Republics abuse Gubmint to benefit themselves and their donors.
Vote accordingly.
"With a full-on confrontation between the House and the president, no simple resolution is available."
This needs to repeated until it finally sinks in: this is not a full-on confrontation between the House and the President. It is a confrontation between the President and the Democratic Party.
5
On paper, that may be accurate. However, this is precedent setting and there will be a Democrat in the White House one day with a republican majority in the house. This will affect all future confrontations between congress and the White House and republicans should keep that in mind.
5
@GWB No, this is a confrontation between the President and the Constitution. period.
12
@Kris
"... there will be a Democrat in the White House one day with a republican majority in the house."
Absolutely. Maybe a Democratic President elected next year, which is one reason to short stop this political tit-for-tat partisanship.
The right course for Pelosi would have been to follow precedent. Hold a vote in the House on launching the impeachment inquiry. The result is without doubt. Then name a select committee empowered to investigate Trump's administration. Both Democrat and Republican committee members would have equal access to information coming to the committee.
Then, if the white house stone walled or obstructed the committee, it would be a full-on constitutional crisis. A full-on confrontation between the House and the President.
The remedy might then not be simple, nor painless, but our system does have the means to resolve the conflict.
It is inconceivable that even one Supreme Court justice would rule in favor of Trump, effectively ruling that the president has supremacy over congress and can do whatever he wants without oversight. It would strengthen the argument for the next president, presumably a Democrat, to add two more justices to the court.
18
Yes and that should be the response if there is a partisan vote.
1
You should step back into reality, with all due respect. This SCt vote will be a predictable 5-4 in favor of the dictator, right down partisan lines. We will then officially live in a one party system, just like China and North Korea.
2
@MRod It is not at all inconceivable.
"The Supreme Court chose the rule of law over President Nixon, a precedent that will not be lost on Justice Roberts." This Supreme Court is not the Supreme Court of Richard Nixon's era. With the makeup of this Supreme Court being conservative and much more supportive of the far right, including Justice Roberts, I am not certain the rule of law will be upheld. I suppose in the coming days or weeks, we will find out if we are a nation of laws or not. With subpoenas becoming nothing more than pieces of paper, and people being preventing from testifying before the House, I would say we are already no longer a nation of laws. What does that mean for our democracy? Our Republic? Our Constitution?
16
I can't suspect that Supreme Court would prioritise left/right over established law here.
It cannot be in question, surely, that the house subpoenas are enforceable?
I would choose to predict a unanimous verdict in favor of the house.
4
@John Brown What makes any law valid? It's our decency and respect for the constitution. Congress not only has a constitutional right but a constitutional duty to conduct oversight on the executive branch. Our founders wanted a strong executive but they were VERY averse to appointing a king. Without congressional oversight president is effectively a king. If a president can just refuse any attempted at oversight on his/her discretion, we would have a defacto king. No kings allowed in our constitution. We don't get to decide our guilt/innocence. Our peers do. Nobody has accused the president of violating any laws yet(high crimes and misdemeanors), he's obstructing a lawful inquiry.
Mr. Biden is not his perpetual opponent. If Mr. Trump was not in power, he has all the rights of citizen to accuse someone of an inquiry and demand a a response from OUR law enforcement. So the exception here isn't that Mr. Biden is his perpetual opponent, the exception here is that Mr. Trump has CHOSEN to focus on Mr. Biden despite there being 330 million other potential individuals he could've inquired about. Even in his vicinity there are scores more people he could've inquired about. He CHOSE is opponent to be "INVESTIGATED" by a FOREIGN SOVEREIGN. He has the machinery of the executive branch to his avail to initiate any such investigations, he chose an outsider who was indebted to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. He chose to use power WE THE PEOPLE bear for his own selfish good.
5
"It would allow Mr. Trump to argue that the meta-impeachment is illegitimate because it isn’t based on an investigation."
It would help if media commentators could make it clear what an utterly bad faith and cynical strategy this would be--block all investigation and then reject impeachment due to lack of investigation.
One solution to a constitutional crisis, when, as in this case, it is rooted in the bad and anti-constitutional acts of one party, is for the people to call it what it is. Mr. Feldman, sadly, doesn't quite seem ready to do that.
6
There is no "siding" or "being in a quandary." We all expect that the Supreme Court would follow the Constitution. It requires no interpretation.
Feldman wrties, "The [Supreme] court’s four more-liberal justices would undoubtedly side with the House."
No! The Supreme Court doesn't "side with the House." It sides with the Constitution which states in un-ambiguous terms: Article I, Section 2.“ The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Clear as a bell.
Feldman wrties, "The court’s four most conservative justices, two of them appointed by Mr. Trump, would find themselves in a quandary."
No! The GOP appointees always stress that they are simply following the Constitution. In this regard, the Constitution guides, clearly, the actions of the Senate.
"Article I, Section 3. The Senate. “Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law."
8
I hope you are right, but that's not what happened in December 2000.
1
There is a Constitutional crisis because the House is allowing it. Simple. Article 1, section 5 of the Constitution has vested power with the House for impeachment. And the Supreme Court is always deferential. Therefore, whatever broadsides and White House refusals put forth are simply therefore un- constitutional. Period. So I fail to understand the vexing Democrats and partisan experts making an issue of a non-issue.
6
When the Supreme Court cannot come down on the side of the constitution because it will seem as though it is "taking a side in a political fight," then American democracy is truly over.
22
It's time a reporter asked Trump the big question:
"If the House votes to impeach you and Senate votes for your removal, would you consider using the military to remain president?
Any rational person would dodge this question or say no, but Trump is not rational. He believes he can do anything and he has surrounded himself with people who tell him he's right.
10
Congress has the power of inherent contempt. The House Sergeant-At-Arms arrests those in contempt, places them in a DC jail and then forces them to appear and testify in front of the appropriate House committee. They can also fine each person in contempt a hefty daily amount that makes them think twice about refusing to testify. These subpoenas must have teeth.
14
It's not a constitutional crisis until one side refuses to abide by a Supreme Court decision. When that happens the question becomes who will act to enforce the court's order - the Department of Justice? No. The military? No again. Then what?
5
Nixon had agreed to comply with an "authoritative" order from the Supreme Court; presumably he might well not have complied with a 5-4 order. I will bet my house that Trump would not comply with a 5-4 order so relying on Roberts is a very thin reed indeed.
As for voting for an impeachment inquiry: that is not necessary according to the current House rules. In the past, Committee Chairs were not authorized to issue subpoenas without specific authorization from the House as a whole; these days they are.
As for Republicans not having subpoena power: if the Republicans have witnesses that should be heard, they can ask for them to be issued subpoenas. If the Democrats refuse, only then can the Republicans complain. But the Republicans so far have said there is nothing to investigate so witnesses are not necessary.
It seems to me that when the Chair of the Federal Elections Committee says that asking China to investigate Biden is a violation of Federal Election law, that is grounds for impeachment in and of itself.
4
Thanks, Professor Feldman, for clarifying the situation of our government so well. Sadly, given current behavior of the Whitehouse, I am pessimistic about the prospects of the President complying with orders even of the Supreme Court, should they rule in favor of the constitution as this citizen would expect. Suppose the events play out as you predict, and Chief Justice Roberts votes with the four liberal justices in favor of the House (requiring that the Executive Branch comply with the legal subpoenas). Suppose further that the Whitehouse refuses to comply with orders of the Supreme Court and the president refuses to resign... What then could be done? What would be the next move in this chess game? If the senate convicts him on articles of impeachment, what would we expect the president to do in the worst case? Would this be the point when the President, as Commander in Chief, might (attempt to) order the military to stand guard around the Whitehouse? And what would we do then? Count on the generals to refuse to obey an illegal order? I have more faith in our military to support the constitution than I have that the Senate would convict this president on articles of impeachment.
Someone needs to play out all the possible moves in the endgame of this process and be prepared for the worst. The president seems very likely to make the end very nasty, indeed.
5
@PSR
I personally do not think Trump would order the military to protect him. I say this because one thing I know firmly about Trump is that he is a physical coward. He has no wish to risk being hurt (or even killed). He doesn't want to call on the military. The notion of being barricaded in the White House with people wanting him OUT would frighten him badly. He will want to be whisked away to safety at that point, even if it means he's out of office.
Now his insane followers, they're another story. Not Trump himself but some of these rabid MAGA jerks, who knows what they might do if Trump were forcibly removed. THAT'S my fear.
After two bad years of Trump in 2018 we elected a Democratic House of Representatives to put the brakes on bad policy, and to impeach him, if necessary. Trump is not just dragging us into this Constitutional crisis, he is subverting the will of the people as expressed in 2018.
12
What, exactly, makes for a valid Congressional Subpoena ?
Does Congress have the Constitutional Right to demand
whatever papers and witnesses it seeks ?
Why is it an impeachable act for the President to question
such demands and, yes, even refuse to follow them if he
thinks they are a "fishing expedition" ?
Almost as if a policeman, without a court issued warrant,
demanded entry into your home and if you did not comply
was going to go get the Warrant and then arrest you for
not letting him into your home in the first place.
Is Trump prohibitive from arguing that the law he accused of
violating is un-Constitutional ?
After all I could declare that I am perpetually running for
President and fill out all the paper work and then go overseas
and carry out nefarious activities and, if investigated, claim that the President had me investigated because I am his political
opponent...
Is not the question of whether Hunter Biden may not have been
following the "Letter of the Law"and if that makes Joe Biden look bad, so be it, but surely the family of someone running for President cannot be immune to investigations - can they ?
Given all the other things Trump has done, this just seems
to be a 'broken tailight' stop that is a pretense for "Subpoenas Galore" that may lead to Trump being impeached.
Meanwhile the Homeless are still homeless, the Poor still Poor, Health Care out of reach for many...
Politics as usual in Washington, D.C.
4
@John Brown As you say, the homeless are still homeless, the poor still poor - and this administration is going on fishing expeditions in Ukraine in an attempt to start another fruitless Benghazi-like epic. In the meantime, the security and welfare of our country is thrown into greater risk by the hour. Do you understand what is happening in Syria with our withdrawal? Are you aware that the letter of the law is not being observed by the administration? Do you even care that our Attorney General isn't even in the country at the moment? I'm not certain you get that this president, while pushing the envelope on presidential powers , is dismantling the first article of the Constitution. Examine it carefully and you'll see that he doing more than violating one law or two laws. HAve you even considered his violations of the emoluments clause - which is only to going to go deeper when examining his business dealings with Turkey?
10
@JDStebley
If Trump violated the Constitution
let him be impeached and if found guilty
then let him be removed from office.
I am just wondering that if a President
must immediately comply with a Congressional
Subpoena and if he dares to refuse is he
inherently guilty of defying Congress and thus should be impeached for that defiance.
I don't think any President fully follows the
Letter of the Law.
Why weren't Truman and LBJ impeached for
waging war in Korea and Vietnam ?
Surely my brother, cousins, nephew suffered more harm from their deaths from those un - Constitutional actions than anything Trump has so far done. Likewise all those who died in those wars - but Congress did little to live up to its Constitutional Duties.
2
@John Brown What makes any law valid? It's our decency and respect for the constitution. Congress not only has a constitutional right but a constitutional duty to conduct oversight on the executive branch. Our founders wanted a strong executive but they were VERY averse to appointing a king. Without congressional oversight president is effectively a king. If a president can just refuse any attempted at oversight on his/her discretion, we would have a defacto king. No kings allowed in our constitution. We don't get to decide our guilt/innocence. Our peers do. Nobody has accused the president of violating any laws yet(high crimes and misdemeanors), he's obstructing a lawful inquiry.
Mr. Biden is not his perpetual opponent. If Mr. Trump was not in power, he has all the rights of a citizen to accuse someone for an inquiry and demand a a response from OUR law enforcement. So the exception here isn't that Mr. Biden is his perpetual opponent, the exception here is that Mr. Trump has CHOSEN to focus on Mr. Biden despite there being 330 million other potential individuals he could've inquired about. Even in his vicinity there are scores more people he could've inquired about. He CHOSE his opponent to be "INVESTIGATED" by a FOREIGN SOVEREIGN. He has the machinery of the executive branch to his avail to initiate any such investigations, he chose an outsider who was indebted to the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. He chose to use power that WE THE PEOPLE bear for his own selfish good.
5
What happens next? The cost of goods and services will begin to rise as a result of Trump's economic recklessness. Affordable access to food, fuel, utilities, transportation, housing, healthcare and education will become stressed. Jobs will be lost and families will face uncertainty. Many jobs previously filled with hardworking immigrants go unfilled, since Americans refuse to perform them (difficult work, low wages, long hours, no benefits). The social fabric of America will continue to tear at the seams between partisanship versus patriotism. Eventually, civil unrest will scar our cities and fill the news. Before long, Americans will need to face the constitutional crisis they invoked. Survival of the republic or let America continue to decay from within towards economic and geopolitical irrelevance, and a constitution in shambles.
7
The Founders gave themselves the power to write and promulgate the Constitution of the United Stats of America.
The power to constitute a constitution is not a power authorized by the Constitution to be exercised by the President of the United States.
The President, in denying the constitutionally sanctioned requests for documents by the three committees of the House of Representatives pursuant to their 'constituted powers' as our elected representatives, has how given himself the power to constitute a new constitution.
This appropriation of 'constituting power' must not stand if the present form of government of the United States of America is to endure.
9
If he won't cooperate with the impeachment proceedings, can the House just refuse to fund the WH, cut off the electricity, not fund the Secret Service, no gas for cars/planes to ferry trump about to his vanity events, withhold funds for meals at the WH, etc. Since trump wants to throw out entire government and country into chaos can we at least let him do it on his own dime?
22
But Donald J Trump may have a good argument.
After all, he was "appointed" or "selected" to sleep in the White House by Putin so his presidency has nothing to do with the US election or Constitutional process. He should therefore be exempt from any and all Constitutional process. And his impeachment is certainly one of those.
I think his base will accept and support that - certainly the elected member of the GOP crowd will.
5
Love it!
symptom. The roots of this crisis were Newt Gingrich declaring war on Democrats in 1994 and Dick Cheney and John Yoo advancing the unitary executive, a clearly unConstitutional elevation of the Executive branch of government. The subsequent hyperpartisanship, war powers used against Progressives, and permanent partisan takeover of parts of the government: courts, Congress through gerrymandering, voter suppression, Citizen United, the Surveillance Security State, the .01% Economy, etc.
14
@Fran Cisco, your letter is SPOT ON PERFECT! It should be widely circulated and brought to every American’s attention—Trump shouldn’t be able to frame the debate in his own self serving interests. The President is one third of our government, period, and must follow all laws, whether they please him or not.
1
"...it also would effectively put the president in ultimate control of the impeachment process."
Interesting concept. The president would give permission for impeachment to proceed.
I suppose when all is said and done, the Cipollone Letter will be read in law classes as lawyers going "bananas" as another opinion writer stated today.
7
Trump will be the first impeached President to win his party's nomination. Think about that. There will be many people in the streets in November 2020 if the losing side claims it was cheated.
1
Trump won’t leave the White House voluntarily whether he gets impeached or loses the next election. I told my friends in 2016 that his election would end badly and that there probably would be a military coup. I hope I’m wrong.
14
And then what happens when the White House refuses to comply with a Supreme Court order?
526
@Rosalind Hurwitz -- Exactly. And the Justice Department, which has the muscle to enforce, simply says, under Barr, "Thanks but no thanks."
52
@Rosalind Hurwitz : I believe he would, at that point, have overthrown the government, and we will be an autocratic state. In other words, civil war.
73
@Rosalind Hurwitz
What happens is the President will be arrested and removed from the Oval Office in handcuffs. It probably will not come to this because the Republican Senators will have no choice at that point. They will be forced to abandon their king. Trump will have to comply with the Supreme Court and he will issue the smoking guns, adding to the smoking guns that we already have. The Justice Department and the military will no longer follow his orders. Nobody of any importance will follow him anymore. No one will admit that they voted for him. It will be game over.
67
Yet another constitutional crisis. I've lost count. How many are we up to now?
7
Solution is pretty simple if neither side backs down: take it to the Supreme Court.
Best 2 out of 3.
1
Why can't the House send the Sergeant at Arms to enforce the subpoenas? If course it can, and it should. Relying on a Supreme Court constituted to enforce the concept of an Imperial Presidency is absurd. Arrest those who refuse to comply, just like in any other (criminal) case.
11
We are three years into a Presidency that was not predicted. The Nuclear war, collapsing markets, rioting, and general chaos predicted should Trump win also have not materialized. We are close to another election. Let the voice of the voters, not embittered politicians prevail.
5
@OldEngineer What makes you think that the election in 2020 will be fair if Trump is allowed to solicit aid from dozens of foreign countries - who might go so far as to intimidate potential voters?
7
@OldEngineer. So, we don’t care if Trump breaks the law as long as it gets him re-elected?
1
Old Engineer- embittered politicians represent embittered voters.
Especially after the votes cast in 2018!
Shortly after Trumps election in 2016 the American Ambassador hold a speech at an event calming down the audience saying: you know we have our checks and balances, he cannot do what he wants. Well, it turns out law functions best when not challenged by the representative and better when at least the party backing this representative has some sense of what it means for a country to go astray.
3
@Monika: The more fouled-up the law is, the more restraint is required in its execution, to preserve the peace.
I was in my late teens and early twenties attending college at SUNY Buffalo during the Watergate drama. I could never have imagined then that we would face an even more horrifying situation forty years later. The similarities are striking: contempt of Congress, obstruction of justice, lying to almost everyone about everything, a severely compromised Attorney General and now, my God, demanding help from a foreign government (AGAIN) to interfere with the most cherished part of our Republic.....Free Elections.
I attended protests during my time in school about the War, Civil and Women's Rights, and the things that turned our generation into a movement.
It's time again, America. We are facing the disappearance of the Grand Experiment UNLESS we act. We cannot and should not trust the Republican Party to do what is Constitutionally and morally right. They have abdicated that responsibility.
The esteemed person from Maine, HR, is correct.
9
I too was in College then as well and that was nothing compared to this. No one would doubt the interest Nixon had in his country and succumbing to Russia??
Nixon wanted the job. Trump doesn’t.
1
@Wayne
Yeah
Well said
If the House were to vote to open a "formal impeachment investigation" than all 430 plus members, including Republicans, would have to go on record. That puts ALL 430 plus members at risk to explain their votes back home. As time goes on Red Districts may be as outraged over Dump's behavior as Blue Districts.
10
I’m hearing among those in the know a high likelihood of Trump being re-elected. Dems must make all decisions in that light.
2
@BusinessMom Wrong, Dems and all House members need to make decisions in the light of their Constitutional duties first, not to get re-elected.
1
The first constitutional crisis since Nixon? Really?
2
My suggestion is to note that the Supreme Court is technically a court of original jurisdiction and therefore congress can ask for direct intervention. The court could rule that Trump is King and the oversight powers of congress was "just kidding". Then, Democrats could resign congress in mass and therefore no quorum. Boom, the GOP could do anything they want. Write a new constitution making Trump really (really) 'King', and "Pop goes the Weasel". Trump could go on TV and explain to the children of America that the US Constitution was just a "messing around document" and things would be changing. Trump could issue Putin US Citizenship and brown people could be marched across the Rio Grande Southward. Rich people could move their money to Switzerland and build a villa in Anguilla.
5
Listen to the daily podcast from this morning, Trump and his co-conspirator of Fox news have successfully convinced a number of people that the FBI and CIA are untrustworthy, and forget about any other news source. These are scary times.
10
What happens next? The simple answer will be revealed when the next Democrat President tells a Republican Congress where they can put their investigative summons. Republicans are making Congressional inquiry a useless enterprise and will regret the GOP's next Bengali-Like inquisition.
4
Trump and the White House are going to throw the kitchen sink at the process and it's up to the Democrats to counter punch their way out of it. Pelosi has been somewhat smart up until now but a different tact is going to be required to gain the upper hand. Who is the Democrat that can put a stop to Trump and his crimes?
3
Pelosi held a press conference saying it was an impeachment inquiry. Her saying so carries no legal weight. She must have a vote. This gives the White House the ability to ignore these requests because that is all they really are. They are not true subpoenas because the do not meet the requirements of being a subpoena. The White House is clearly in the right to ignore until a vote is held.
4
@KR What you write is factually and legally incorrect. By the rules of the House, Committee Chairs have the right to issue subpoenas, backed by the full power of the House. This is not an impeachment hearing - it is an inquiry.
4
@KR There is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that mandates the House hold a vote to start an inquiry. And zealous Republicans under Obama enacted into law the ability for the majority party to issue subpoenas unilaterally. Again, no vote required! Those are all Faux news talking points.
Wrong, Fox Watcher. The rules were changed to torment Obama and Hillary when the Republicans ruled the House. It’s payback time now...
1
I was in my last year of law school (1973-74) during Watergate. Nixon's resignation resulted from the Supreme Court's enforcement of the subpoenas served by the House and Senate for the "smoking gun tape" by a different Supreme Court and his loss of support by a different Republican Party that resulted from the tape's release. That United States no longer exists.
10
Everyday, every hour, every minute, I am stunned by what this man has gotten away with and continues to do so. It took this unscrupulous individual to make us all realize the fragility of our “Democracy”. Thinking back, it was shocking to learn that a candidate for the highest office can simply decline to release his tax returns—IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN A REQUIREMENT sparing all of us this grief.
He’s clearly hiding something, WHAT IS IT?
15
This is clearly true and there is no reason that can’t me made law in the next Congress
Maybe he’s just over his head and ignorant of the constitution and the laws of separation of power and most things governmental.
Why would you write that it is all up to Justice Roberts? There has never been a case before the court on the Constitution's articles of Impeachment. The text and oreignal intent is plain and historic records are clear. The Originalist's on the court would be abandoning the framers intent and switching to the "living document" theory to vote otherwise. The precedent set by a vote to support the executive would have consequences far beyond the present political situation. Which could lead to an elected 8 year quasi-monarchy. Foreign countries would compete to see who they could get elected and no holds barr-ed on what was done domestically. Since once elected no reasonable recourse short of violence could remove the executive.
4
@Scott: Congress can impeach and remove Chief Justice Roberts for insubordination too. The Supreme Court has no specific Constitutional authority to judge the constitutionality of legislation. This power was established by the Supreme Court itself, in a landmark case in 1803.
1
@Scott We have already seen an example of a highly civilized democracy when exactly the hitherto unthinkable happened - in 1933. Normally this is a crazy argument to be shot down. Times are not normal. I am very fearful on both sides of the pond.
4
"Given the weakness of Mr. Trump’s arguments, it’s possible to imagine that they would take the position that the judicial branch should abstain from a conflict between the other two branches — a way of dodging the issue that would effectively allow them to give Mr. Trump a victory."
Not necessarily. If the lower courts decided in favor of the House, as is likely, a non-decision by the Supreme Court would leave the lower court ruling in place.
11
Constitutional law is really a combination of law, practices and convention. When the law isn’t clear, as is often the case in a constitutional dispute, then we rely on convention to fill in the blanks (deliberately created by the drafters). Trump is happy to ignore convention, so that leaves the law - unhelpful at this point - and the SCOTUS to render the final word. That’s where we are, and where we may stick through an election cycle. That is bad for the Democrats.
3
It's time to remove 'checks and balances' from books. We lost both. If Congress cannot check executive branch it should stop to exist. We do not need it anymore.
1
@SD When you say "Congress" you mean "the House" or rather the House MINUS its 197 Republican members.(smile). The 235 Democrats certainly constitute a majority of ONE branch of Congress but that does not make them "the Congress".
3
My fellow citizens,
I really believe it is time to take to the streets.
2362
@HR
Taking to the streets would achieve nothing but would likely impact support for the impeachment inquiry.
35
@HR The only time Americans might...MIGHT take to the streets is if their WiFi stops working for longer than 24 hrs. Might.
79
@HR
If you mean via peaceful protests, and marches, then that's not a bad idea.
If you mean, or mean to insinuate, something else, then you are way off base.
34
The Democrats must enforce their subpoenas even if it means that the case goes to the US Supreme Court. If the USSC sides with Trump then the Democrats have no choice but to expand the US Supreme Court membership from 9 justices to 15 justices.
5
Perhaps “what’s next” is that Republicans will remember they took an oath to the Constitution, and not to Trump. Perhaps they’ll grow spines. Perhaps I’ll win the lottery. Perhaps hell will freeze over...
8
What happened to the guy who begged the Democrats in his many speeches (if one call call his utterances speeches) and his tweets that he would welcome an impeachment?
When will the decent members of the GOP stand up for the law and stop protecting the bully to send him back to reality TV where he belongs?
5
If the Supreme Court handed victory to Trump, it would signal the beginning of the end of the Republic. The Constitution would have no effective standing, and any current or future President could do whatever they wanted to, without any form of checks or balance. In Trump's case, I wouldn't put it past him to declare the next election unnecessary, and just continue as the President. A true Dictatorship would then be in operation in the USA. I could only imagine such a situation escalating into real civil war. Given that the Supreme Court judges are likely smart enough to know this, I see no possibility of the Supreme Court siding with Trump, irrespective of their clear political biases. Trump is therefore ultimately done for, and probably won't last out the remainder of his first term in office. I suspect that he already knows this. Generals: Please do everything you can to keep this unhinged lunatic away from the Nuclear Button!
10
Our formerly great nation is very close to becoming a dictatorship - only the Democratic led House is opposed to Trump's declaring himself a de facto king. The Republicans in the House and Senate are willing to toss our Constitution into the gutter.
7
President Nixon refused to turn over tapes and there was a break in. President Trump released a transcript of his phone call with the Ukrainian president willingly. It was on the up and up. There was more revealed in this call then what the whistle blower reported. This is not a constitutional crisis. This is a witch hunt. President Trump will not only serve out his term he will be reelected.
1
@KMW
"...more revealed in this call then what the whistle blower reported." I was able to follow your argument up to the above sentence, then you made a weird and hard pivot. Are you saying because President Trump released the "transcript"(mind you it took near unanimous resolutions from both houses of congress urging him to release the information), we shouldn't look at the content of the transcript? Had Mr. Nixon released the tapes, he would've served his full term? I am very confused with your opinion.
Looking at the "transcript"(It is a summary at best) and subsequent disclosures I can see without any hint of dis-ambiguity that the president abused his position of power to benefit his person. He invited a foreign power to meddle with our democracy. There is no way we can live with that precedent and keep our republic.
Add to that the fact that our president tried to hold an ally hostage. I don't think any patriot can condone such behavior. Please explain, I would love to see another point of view that would derail us from path of impeachment as our republic can only take so many impeachments before it crumbles. Thank you.
4
Approaching show down. Let's trust Roberts does the democratic thing.
3
The House has powers -- use them.
3
We are either going to move forward as a law and order democracy or we will become a full blown autocracy with one party rule. I don't see a middle ground here. Pelosi should issue subpoenas and start arresting people who won't cooperate, and that includes the so-called president.
7
"About the only thing the House could do now would be to pass a resolution formally authorizing the impeachment inquiry — something it has not yet done "
The Wall Street Journal has already pointed this out. Glad to see that the NYT also considers this a factor though it does not go as far as to call it desirable.
Nancy Pelosi is holding too many cards close to her chest but when there is such a momentous issue, she really needs to go for openness, including giving the 197 Republicans in the House a say, even the power to issue subpoenas of their own. It is strange to have a trial where only the prosecutor is allowed the speak and the defense has no voice.
Let the process of impeachment be OPEN!
6
I think Trumps last line of defense will be a plea of terminal malignant narcism amplified by creeping dementia, something that would not surprise but won’t explain the republicans continuing support for Him and his chorus of clowns, unless we are in the presence of mass psicosis/hypnosis.
4
I am a litigator and know what to do when a recipient refuses to comply with a duly issued subpoena. I promptly act to enforce the subpoena. Maybe the judge assigned to my case will rule against me. Perhaps he will do so on spurious grounds. But at a minimum I will TRY, and I will make a CLEAR RECORD why the subpoena must be enforced.
I abhor not only Trump but also the Republican Party and its base for their ruinous, ill-informed values and extraordinary unfairness.
But I am fast learning to DESPISE these feckless Democrats, who cannot get anything done, cannot make a case for anything, and cannot even try to enforce their own subpoenas.
We need leaders, not hand-wringing equivocaters. Enforce your subpoenas already. State your case to the public.
Start also explaining to the country why Republican policies are so harmful and unworthy, and start explaining what you would do differently.
We suffer from monstrous leadership from the Republicans and an utter lack of leadership from the Democrats. Pelosi and Schumer should step aside and let those who can lead do so.
622
@Zola
Their subpoena's are just requests and do not carry the weight of law. They just call them subpoenas to make them sound important.
7
@Zola So far the House has not issued subpoenas; now they will. I don't think a lot of Schumer but so far Pelosi has played her hand well.
41
@Zola I stand behind Pelosi. Her every move has been well thought out and deliberate. We all need to back her in this crisis. Not even a great leader can go it alone. If we support her, she will get the job done.
81
I think the House should conduct a vote on impeachment inquiry. Then if they don’t comply the Republicans will look worse.
4
The "constitutional crisis could be averted if the House took an actual vote on the impeachment inquiry. The true crisis is that the Dems prefer not to do so because they want to preclude the GOP's right to defend the president.
1
If anything, this is a manufactured constitutional crisis. Folks can throw around as many buzzwords as they like: e.g. "fascist", "oligarchy", "banana republic", etc., but that doesn't change the reality that the President has broken no law, the Democrats are conducting their inquiry with subterfuge and at a pace that indicates that they're rushing to meet some deadline before the entire thing unravels.
I'd say that the real crisis is that you have a political party that, for the last 3 years, has devoted itself to unseating a democratically elected President and nullify the votes of 63 million Americans through any means necessary.
This is a 2020 political strategy because apparently the Democrats believe that they don't have a viable candidate to fairly beat the President.
3
@Ian. Might I suggest you actually read the New York Times, you’ll find plenty evidence of lawbreaking.
1
What are the consequences if more White House staff and cabinet officials were to come forward and testify, even if Trump tells them not to do so? Is there a way to offer Gordon Sondland and others immunity from prosecution if they agree to give truthful testimony? I doubt that Mr. Sondland wanted to get into a mess like this when he took the Ambassador to the E.U. position. Maybe he'd like to bare his soul. Can someone deliver documents to the House committees against Trump's orders? Let's have more whistle-blowers. We need some heroes.
5
This is not a political fight as you state. the President's Ukraine conduct is an Impeachable offense and the house definitely has the authority to investigate and impeach. The Supreme Court would not be taking sides in a political matter it would be upholding the Constitution.
5
What we see here is a struggle which will determine if we continue to have a constitutional republic with three co-equal branches of government or if we will descend into a dictatorship with the President ruling by executive order. I choose a republic.
4
If anyone out there still needs to be convinced that Donald Trump is unfit to serve as President of the United States, they need look no further than this: This is a man who, rather than going on television, appealing for calm and assuring the nation he will cooperate with the proceedings (and then doing so), has the White House counsel issue a bizarre and defiant letter to the House saying not only that he won't cooperate, but that the entire proceedings are a sham. He has, in other words, chosen to put his own self-interests over those of the nation itself. He has decided that throwing the United States into a Constitutional crisis is a small price to pay if he avoids getting in trouble.
These qualities make him not only unfit to serve as President, but unfit to serve as a shift manager at McDonald's. No one who is willing to sink the entire ship in order to conceal the fact that the toilet overflowed in the Captain's quarters has any business leading anyone at all.
17
Recall the "Access Hollywood" tape when private citizen Trump declared that "when you are a star, you can do anything".
You see, Donald Trump considers himself to be a "star". And, as such, the rules do not apply to him. Not even the Constitution of the United States.
President Trump's Republican lackeys hasten to defend their overlord. It is up to Democrats and/or the rationale electorate in 2020 to cleanse America of this lethal poison.
Really: The substance of America depends on this.
11
Constitutional crisis after constitution crisis. Trump has been eating away at our constitution since day 1 with the Trump Republicans in Congress and the Senate whole heartedly supporting him all the way. I remember tea party Michelle Bachman and her cute little constitution classes. They didn't seem to learn much, did they?
6
We've all heard Republicans telling us endlessly how much they care about the Constitution.
Just as we've heard Republicans tell us endlessly that they want to support allies and stand up to Russia.
And we've heard Republicans telling us that they like immigrants really, just not illegal ones.
All of these were lies, we see now. Most of us knew all along that these were lies. The only part that suprised me as the disguises fell away was how much they're in hock to Russia. But then, Russians and Republicans are a good match, they have much in common.
I spent much of the last 20 years warning Americans that their Republican party was a grave threat to their Republic, and to our entire species.
Americans didn't pay attention to me, and it seems they didn't pay much attention to anything else either.
I hope it's not too late to start, now that the full-scale attack on the Republic has begun.
2
I still bet that Trump will win in 2020 and that Republicans will continue to defend him. Liberals have no power in America. America is just like every authoritarian police state.
2
@Mogwai Liberals own this country and history has reflected that fact. What usually happens is there's a resistance to change but the left gets what it wants because you can't reverse progress as easily as Trump and other fascist punks would like.
If House Democrats don’t like what the president is doing why don’t they just, I don’t know, impeach him.
Oh wait, that’s inevitable. No further impeachment investigation is needed.
The official inquiry is just intended to dig up any additional dirt they can on their chief political rival and influence the 2020 Presidential Elections (sound familiar).
2
It's time for the House to remove the only possible valid objection of the Administration by voting to conduct a formal impeachment investigation.
2
And once again Noah Feldman translates a murky law and constitutional mess into a story we can understand.
3
Sustained protests nationwide and concentrated right in front of the White House would definitely send the message to Washington and the world that we no longer accept Trump as the POTUS and he needs to be removed at once.
9
As Charles Blow wrote here, impeach now and impeach often (I'm paraphrasing). One impeachment doesn't preclude another. The evidence for an obstruction of justice article of impeachment is overwhelming. Let the Congress be on public record: which of its members favor treason and which oppose it? Force Moscow Mitch to reveal his strategy for dealing with impeachment. There should be a new impeachment daily if not more often. It's not like we're going to run out of grounds for impeachment any time soon.
13
Thanks to Professor Feldman for a clear explanation of the situation.
7
When is somebody going to finally admit what we all can plainly see, that this emperor has no clothes and that the 25th amendment would have already been invoked in a properly functioning version of our government.
This is way beyond simply a "constitutional crisis", this administration has become a very real threat to this country as a legitimate going concern.
We are now on an on ramp to a dictatorship.
The State Dept. and DOJ are in his hip pocket, and since he's completely stonewalling congress there are no effective power levers to bring them to heel.
Congress needs to complete their work with the utmost urgency, we no longer have the luxury of pretending that this threat is a fantasy or hyperbolic, it is very real.
11
I agree and think that the VP is culpable and interviewable for why this was not initiated particularly since there reports about that discussion.
The VP is not employed or hired by the President and can’t be fired.
2
Most of Congress is bought off [and owned] by Mega Donors and Corporations who happen like Trump's tax cuts and deregulation -- Our elected representatives keep quiet, turn a blind eye and let, "Trump be Trump."
1
I am a Democrat who stands with Trump on this one.
3
I am missing the Constitutional Crisis here. Two equal branches of government that do not want to cooperate. Sounds to me like this is what the third branch is for.
The Crisis comes in when the Executive Branch ignores the order of the Judicial Branch. Right now we just have two branches acting like spoiled brats and it seems that the Judicial Branch are the only adults in the room.
I also hope the Judicial Branch shows contempt for the politics of the moment and warns both of the other branches to calm down. The Legislative Branch is impotent and the Executive Branch is drunk on political conspiracy-theory kool aid. We really need an adult in the room, these two children are getting out of hand.
BSOD,
You say you are missing the constitutional crises and our third branch of government should tell the other two branches to stop acting like little children. So what would that accomplish? The goal should be a ruling, either against the day care at the White House or the House of representatives.
This isn't a Constitutional crisis ... this is a moral crisis in the people we sent to Washington to represent us. The majority of them have failed that test. The question is, will it cost us the Republic.
5
I didn’t send a single Republican to Washington and certainly not Trump. Those who I’ve elected are fighting the good fight!
2
@Dan ??? You actually believe that? The pretense that what's happening is only the cowardice of the Republicans vs the honorable UNIVERSAL efforts of the Democrats is to ignore why after almost THREE YEARS of Trump's malfeasance, NO EVEN ALL of the Democrats are even demanding an INQUIRY, much less an actual impeachment!
You give YOUR politicians too much credit, just as the Republican voters give THEIRS too much.
Could the court rule that it must vet each individual subpoena separately to determine if claims of executive privilege are valid for that instance?
What this is, is a power struggle. Has been since the election. Trump is a political novice, they are out to get him. It’s no more complicated than that.
2
What value is there in holding on to political power at all costs when to do so will destroy the political structure through which to exercise that power?
1
This is a beautifully clear and informative piece.
While it sits in the "Opinion" section, it is more an explanation of the state of affairs.
I wish there was more news like this: a clear reporting of context so we can better understand the daily events.
3
This impeachment is wholly political, it is only superficially about the constitution. The Democratic Party is controlled (held hostage) by it's farthest left members, they're the most vocal, most politically active, they are the tail wagging the dog. Big numbers of Democrats would like to move more to the center, but are prevented from doing so by the noise-making hotheads on the left. Is the real reason Nancy Pelosi, certainly a savvy political operator, was so reluctant to move forward with the impeachment investigation, that she understood this, and that Democrats can only win from the center, not the extreme left? But the far left has not yet been put in its place within the party, so she was finally dragooned into impeachment, as I think, against her better judgement.
1
@Ronald B. Duke Oh please. It's right in front of your eyes. Read the transcript of Trump's call to Zelensky. The text messaging between Taylor and Sondland shows quid pro quo. The Mueller report also has ample evidence of obstruction of justice. The pulling of troops in Syria is a boon for Putin. All these things, Trump himself predicted would not influence his voters. You remeber the shooting in the middle of 5th avenue. Well this is that shooting.
5
Again, there is no defense you give of Trump other than you don’t like Democrats. He has no regard for the law the Constitution, checks and balances, separation of powers, is tweeting while violence is spreading in the Middle East. He needs to go. I wish the Dems had waited until someone in the Republican Party would yell that the emperor has no clothes. But alas they are the ones being pulled out of their comfort zone and that’s the best complaint can give them.
2
It’s not a Constitutional Crisis. It’s a Senate Crisis. And the problem is Mitch McConnell and 20 or 30 other Republican Senators.
6
We are in a Constitutional crisis that is being caused by the lunacy of democrats in Congress. In deeply divided times, adherence to traditions, norms, and the rule of law is the only thing that can restore confidence in institutions. Here, Nancy Pelosi has started an "impeachment inquiry" based on a speech that she gave by herself. There was no vote to open an impeachment inquiry, which is the way it was done with Nixon and Clinton. Instead, the proceedings are all now held behind closed doors and in secret, like they do in some third world dictatorship. This is not the way it should be done in a Democracy. There should be public hearings and the opposition party should have the right to present evidence as well. Unless they change their ways, Democrats must be defeated across the board in 2020. There must be accountability. Its the only thing that will stop our institutions from eroding further.
2
You’ve got it backwards. They can all ask question all the committees. Good point about why Trump is being framed. He is such a victim.
Trump and his supporters are the most divisive group in this country.
3
@johnny Please state the statute that says a vote has to be taken to open an impeachment inquiry. The House is independent of the Executive branch and goes by it's own rules, not the ones Trump would have them follow. You are in essence saying the Article 1 branch of our government is moot. Do you realize the implications?
4
@johnny there is simply no rule that requires a vote of the full house prior to an investigation. Classified information cannot be discussed in open sessions, which is why none have been held yet. Some could be held in open session, but the White House will not allow anyone to testify. In terms of the Republicans presenting evidence, they have control of the Senate and can present any evidence they want there. Why do you think they're not doing this except to call Giulianni who they know will rave on endlessly, spew conspiracy theories and make no sense whatsoever.
2
The author of this piece seems quite confident that Trump will abide by a Supreme Court decision that goes against him. If If Congress can't do it, how will 9 elderly justices force him to comply?
6
This is not a constitutional crisis. This is not a crisis at all. This is something Nancy Pelosi has to do for her survival. She can simply write article of impeachment and put to vote. There is no need for any further enquiries. According to Democrats and fake news they have enough information to impeach Trump, actually from day one. There is no need for Trump to cooperate with any of their fantasies. If they want to go to court, they can do it to find out the legality of Trump's action and Democrats action. But, why wait, just impeach. The senate will do a trial and decide not to convict and we all will meet at the next election.
1
"The trouble is, there would be almost no way for the Supreme Court to resolve the current crisis without seeming as though it was taking a side in a political fight." While it might seem as though the Supreme Court will take a political side, that is not right. The Supreme Court has a responsibility to take the side of the rule of law according to the constitution. Considering the stakes, worrying aloud about how such a ruling will seem in terms of politics is trivial - unless a significant portion of the citizenry, for political reasons, no longer respects the rule of law.
2
So much for the American experiment in democracy. We are officially and categorically an autocracy. The Lords in the Senate are joined in perfidy with the Monarch, the commons in the House are rendered helpless by a hateful few to stanch the flow of law, draining the Constitution of the protections it promised the people. At the same time, the Boyars of corporate America are toasting the ascension of a puppet-Tsar who ensures their power over the people who bought into their capitalist lies about a middle class. The people themselves are properly divided, rendering them nothing more than serfs with a nice car, 60 inch TVs and plenty of binge-worthy cable shows.
And here I am, writing an indignant letter that no one in Montana or Wisconsin or South Carolina will read. Here I am, reading other like-minded, outraged left or right coasters. And perhaps we're all arriving at the conclusion that perhaps it's time to take to the streets - November 2020 is a century away in Trump-time - and let those in office who stand with this imperial president that they are on the wrong side of history. Any takers?
10
Our Democracy such as it is, and has evolved, has survived because the political participants have acted in good faith according to certain norms of behavior. This does not mean there has always been civility and adherence to the ideals espoused in the Declaration of Independence or Constitution.It does not mean here has been no corruption. It does not mean that the weak have not been systematically disadvantaged and the powerful enriched at public expense.
It means that those in power follow rules of procedure and respect the established power structure.
There are similar rules in the business world, the realm where one Donald J. Trump navigated. His field was real estate and his legal medium was the law of contracts. A legal obligation implied in every contract, not needed to be expressed, is that the parties enter into and agree to perform their contractual obligations in good faith. That does not mean the contract is fair, and both parties profit equally. Those in stronger bargaining positions or with more savvy get the better end of the deal. Good faith means the parties do not act to undermine their agreement, or willfully fail to perform.
Trump often failed the good faith test in his contractual obligations. He speciously refused to meet financial obligations.
Trump has brought his business practices to our government. In business he bankrupted many, including his businesses. He had no regard for the financial harm he caused.
He is bankrupting our Democracy.
8
Public opinion is shifting against Trump. I listened to the NYT Daily's road trip with Congresswoman Slotkin and the people dismissing Trump's pressure game on Zelensky as not rising to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors were treating the dialogue in the non-transcript "transcript" with the same level of seriousness as an exchange between two neighbors chatting with each other over the fence.
Given the immediate panic the conversation inspired in White House staff that, indeed, led to a follow up whistle blower complaint; that interpretation of "I need a favor" is a complete mischaracterization that the Republican Party is seeking to promote and exploit.
Not so fast guys. "You can fool all the people some of the time and some of the people all the time, but you cannot fool all the people all the time." (Abraham Lincoln)
I predict that as this political conversation with the American people unfolds that minds will change, attitudes will shift, and... not in favor the president's reprehensible behavior.
The Democrats, however, must act with resolve. No one will respect them as defenders of the Constitution if they back down and fail to act. If that happens the strongman tactics might just work. After all, they worked in 2016 didn't they? And that's what Trump is now banking on.
5
It's simple: A coup by the joint chiefs to install a temporary junta that would supervise elections.
2
The salient point of this situation is that every single American now must make a decision, and there are only two choices. You either stand with the rule of law or you stand with Pelosi and the Dems.
The Dems have attacked Trump unfairly and illegally beginning during his election, continuously after his election and now with an impeachment play that will die. The Democrats illegally and through a cutout law firm and a partisan investigatory agency hired a foreign agent to seek dirt on Trump during the election. They launched this to impact the election. A criminal violation much different and worse than the Trump kid. They invoked the traitor and treason attack for Trump collaboration with Russians when there was no evidence and there is still no evidence. They cried that his sarcastic and facetious call to see if the Russians could find the hacked Dem documents as evidence of his collusion with foreign agents. They promised that the Mueller task force would ferret all the Trump misdeeds. No collusion. They cite his actions in opposition to the Mueller investigation as obstruction. What should one do when being attacked falsely- roll over and say more? Now Biden will be scrutinized.
If the impeachment inquiry was fair and the minority party and Trump were provided with the same rights as agreed to in previous impeachments, cooperate by all means. But the actions of the Dems is not fair, so the conduct and access will be adjudicated by the courts (which Dems use so freely).
@edward smith
Sigh. I can only hope that this blindness is not permanent.
The House must proceed with its inquiry and, if necessary, the drawing up of articles and a vote to impeach. That, in the face of everything that the White House has done or allegedly done, is the House's job. If the preponderance of evidence points to blatantly illegal conduct, which it apparently does, then an indictment (impeachment) must be handed down if a majority of House members agree. One step at a time.
Do not appease the tyrant. Call him out. Send him packing.
1
If there was any chance for the rule of law – this will be the final straw in the death of our democracy. The great American experiment has come to the end – The autocracy – The Federalist of Jefferson’s day – have sided with a one-party-rule monarchy and it appears soundly in place. It really is a coup as they certainly don’t represent the majority by a long shot and regardless of this fact, proceed to rule now with Impunity. The treasonous Senate, Executive branch and finally, what could be the pending decisive and determining factor of the now politically right-leaning Supreme Court, are all complicit in the killing of our once honored, revered and interdependent-collaborative democracy. This American icon, and all that it stands for – has been highjacked by party-over-country cronyism, greed and favoritism and the caustic power of abuse. What will the historians say of this shameful day when those who were democratically elected by the people to support and defend the Constitution of the United States of America against all enemies, foreign and domestic were derelict in their duty?
Perhaps it’s time to consider the secession of blue states from the union.
4
@Christopher
I'm inclined to agree with you, but the problem with secession is that even the most reliable blue states are not entirely blue (nor are the reddest states entirely red). Every state has pockets of blue and red. New York and California both have large rural areas where the population does not think the same way they do in the big cities. Come out to the East End of Long Island, and you'll see what I mean. Same thing in Upstate New York. NY is a blue state because half the state's population lives in one city. GA has those pockets too. My late mother lived in the neighborhood that elected Newt Gingrich, but Stacey Abrams' near miss showed there are a lot of Democrats in the state. So how do we do a secession, when every state is split between blue and red parts?
1
It concerns me that there is another huge potential story in all of this that has not yet been explored: did the Russians help only Trump, or did they extend their assistance to other Republicans as well — Republicans who will have a voice in any impeachment and Senate trial.
7
It's been the endpoint of their 40 year agenda for, well, 40 years. Stack a SCOTUS to enshrine the "strong unitary executive" interpretation of Article II into Federal law and precedence. Both Alito and Roberts had argued before the court for such an interpretation; Scalia and Thomas were fully on board; the only iffy thing was Kennedy.
Then Scalia died and they went nuts, refusing to do their constitutional duty for over a year and uniting behind this man they knew could destroy our alliances and country just to get where they wanted to go. And now, yes, Roberts may dash their dreams. Wouldn't that be rich? But he may stick to the plan too.
However, with the 150 or so justices Mitch rammed onto the lower courts since Trump took office, their second plan, destroying rights found over the past 80 years based on 14th amendment jurisprudence, is right on track. And a the only way to beat that would be supermajorities in the House and Senate, a Democrat in the White House, and Democratic control of 2/3 of the States quickly amending the Constitution. I'm doubtful that will happen.
5
@David F: The US court system allows people like Trump to use it as an agent of extortion.
1
@Steve Bolger Exactly right!
It's time to remove 'checks and balances' from books. We lost both. If Congress cannot check executive branch it should stop to exist. We do not need it anymore.
5
Absolutely, the military, local police, sheriffs, which ever law enforcement agency designated should collect their staff and arrest Trump, Pence, Pompeo and Gordon Sondland and put them in the general jail until they individually comply with the investigation and agree to testify. Period. It isn't going to go well for any of them unless they agree to testify.
1
It's time to remove 'checks and balances' from books. We lost both. If Congress cannot check executive branch it should stop to exist. We do not need it anymore.
1
SD,
How will that help?
I thought Thomas, Kavanaugh, and Gorsuch were strict constitutionalists. If so, then the Democrats should have no fear of going to the Supreme Court.
4
@Gary Berman: These guys evidently don't understand "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". They entertain lawsuits brought by people who claim they will be damaged after death by public policies.
1
Not a legal person but it seems to me that Prof. Feldman spelled out how this plays out and that the judiciary will ultimately resolve the conflict between the legislative and executive branches. This doesn't seem to be a crisis; our system of check and balances would seem to have the latitude to work out the conflict. Of course, some people are not going to be happy with the result but our country is pretty much divided down the middle now.
Charles Koch and Rupert Murdoch are now closer than they've ever been to achieving their ultimate goal of a Second Constitutional Convention.Even Justice Antonin Scalia warned against letting that happen. It is the worst-case scenario for any US citizen who is not a billionaire.
4
Democracy on the brink and American citizens continue to do nothing about Trump. No ongoing mass demonstrations, marches, protests, or civil action. No swelling passion to save your country. Just feebly waiting for the House, Senate, Supreme Court, Bob Mueller, or anyone else to take responsibility.
Why citizens aren't in the streets daily, demanding change, is a mystery to the rest of the world. Your First Amendment enshrines such efforts, protecting “the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Trump has always known that his approach is the paralyzed person’s best bet. Empower yourselves, people. Hold your government to account. It's the only power you have left in a crisis such as this. Use it.
17
@BB
Why aren't we in the streets? Mostly because we're too busy working paycheck-to-paycheck to survive. Many of us have no paid time off, and those who do may well fear to take time to protest because nothing protects us from being fired for holding different political views than the boss. (The First Amendment protects Americans from government punishment for protected speech; it does not protect from consequences dealt by private citizens.) Few but the very young and the very old have the luxury of protest. The size of the country also means that a truly massive protest would require most participants to travel quite a long distance, entailing additional expense and logistical problems (finding lodging, etc.)
Second, the results of that protest might well be mixed, especially if any of the protests turned violent (as well they might if Trump supporters staged a counter-protest and the two groups clashed). At this point, most voters want to give the rule of law, and the Constitution's checks and balances, a chance to work.
1
What would be the legal argument supporting the President's refusal to cooperate in the inquiry? I can see how a Supreme Court ruling in favor of Congress could be seen as 'taking sides,' but it is difficult to conclude that Congress' powers are only operative if the President says so. The legitimacy of the President's argument is much harder to find. If the President could present evidence of misdeeds by Congress (e.g., planting evidence, witness tampering, bribery) I could possibly see weighing both sides. But a baseless refusal to cooperate doesn't seem like something our judicial system would honor.
5
A greater crisis is what got Trump elected in the first place, i.e., an irresponsible and dysfunctional congress. Huge issues facing the country are an unsustainable debt, a crumbling infrastructure, a poorly designed health-care system that does not serve the entire population, an immigration system that does not work, the largest number of incarcerated members of the citizenry of any country on the globe, etc. And Trump's craziness is what gets attention? The Senate will never impeach anyway. Everything else is political theater anticipating the 2020 election.
1
"The court’s four most conservative justices, two of them appointed by Mr. Trump, would find themselves in a quandary,"
I don't understand how this would be a quandry for them unless they just freely engage in outright partisanship and hypocrisy. Agreeing with the President, that he is utterly beyond Congressional accountability and essentially has the powers of a king is not, in any way shape or form, a conservative position. If they do agree then the republic is lost. There's just no other way to describe it.
7
@Paulie D: These folks mislabel themselves. They are revanchists, who promise to restore a golden age that never was.
I hope two things happen next:
1. The house votes for impeachment trial of President Trump.
2. Either the Senate votes to impeach Trump, or, if not, he is soundly defeated in the 2020 presidential election .
2
Mr. Feldman's approach plays into Trump's hand: delay, delay, and run out the clock. What would Mr. Feldman have us do? Roll the dice and hope that Roberts rules correctly. No. Thank you. The alternative, as stated by Lawrence Tribe, is the only path. Impeach Trump now. We can't afford to wait. This doesn't preclude impeaching him again under different Articles as the investigations and court rulings proceed. We can no longer afford to wait.
2
@Alfred Essa: The Supreme Court is also subject to Congressional impeachment and Senate conviction. It is the least senior of the three branches of the federal government.
2
I don't understand what more we need than the phone call memo sent out by the White House that shows Trump asking a foreign power to investigate his election rival. That's a proven fact.
5
Get this to the US Supreme Court. That's why they are there - to resolve constitutional questions. Let's see what landmark opinion comes out of that. Will Roberts Court go down in history, or infamy?
3
I can't see Justice Roberts siding with Trump on this. It would go against precedent, the clearly defined duties of Congress in the Constitution, and his own desire to avoid partisan politics. He, and most likely at least one or two if the other conservative justices, would most likely use these arguments as cover for their decision and uphold Congress's right to subpoena.
What Congress needs to so NOW is (a) formally vote for an impeachment inquiry, (b) establish a formal impeachment committee with Adam Schiff in charge, and (c) swiftly move to subpoena all relevant documents and testimony from the White House. Remove every reason for Trump to refuse and then, (d) take him straight to the Supreme Court if he refuses to comply. The important thing is to make all of this happen extremely quickly. Everyone needs to see that swift and decisive action will be taken to counter Trump on this.
2
I think it worth stepping back and considering reflecting on how we got here, that such reflections might indicate a way out.
There are two important vectors influencing our fate. First is Trump's base, where did they come from and what motivates them. Second is external adversaries, like Russia, and their desire and ability to impact our elections.
Economic stratification causes political volatility and resentment. This economic stress on the lower classes increases insecurities and tribal identification or racism.
In the past 30 years, US GDP has increased by 30%. On average, that is 30% more housing, 30% more retirement, 30% more vacation, 30% tuition for your children.
But, all of those gains went to the top 4% and half of those gains when to the top 1%.
Do you see now why a large part of the nation feels ripped off, exploited and left behind? They are ripe for messaging of dissatisfaction, acrimony, and enmity.
Meanwhile, Russia has witnessed with alarm NATO's encroachment to its very doorstep and beyond. Imagine if Mexico or Canada had joined the Soviet Block--how alarmed would the US be?
It is no surprise that charlatans and adversaries would take advantage of our political divisions. That should be expected.
We must heal our political divisions. We must rapidly decrease economic stratification.
Raise taxes, on the rich. Use the money to rebuild US infrastructure, roads, bridges, etc as well as K-12 and 4-year colleges.
It's time for the Green New Deal.
5
You assume that Trump will abide by a Supreme Court ruling against him. He won't.
2
"Congress can demand that the president comply, but it can’t very well send its sergeant-at-arms to the White House to enforce its subpoenas." Maybe not, but regrettably that's the kind of unilateral approach Mr. Trump is forcing Congress to use by putting himself above (and pitting himself against) the Constitution. Off the top of my head...is it possible for Congress to defund the Executive Branch?
Professor Feldman characterizes this constitutional crisis as a standoff between two branches of government, the Executive and Congress. But that’s inaccurate arithmetic. It’s a standoff between one and a half branches of government, the Executive and the House. The missing half is the Senate, where the Republicans so far are willfully oblivious to the risks to which they are subjecting the Constitution and their own governmental primacy. Nixon was never impeached; he resigned when three members of Congress, Senators Barry Goldwater and Hugh Scott and House minority leader John Rhodes, told Nixon he didn’t have the votes for acquittal. The constitutional crisis is coming to a head because the current occupant of the White House is betting that the Senate Republicans have his back and the Senate Republicans have yet to prove him wrong. If we rely on the Supreme Court to decide the matter, I believe it will be a 5-4 vote against the President, with the Chief Justice breaking the tie. But that decision will be as unsatisfying as the 5-4 vote in Bush v. Gore. This debate always comes down to the Senate Republicans. They, not the President, are the most mystifying and undemocratic part of this crisis.
7
To expand upon what many others have said, this is a test of whether we are even still a legitimate nation. If Trump wins here, then the nation is defeated and we should seriously be evaluating splitting the United States into two or more new countries.
Each state's citizens should hold a plebiscite on which nation they want to join. If you end up in an undesirable nation, you can either gut it out as a gadfly, or you can move to the new nation of your choosing.
2
@Some Guy: This is what continuation of the Electoral College long past its sell-by date has come to.
1
As partisan as they can be, and as much as I dislike their politics, I have a hard time believing that Gorsuch and Kavanaugh, and maybe even Thomas, would come down on Trump's side over clear Constitutional language. They would be dooming the country, and de-legitimizing their own Court, and I think they would understand that.
5
@Baba
Unfortunately I do not have faith that Thomas, Gorsuch or Kavanaugh are guided first by what you define as clear constitutional language. The three of them appear to be partisan and political, with 2 of them that have axes to grind with the Democrats.
2
@Baba
Oh, please. Kavanaugh shamelessly auditioned for his seat. He can't be expected to do anything that would harm Trump.
It is an interesting article, but the conclusion seems incomplete. What happens if the Supreme Court rules to uphold the subpoenas, but the White House again refuses to comply? Is there any enforcement power behind the ruling made by the Supreme Court? Or would we be in a similar, although more extreme, constitutional crisis?
4
i certainly don't claim to know more about the law than a professor, especially professor feldman. to my mind just reading the constitution makes it clear what needs to happen. the judiciary needs to clarify the law in their rulings, if necessary, and the subpoenas and the congressional powers of oversight should move forward.
3
Crisis of Constitution in the U.S. 2020?
I don't see why this would be surprising; it's been a long time coming and in a variety of ways. In the modern world there have long been calls to play down nationalism in favor of socialism, and entities such as the European Union. It's surprising the Constitution hasn't largely dissolved when we reflect on all the progressive as opposed to originalist attempts to interpret it.
On the other hand, why would anyone want an originalist interpretation of the Constitution or even the Constitution itself? Constitutions, laws of nations, etc. only seem to serve nationalistic interests today. And the world today seems in a tug-of-war of nationalistic leaders at the helms of nations working closely together opposed to left wing parties everywhere who want to cooperate with each other in their own way.
It's entirely chaotic with no clear law in existence. I doubt I even make sense writing these sentences as a person has to wade into business/legal jargon, a multitude of laws and precedents, etc. to even begin to grasp the nightmare...
Personally I don't think law carries much weight anywhere anymore, just the most persuasive rhetoric, appeal to public opinion carries the day. What for example is lawful foreign policy, foreign involvement, foreign effect on the U.S. when we are a bunch of immigrants with multiple ties overseas but supposedly "Citizens of the U.S."? What is lawful We and Them? It's identity crisis, not just Constitutional.
1
Charles I of England had the same problematic approach towards Parliament. I suggest Congress use the same solution to the problem.
8
Having the 'president' determine whether or not he should be impeached is like having your dog decide if he should go to the vet.
8
@digger - Maybe we should just try giving Trump a treat to get him in the car? A promise to hold both the Democratic and Republican conventions only at Trump properties for the next 25 years perhaps?
4
NYT should just ask trump -- he knows what will happen. Said so himself yesterday: "In my great and unmatched wisdom...."
4
@Jon Doyle - Can you imagine what Republicans would say if President Obama had ever uttered such drivel? We would never hear the end of it.
So it turns out that electing a narcissistic, ignorant, compromised President with no respect for or understanding of the Constitution, no concern for anything beyond advancing his self-interest and a scorched earth approach when things don't go his way wasn't such a great idea after all.
Who would've thought?
13
The White House’s noncooperation means the articles of impeachment won’t be as complete as otherwise. But the core facts are already in plain sight, as most Americans would agree, and impeachment by the House is unavoidable.
6
It's true that the Supreme Court could rule against the House in its attempt to enforce subpoenas in its impeachment investigation. If so, then we no longer have a republic, and the sooner that's pellucidly clear, the better.
539
@David H. If the Supreme Court rule in favor of Trump, that means Trump is right and Democrats are wrong in the legal argument. That doesn't mean the end of the republic. We all will come to the next election and vote one way or the other. That is democracy.
2
@David H.: All the more reason for Congress to remove Trump.
7
@Alex E
Unless Trump loses and then refused to leave because of "voter fraud"
17
It may serve Justice Roberts to remember how the current world and historically non-democratic countries treat the judiciary.
One of the clearest points, taught in every history class is that the US government is founded on THREE separate yet EQUAL branches.
So, is Roberts ready to completely destroy the best working democracy the world has ever known? Doubtful. If the Supreme Court backs the Excutive Branch, it is sealing its own fate of being not the Law or f the Land but a bunch of obsolete people in black dresses simply carrying out each dictator’s ideas, whims, corruption. This is a mess orchestrated by one party with MCConnell at the helm.
12
Interesting to contrast with the UK. PM Johnson's attempt to circumvent was stopped even without a written constitution. Trump's disregard of the constitution cannot be countered by any remedy even with a written constitution. In any social system, fair play and good faith are more important than the actual rules. The Trump and the GOP are not acting in good faith and have no respect to the notion of fair play.
It is the time for the citizenry to directly express their opposition to the stances of the administration and its Congressional GOP backers.
4
Noah Feldman: law professor and sports commentator.
Of course this is far more important than any sport.
Thank you Prof. Feldman for clarifying the issues so at least I can understand the state of play.
3
Well, it seems that if our senators reminded themselves of the following:
“I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God.”
we would be a lot closer.
Perhaps the solution is simple (as in “do your job”) although not easy.
4
If the house controls the purse strings, then simply stop funding the executive branch.
11
the main problem with mr. feldman's article is that it actually gives credence to the "legal" letter that was signed by cipollone. it does not take a lawyer to read how unprofessional the letter in how it is actually worded. there are plenty of constitutional lawyers who have written articles that made that clear and that the letter shows very poor judgement on mr. cipollone's for signing this letter.
8
The faith people place in the Republican controlled supreme court is mistaken. The Republican justices will do whatever Trump and McConnell tell them to do.
6
No, here's a real constitutional crisis. The Supreme Court sides with the House, and orders Trump to turn over the relevant documents.
Then the President says, "I don't care what an illegitimate Supreme Court says. And I don't care what a liberal House says. I'm the Commander in Chief of the greatest military force in history--I love our great men and women in uniform. These American heroes love me, and we're not cooperating with the House or the Court. Now, whatcha gonna do?" That, my friends, is a constitutional crisis.
7
There are other people, the witnesses, who could step up and do the right thing Trump's wrath bedamned. Outside of "possible' collusion, what's to stop folks like Taylor, Volker and Sondland to simply acquiesce to the House's wishes and show up on Capital Hill? It's not like these fellas need their jobs.
4
@smm
Those three may not need their jobs, but they love the power and prestige that comes with the positions they hold. They won't give that up.
1
The Anti-KAC translation of trump's letter:
1. The president is above all law.
2. The Constitution is Un-Constitutional.
5
The Republicans on the Supreme Court will support Trump, just like they gave the 2000 election to Bush. And they will be able to do it because McConnell stole the vacant Supreme Court seat from Obama and gave it to Trump.
When the decision comes down the people will need to take to the streets.
7
The Congress and Senate comprise the board of directors of the federal government of the US, incorporated. They have the constitutional authority, and responsibility, to remove an insubordinate president.
4
I do not understand why Americans are not screaming in the streets about a man who thinks he is a ruler not an elected official, please vote him off the Island as soon as possible.
6
A Constitutional Crisis? Hasn't there been a Constitutional crisis every day since inauguration day? Prof. Feldman reminds me of the boy who cried wolf, or of Chicken Little.
3
If Trump was active-duty military, he would have been arrested and court-martialed months ago on numerous charges of subversion. Likely convicted, he'd be in the Fort Leavenworth Military Prison, serving many years.
Oh, wait, he is in the military as commander-in-chief, and he's attempting to manage the United States as a banana republic. Banana republics are eventually overthrown by a military coup d'etat. US generals and admirals: Sadly, your time may be coming to depose the boss and the vice-boss, court-martial both of them, and restore democracy.
10
Donald:
“The Senate Select Committee is recommending the enactment of new laws, which it believes will minimize the dangers of a future Watergate.... Candor compels a confession, however, that law alone will not suffice to prevent future Watergates.... As one who has labored as a practicing lawyer, a judge and a legislator ... I venerate the law as an instrumental service to society. At the same time however, I know the weakness of the law.... Law is not self-executing. Unfortunately at times its execution rests in the hands of those who are faithless to it. And even when its enforcement is committed to those who revere it, law merely deters some human beings.... It does not make men good.... [N]o man is fit to participate in politics, or to seek or hold public office unless he has two characteristics. The first of these characteristics is that he must understand and be dedicated to the true purpose of government, which is to promote the good of the people, and entertain the abiding conviction that a public office is a public trust which must never be abused to secure private advantage. The second characteristic is, that he must possess an intellectual and moral integrity which is a priceless ingredient in good character.”
1
Corruption. Chaos. Dismantling. Defiance. Disarray. Inanity. Psychosis. Ruthlessness. Do Americans even have a government anymore? I don’t think so. The ordinary state of things is the coup that's been going on since 2016, with Trump and the GOP escalating their war against the legislative branch, the constitution, the rule of law, civil servants, and American citizens.
Some people think I'm joking when I tell them that if Trump were re-elected, then quite possibly that would be the last free and fair election the US would have. I really am not. I read comments from his supporters and I despair at the insanity and delusion. Things look bad, very very bad. The leisurely slide into fascist territory is a result of the Trump administration actively seeking to undermine rule of law since day one. Democracy is in the toilet. The US is headed toward the "Total State".
This is a time of incalculable danger that could lead to almost anything, and if ever there was a time when American citizens must exert themselves, it is now. Detachment and passivity got you here; civil engagement will get you out.
14
There is an election only one year away. Vote out politicians who have disappointed you. No drama required.
2
Trump isn't calculating. He's doing the same as he always does. He's avoiding and delaying, likely with the hopes that he stays in office and runs out the clock. And he's counting on the GOP to have his back.
Also, who cares if Trump calls the impeachment process illegitimate? This is what he and his fellow GOP buddies do as they deflect, detract, lie, delay, stonewall and absolutely, obstruct.
Roger Stone would advise, "Admit nothing, deny everything," and "Attack, attack, attack!!" whereas Trump will deny everything, admit everything, back track on half and then say, "just kidding!" Over and over again. No strategy--just something people keep letting him get away with.
3
Being an outsider from Canada looking in, I hear allot of whining from both political sides while nothing changes. It's a carnival show, a joke, a prime time reality show, which is politics. In all honesty, if people were really upset, there would be mass protests like currently in Hong Kong. You don't like your president you elected, oh no. Your president is breaking your laws, oh my. It's a constitutional crisis, good god.
Wake up America, you ain't there yet!
6
To borrow a phrase, "From your keyboard to God's eyes".
Most especially this time of year...
1
All things being equal, in an all out alley fight the dirtiest fighter prevails. Those who observe the Marquess of Queensberry rules lose.
Bolsheviks won, Mensheviks lost. Viet Cong prevailed despite massive pounding of US military ordnance. Contempt for rules and ruthless self interest wins in the end. While the rest of the country wrings its hands, the creep in the White House triumphs
3
No simple resolution? Oy veh, as if! With stupidity the main policy dominating the foreign policy & ethics being sidelined , as people see the blood bath in Syria of our Allies the Kurds, there will be only one quick , simple thing to do. IMPEACH & CONVICT. We have a President who bases his foreign policy on what Putin tells him. Trump makes America shameful again! Republican Senators have a choice , can we survive Trump?
2
The bottom line is that Trump is callously and capriciously costing tens of thousands of lives. Everyone who supports him has blood on his hands.
He must be stopped.
5
Before the Ukraine whistleblower, Democrats were saying things like, "We don't want to put the country through the ordeal of impeachment." Imagine Donald Trump and Republicans saying that now. Arguably, it was not the whistleblower but Trump himself who forced an impeachment inquiry by releasing the call notes that confirm what the whistleblower complaint described. Without those call notes, freely provided, the whistleblower's allegations would have been handled by the House Judiciary Committee, in closed session, under regular order as others have been. Trump had no compunction about putting our country through the ordeal of an impeachment inquiry because he always seeks to create chaos and use it to his own advantage. If nothing else, to distract voters from the campaigns of Democratic candidates.
1
The Republicans are running around in a powder magazine with a blow torch when it comes to Trump Stonewalling congress, it is why more than a few GOP Senators would have been willing to find Nixon guilty of malfeasance and throw him out of office.
It is not surprising that the GOP, with its Federalist Society/Literalist reading of the constitution and its Christian fundamentalist base don't get it, but the reason the US functions is because we are a society that generally respects the rule of law. When the poltroon who was the governor of Arkansas refused to admin black kids into schools in Little Rock, Eisenhower sent federal troops to enforce it, and Arkansas backed down. More importantly, as much as people might disagree with court rulings, especially Scotus, if they felt like the court was making decisions based on legal reasoning, people accept it while vowing to change things legally.
What we are on is the cusp of anarchy, and the GOP and its base think they are going to be the winners. They live in a dream world where they are the majority and a Scotus owned by GOP ideology, and it just isn't true. What happens when states start telling Scotus their rulings have no meaning in their courts? What happens when people in non Trump land get fed up, and start retaliating, refusing to recognize the laws of other states? Don't believe me...take a look at countries like Afghanistan and Iraq, take a look at the various conflicts around the world, and you see the consequences
5
Assuming the voters will ultimately decide this issue, the horrifying question becomes this: can we trust the election process?
Given the fundamental undemocratic nature of the electoral college and Trump's obvious inclination to take whatever means necessary to throw the next election, I think not.
3
It’s not who votes that counts, it’s who counts the votes.
4
There's a bottom line to all of this, and it is a simple one. Either we will have a constitutional system under law, something like the Founders intended, or an authoritarian regime wherein law is what is dictated from above, perhaps as in Russia. The choice with respect to impeachment and the upcoming election will be stark. Either we, as a nation, will opt for the former, one supported by all presidential candidates (of both parties) but Trump, or we'll take that historically well-travelled path into totalitarianism. And we know how that goes.
It's intriguing -- and depressing -- to see how many and who of our fellow citizens appear inclined to the latter. Clearly, Trump heads the list, but he's hardly alone.
1
The Justices on the Sureme Court, especially John Roberts, should keep in mind that, if the Court rules in favor of Trump's claim the Executive Branch has the power to determine if the Legislative Branch's impeachment inquiry is legitimate, the Judicial Branch will be next.
Does anyone believe, for evena minute, that Donald J. Trump orchestrated the circumstances in which we, the people, now find ourselves?
2
An official vote would solve Pelosi’s declaration problem. Nixon’s vote of 410 to 4 was a strong message.
1
From information already made public and from comments of alarm from persons privy to still classified information, is there not already sufficient information for the Intelligence Committee to recommend to the entire House a vote to impeach. Someone please explain why the House is constantly needing yet more records and testimonies when Trump is so transparently allied with foreign interests for his own, personal gain. Refusals of subpoenas, barring (pun intended) witnesses from testifying should simply be interpreted as defaults to present exonerating evidence.
Why not close off the evidence gathering now, especially as the White House has nothing more to offer.
they are waiting for a deeper shift in public opinion so the Senate can't dismiss the trial out of hand. they are playing a longer game to win over GOP senators
during the Nixon's impeachment proceeding, there was civility and dignity of all branches of the government. That is lost due to any action by GOP leaders even though their prudency is fundamental to preserve the constitutional integrity. GOP and its leaders do not care. it is irony the position taken by those GOP leaders during Clinton's impeachment contrasts to the position they preach now. All Americans can wake up and start marching to the supreme court for justice or march to the white house to confront to the white for Trump's ouster. I mean each and every American - men, women, children, immigrants, and other residents . We all need to show our power of respecting the rule of law, not lies .
4
Roberts will not go down in history as the Chief Justice who ignored or undermined The Legislature's authority over impeachment.
Luckily, we have a man who is obsessed with his legacy. If his integrity won't force him to reject Trump's arguments (though, as much as I disagree with him about a lot, I think he believes in Congress' right to oversight), his ego would not allow him to be the guy who "rubber-stamped" this presidents illegal and unconstitutional actions.
As calculating (and triangulating) as Roberts can be, it may be he sees himself as the one who can stop this president.
4
What constitutional crisis?
We have a recent example of how this goes.
Eric Holder, Obama's AG, received a Congressional subpoena in the Fast and Furious investigation, and simply ignored it.
The House voted overwhelmingly to hold him in contempt. He ignored it.
It went to court and was finally settled seven years later.
Seven years.
In the meantime, life went on.
The same will happen in this case as well. Perhaps in 2026, there will eventually be a final ruling.
Everyone should just settle down.
4
Wait, did I miss something? Was Eric Holder president?
Trump is asserting it’s for him to decide how the impeachment is to proceed. He decides when it’s legitimate. He decides who will testify and what documents are produced.
If he prevails, we indeed have a unitary executive, not a separation of powers, no check and no balance.
7
I'm against the proposed impeachment procedings -- because the likely scenario is that the House impeaches him, the Senate does not convict, and his claim to be a martyr pursued by who-knows-what conspiracy is stonger. I'd like to wait for the election, where the judges are the electorate and the chances are good that he loses.
But if the impeachment procedure procedes, and he ignores what are clearly valid subpoenas, and the Supremes say he's wrong and he still won't budge, this seems to me to be prima facie strong grounds for impeachment and conviction. Could the Republicans in the senate say otherwise? If so, we are in even deeper doo-doo than I like to contemplate.
Trump is, clearly, not only a terrible President. He is also an abomination among Americans and, indeed, among the human race.
10
What's really sad is that many Democrats, particularly NYTs readers and those who make comments here- operate in a black or white fantasy world. 90% of the articles and 95% of the comments convey the belief that Democrat Politicians are good and honest and Trump ( and anyone who supports him) is bad, corrupt and dishonest. It would be extraordinarily beneficial for the country if this fantasy was abandoned in favor of reality. Politician's want control and power regardless of whether or not they are Democrats or Republicans (with the caveat that minor variances exist).
Republicans know now and knew prior to the 2016 election about Trump's character. In many ways he is not worse than any other politician- he's just significantly less eloquent and less sophisticated. However, Republicans also know that the Democrats care only about voters who are gay, LGBTQ, gender-less or multi-gender, illegal immigrant or belong to a minority. The Democrats walked away from white middle class America long ago. Republicans elected Trump with this knowledge and have not seen a reason to change opinions to date. Aggressive use of the Kavanaugh Character Assassination strategy will not sway this opinion.
6
@DED
So, no white voters benefited from the Affordable Care Act (Obamacare)? No white voters benefit from or care about clean air and water? No white voters are being harmed by Trump's trade war with China that has cut our soybean exports by two thirds? Sure, some Democrat politicians are corrupt and have taken big money donations, but in terms of who is actually trying to help the little guy (white, black, or purple) there is a real difference between the GOP and the Democrats.
the WH is playing "politics" because they do not understand constitutional law. Americans have gasped and hyperventilated , from the beginning of 45s endeavor as, well, 45. this is a slice of trump's unilateral grasp of government, while developing his kingship and apotheosis. the tricky and questionable practices and conduct of now, are underpinned by months of irrational, unreasoning, obstreperous behavior, aided and abetted by McConnell's costive stance to do nothing and the complicity of repubs in Congress. They do not care to lead America or its citizens. While we may not rebel, I imagine, we can, and must, be unrelenting in calling and writing our reps and senators, in federal and state legislatures, so they are aware of our support, and remain committed, to this country and its governance.
"Congress can demand that the president comply, but it can’t very well send its sergeant-at-arms to the White House to enforce its subpoenas."
Why not? Is there anything in the Constitution that prohibits law enforcement officials who don't report to the executive branch from doing their jobs and enforcing the law?
This presumes that the behavior of the House has been correct, and it is just White House defiance that is a problem.
Schiff and Cummings and others had decided on impeachment on Election Night 2016. When they didn't get it from Mueller, they manufactured it with a fake whistleblower submitting a "complaint" revised by Schiff to punch it up before it was submitted, coming from a Democratic insider working on the current campaign of one candidate.
That Trump won't play along with such blatant bad faith is a Constitutional crisis, because the crisis is manufactured by those who want to use it to get him.
It won't work. We already know they can't convict. This behavior just ensures that.
So then what? How will voters react? California will vote for any Democrat, and so will New York, but that didn't elect Hillary last time. How will the rest of the voters react to these games?
We haven't seen that yet. Congress might prevail, in the court of public opinion, but that is not a sure thing.
4
Congress should proceed by making assertions that can only be verified by release of documents or testimony. Keep dropping worst case assertions every few days to control the news cycle. This is called playing the Trump card.
3
I have two words for everybody: Mike Pence. As things stand, Mike Pence's political career can go in the following directions: Trump wins in 2020 and Pence serves four more years as VP; Trump wins in 2020 and dumps Pence as VP; Trump loses in 2020 and Pence is put to pasture. What if (just spitballing here...) Turtle Boy Mitch McConnell and a sufficient number of Senate Rs agree to convict a House-impeached Trump in a deal to make Pence president? After all, they've got a red-rock-solid conservative in Pence, one who served twelve years in the House of Representatives and who isn't an impulsive sociopath like his boss. Unlike Trump, he understands the meaning of compromise, seems to respect the legislative process and might actually be interested in getting some laws enacted. How much easier would it be for the Senate to work with him than Generalissimo Trump, who essentially ignores them? Could this even happen--quietly?
1
@krashstalcup - Pence is just as guilty as Trump and Moscow Mitch knows it.
Why do people think that Trump wouldn’t stonewall the Supreme Court?
Dictators don’t care.
4
Nothing is going to move the needle in the direction of Constitutional checks-and-balances until the House starts arresting people for ignoring their subpoenas. They are setting a horrible precedent by acting so soft right now (Corey Lewandowski, anyone? He should've been led out of that hearing room in cuffs.)
If the Dems don't start standing up for the rule of law RIGHT NOW, we're done.
4
A very simple resolution is actually very available and has been since the day Trump entered the White House:
Make America Great by Making Resignation Great!
Congress, through a bipartisan special committee, makes the art-of-the-deal dealmaker a deal he cannot refuse. Resign, enjoy time with his family and golf courses, and let Pence head a caretaker / repair kit administration until some competent (Dem or Repub) new president can take over in 2021, or be impeached, convicted and then prosecuted in criminal courts for the rest of his life.
2
Since when has Roberts cared about precedent?
A fine legal analysis of where we are. It shows why Nancy Pelosi was wise to hold off on launching an official impeachment inquiry until the tide of public opinion began to shift away from the president. Make no mistake: in cases like these, the Supreme Court acts as a political body, too. Whether the Republican appointees on the Court side with House Democrats seeking to enforce the subpoenas likely will depend on what the polls on impeachment are showing when they cast their votes.
3
The House has only two choices, as I see it. They either show leadership and arrest those flouting the subpoenas using their inherent contempt power, or they continue to seek information from whistleblowers and those willing to testify over the next few months.
In the spring, they can then vote to impeach and refuse to send the articles to the Senate, on the grounds that the institution has been corrupted by trump and is not a reliable arbiter of the law. trump then goes into the election as a disgraced, impeached president. And don't think that doesn't work- see Clinton.
Hopefully, that will be enough to not only get him out, but flip the Senate.
At that point, President Warren or Sanders could add new justices to the Supreme under the justification of GOP theft of one seat and the failed investigation of Kavanaugh, who should immediately come back under investigation with the aim of impeachment.
1
If the Supreme Court let Trump off the hook then either or both of two things have to happen, 1. we all become whistle blowers, I mean march on Washington in large enough numbers that make the Women's March seem like nothing, with marchers all blowing real whistles, and/or 2. the military takes over, which happens in just about all countries when the judicial system is compromised.
3
Even if the Supreme Court ruled in Congress’ favor, I have no doubt that Trump would refuse to obey a Supreme Court decision. The House would then legitimately impeach Trump for refusing a Supreme Court order. But at trial in the Senate, even in those circumstances, it is hard to imagine 20 GOP Senators voting to convict and remove him from office. Trump would have triumphed over all Constitutional constraints, signaling the end of the US as a Constitutional democracy. Autocratic government would follow.
4
Probably makes sense for the House to take that vote and to have all the members go on record. It's the i-dotting and t-crossing that will strengthen their case.
4
Neither the Nixon investigation, nor the Trump investigations represent a constitutional crisies. With the Nixon inquiry the process worked just as the constitution intended. Congress approved an impeachment inquiry, Nixon refused subpoenas, and the supreme court ordered him to comply. He resigned.
The Trump inquiry is different. First of all, congress has not yet approved an impeachment inquiry, so it could be argued, there is no legal reason to comply with it. If the congress did approve the inquiry, which I suspect Democrats are avoiding for political reasons, I am quite sure that, the Supreme court would shortly order Mr. Trump to comply with subpoenas,
What is more difficult, is that there is nothing in the constitution that proscribes a president for asking a foreign country to investigate a possible crime or corruption, even if it was committed by a political opponent, and especially when we have an agreement with that country to help with international legal investigations. The fact that such an investigation is politically motivated has no bearing. There is nothing to prevent a President from withholding aid to that country if they don't cooperate. Finally, there is nothing to prevent a President from investigating a presidential candidate who may have illegal or corrupt ties with a foreign government, particularly when those ties may give the foreign government undue influence over the candidate. Isn't that what the Muller investigation was all about?
1
@chip
There may be nothing that prohibits a President from withholding aid. However, there is the intent of the Constitution which stems from the Emoluments Clause. The President may not obtain items of value from foreign powers for personal gain.
Trump has violated that principle repeatedly in his business dealings. He has extend this now to foreign policy. He is in violation of the core Principles enacted at the founding of the nation. Impeachment inquiry should proceed accordingly.
2
"[The House] can’t very well send its sergeant-at-arms to the White House to enforce its subpoenas."
What? Seriously? This seems like the only thing it can do... and that's precisely what it *should* do. If that leads to violence and bloodshed then so be it. We're not going to talk our way out of the situation this country finds itself in. If this is the spark that ignites a second civil war then sign me up.
4
These republicans in the senate that support this administration and its actions are being so shortsighted. Some people say to me sometimes that the republicans are very smart and patient and they play the long game in order to pack the courts with conservative judges as well as the Supreme Court but I wonder what is the long game here when the presidency is only a two term deal? They do not see or think that when a democrat is elected once again all these things that they are accepting from this guy are. Precedents for any other new president to follow and break norms that had been long established. I am baffled at the lack of courage and character on display. This is not government for the people anymore. Not sure what the next thing will be that they will come up with to continue trampling on everything but Steve Brannon said that this guy will create chaos all over the government and dismantle it to the point of becoming unrecognizable and by then he will have total power. Welcome to the USA dictatorship. Very discouraging.
3
We don't need the judiciary to resolve the crisis necessarily. We need 67 Senators to affirm blanket opposition to the inquiry is obstruction of justice and thereby impeachable.
If Republicans want to force Democrats to go on record voting first, fine. That's a compromise we can handle. However, partisan silence in the Republican Senate is unacceptable.
The courts will likely rule in the House's favor. That doesn't excuse the Senate's willingness to abdicate constitutional power to a specifically Republican President. It's a violation of oath.
We're not in a crisis of just one branch. We're witnessing three simultaneously.
2
If the Supreme Court decided in 1974 that Congressional subpoenas must be recognized by the White House, and that the Constitution must be followed, it would appear to a layman like myself that precedent has been set - and that the current Supreme Court would not even need to hear the case. This should be settled law. Should it not?
4
Prof. Feldman worries about the Supreme Court justices feeling obligated to take sides in the dispute over the impeachment inquiry, should the dispute eventually reach the Court. He worries particularly about the two justices appointed by the very President who is the subject of the inquiry.
I'm less worried. That's what lifetime tenure under Article III of the Constitution is all about: enabling justices (and other Article III federal judges) to make decisions without "fear or favor," particularly without fear of consequences like losing one's job.
Perhaps the conservative justices will side with the President in the end on whether he has to cooperate with the House inquiry. But it won't be out of any feeling of personal obligation or loyalty to the man who appointed them.
1
What happens next is that this issue eventually goes to the Supreme Court which the Republicans have already bought and paid for so the White House will cleanly get away with breaking the law once again.
3
It would seem the Speaker must first hold a vote.
The Constitution provides: "The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
What does "The House of Representatives" mean? "The House of Representatives" cannot mean "their Speaker", because "their Speaker" alone cannot choose "their Speaker" herself. Rather, "The House of Representatives" must mean the plurality of Representatives, i.e., a vote by the Representatives. A House vote is exactly how their Speaker is now chosen.
Because "The House of Representatives" cannot mean "their Speaker", it is unconstitutional for "their Speaker" alone to exercise the sole Power of Impeachment. Rather, a House vote is required.
One might argue that an "impeachment inquiry" is not an impeachment. But wouldn't an "impeachment inquiry" be part of an impeachment? In other words, an impeachment must encompass an "impeachment inquiry", and an "impeachment inquiry" must be subjugated to an impeachment. So the Constitution provision above must also control an "impeachment inquiry".
Why wouldn't the Speaker just do it right and first hold a vote?
1
"The trouble is, there would be almost no way for the Supreme Court to resolve the current crisis without seeming as though it was taking a side in a political fight."
I totally disagree. The Nixon tapes decision was unanimous. Trump's arguments are so weak that any Supreme Court decision should be unanimous as well.
Any lack of unanimity would be evidence of extreme partisanship of the dissenting justice(s).
6
If the President is willing to defy Congress, what makes us think he won't also defy the Courts no matter what they rule? The flaw with all Presidential systems is that the only branch of government that has material power is the executive. The President controls the military, the prosecutors, and all the administrative and regulatory agencies. If he wants to push his power, he's a king. Trump may not be smart, but he knows how to exert power over others, and to a would-be dictator sociopathy is a far more valuable asset than intellect.
4
This is what SHOULD happen. All the Republicans in Congress need to band together and force Donald Trump to resign. Get him out of there before there is no longer any law and order in this country. What are the Republicans' constituents going to do if they form a united front? Most of those voters would again vote for Republicans. So what are they so afraid of? It seems to me that a country without laws is really something to fear. And that is where this president is very quickly taking us.
4
Or the House can simply hold the vote on the floor and end the crisis in 30 minutes.
3
@European in NY How would that end it? Trump would still refuse to comply. The demand to hold the vote has nothing to do with the impeachment inquiry, as a vote is not required. Trump thinks that some Democrats won't want to vote because they could lose in the next election.
2
Excellent article, thanks for laying out the legal situation. I hope I'm wrong but I see zero chance of this making it through to the Supreme Court and actually get enforced before Nov 2020 rolls around. And one more Trump term will mean at least one more lackey in the Supreme Court, just locking in this hotbed of nepotism and corruption. Depressing to see democracy die before our very eyes..
1
Clearly, Congress needs a jail to hold the all the criminals that infest the Trump administration. I have a modest suggestion. The facility at Guantanamo would be perfect. And if it became too expensive to maintain security there, we could withdraw the marines and turn the malefactors over to the tender mercies of the Cuban people.
President Trump came to office totally ignorant of the Constitution and all its meaning and weight. He hasn't made a bit of progress.
He just doesn't get it. I fear he never will.
1
"Congress ... can’t very well send its sergeant-at-arms to the White House to enforce its subpoenas."
Really? I'd like to see that.
2
Agree. I wish the author would have provided more insight into why he states this. I don’t understand why that can’t happen.
1
The salient point in this situation is that every single American now must make a decision, and there are only two choices. You either stand with the rule of law or you stand with Trump and the GOP. Every citizen of this country must choose a side because lawyers, judges, and politicians can no longer save this country. Good journalism and an engaged citizenry will go a long way towards keeping the United States from slipping into a fascist oligarchy run by liars and billionaires. Every US citizen who will be of voting age in 2020 has a civic responsibility to watch Trump's impeachment proceeding unfold.
1147
@P. McGee
It will be interesting to see if Trump's abandonment of our Kurdish allies to slaughter by the Turks affects his support within the Republican party. It's not an impeachable offense, of course, but it's been condemned by Republican leaders and it seems likely that it will reduce his approval rating among Republicans who are not in his base. Trump needs them to stay unified in his defense, and throwing our Kurdish allies under the bus is having the opposite effect.
48
@P. McGee
I'm with you in spirit, but my vote would be for something more like hanging "Rule of Law!" signs in windows and on cars more than to have everyone watch impeachment proceedings. Or some better, flashier, catchier idea... We need a social demonstration of our commitment to the Constitution. I thoroughly agree with you about citizens and the press being vital to preventing the complete hijacking or our nation by the plutocrats.
35
@P. McGee If the SC rules that the President can rule by edict and is above the law then can't he suspend Congress, the Constitution, and the election itself? What would ever restrain Trump, Barr, and the entire GOP from doing so?
36
It is time for this guy to go. Seriously. How much more of a banana republic do we want to be? How soon before Trump starts talking of ordering the military to surround the Capitol Building? He's clearly out of his league here. The Supreme Court could not possibly side with the president on this issue. If it did, forget it, our democracy is over. We might as well start saying "King Don" already.
5
I wonder if Pelosi anticipated that Trump would blockade rather than cooperate. She probably figured out that he would delay right to election day 2020 -- a day when the US would kick him out of office, all the more probably because they are so sick of him.
Before the committee issued subpoenas, Pelosi made a great show of saying that they wanted to get through the proceeding as quickly as possible.
If she'd anticipated Trump's natural tendencies to block and delay--which were very clear from his past actions--then she would know that he would delay.
That means HE would be responsible for dragging out this impeachment right up to election day 2020.
1
A person under investigation cannot dictate the rules & terms of the investigation.
Heard this on FOX News this morning. They were commenting on trump's letter & totally against what he has written. Thank the Great Spirit that someone on FOX will speak out against trump. Maybe they will totally turn on him as this gains momentum.
3
To the GOP - Are you saying that a president requesting foreign interference by looking for dirt on a political opponent to use in the next election is not committing an impeachable offense? Then just what is your red line for presidential wrong doing that would meet your criterion for a high crime or misdemeanor. I still have confidence that you are men and women of principle and will eventually recognize what damage this president is doing to the basic decency and fabric of this country and that you will act accordingly. Do not let the people and our Constitution be trampled.
1
Should this go to the Supreme Court -- and it very well may -- then history demands a resounding 9-0 opinion ordering the President to comply. Anything less will forever cast the dissenters on a par with Dred Scott.
6
I do not share your optimism that Roberts would stand up for constitutional precedent.
3
Congress "can't very well send its sergeant-at-arms to the White House," it's asserted here. Why not? Trump claims that Dems are trying to negate the 2016 election, but he needs to be reminded that we had an election in 2018 that sent a new Congress precisely to exercise some Congressional muscle, as far as the legislative branch's oversight duties are concerned. We elected Congress to keep the execitive branch in check and to prevent it from running wild, as it has been wont to do in recent years. It is time for Congress to assert itself as an equal branch of government.
4
A big part of the problem was the decision by the 5 right wingers on the Supreme Court allowing Trump to disregard Congressional spending decisions so that Trump could spend money on his border wall. Trump believes the Senate will protect him from impeachment, and the Court will protect him from any penalty for obstructing investigations of him.
4
There are several remedies well short of giving in to doom or rioting in the streets.
1) Fight it out and hope the Supreme Court sides with separation of powers (75% likely).
2) Hope for a large enough groundswell of public support against Trump based on his ongoing actions that it enables the Senate to convict without fear of voter backlash (25% likely).
3) Vote him out of office in 2020 (75% likely).
If none of those things work, then we as a country have gotten exactly what we deserve and will have to wait until 2024 and try again. We've met the enemy, and it's us.
6
It would be refreshing to see some legal analysis about the law(s) supposedly violated by Trump calling on Ukraine and China to investigate the obvious suspicion of corruption involved in Hunter Biden cashing in millions in Ukraine and $1.5 billion from China. The only provision in US criminal law that the Democrats and the mainstream media have accused Trump of possibly violating is 52 USC 30121(a), which prohibits a foreign national from contributing "anything else of value" to a presidential campaign based on the argument that getting information on a potential opposing candidate (Biden has not yet been nominated by his party) constitutes receiving and soliciting any "other thing of value". The Democrats and the mainstream media interpret "other thing of value" to mean information and anything else imaginable.
This broad interpretation of is wrong: First, §30121 would be "unconstitutionally vague" under a broad interpretation. Second, the context of the norm involves providing financial support. Third, interpreting 52 USC 30121(a) to prevent getting information from foreign nationals would constitute a violation of the First Amendment. (freedom of speech and freedom of the press). Finally, Federal Election Commission shows that there is a lot of room for foreigner nationals to be involved in our elections, so long as the foreign nationals do not make direct or indirect financial contributions.
1
Great analysis. I think what needs to happen in the short term is that people in the administration who are repelled by the state of affairs need to resign and come forward with their concerns. The more the horrors of the administration are made visible the harder it will be for Republicans to shield the president. I can only imagine what the quid pro quo is with Turkey, not to mention with Russia. Trump acts like a Russian agent. Anybody in the administration who can shed light on that?
5
We need to rewrite the Constitution as all its flaws have been exposed and the document no longer protects our democracy. Of course, we can't do that during the present crisis—and probably can't do it anytime soon. It is too difficult to change and the current partisan environment makes it impossible to change safely.
But we have to stop kidding ourselves. We have lost our democracy. America has an elected king, and even if Trump backs down and doesn't continue to push his monarchial powers, future Presidents have been shown the way. The President is for all intents and purposes an elected autocrat—and he may at some point do away with the inconvenience of elections too.
The only defence against autocracy is to do what our Founders did: "Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security."
We may be at that point. When the Constitution fails to protect our liberty, we must take matters into our own hands. The ultimate way to impeach a dictator is to rebel.
4
Don't count on the five so-called "conservative" justices up-holding the Constitution. They do what the Republican National Committee wants them to do. A political question? Its an easy cop-out for any dispute. Congress can pass a law making "x" religion the national religion or allowing the Government to take someone's property without payment of just compensation and the Supreme Court can say the issue is political
1
I’m confident Justice Neil Gorsuch would recognize Congress’s right to enforce reasonable subpoenas against the Presidency.
In an easily googleable BookTV.com video of Gorsuch promoting his new book "A Republic If You Can Keep It", Gorsuch repeatedly stressed the importance of the U.S. Constitution's allocation of separate powers to the three different branches of our national government.
Trump's current position is that his presidency has the right to deny any documents, administration personnel, and recounting of his communications and behaviors that he chooses to the legislative branch's impeachment investigation. This is in obvious contradiction to the separation of powers Gorsuch has claimed are essential to the maintenance of our republic, as it would make Trump's presidency immune from the investigation necessary for the honest, effective impeachment process that is clearly intended in the U.S. Constitutions.
1
Let's say the Supreme Court reverses the Nixon ruling and states that a President cannot be investigated and or charged with a crime while in office and in effect rules that if a President does it, it must be legal. Then let's say we're a couple of years down the road and we learn from a whistle blower that migrants who have been rounded up and herded into privately run detention centers are being exterminated. Would this ruling mean that since the President ordered it, it would be legal and that there could be no redress of grievances against our President? Wonder if the President suspends Congress or the election in violation of the Constitution, would such a ruling mean that since he is above the law he has the right to do so? I'm not a lawyer but I do understand principle and have read Article 1 of the Constitution. I fear that the biggest danger that lies before us would be such a ruling from an extremist partisan faction of the Supreme Court. I also fear that such a faction has been accumulating through the appointments of every Republican President going back to Reagan.
3
The US has a majority of justices sitting on the Supreme Court who cannot be relied upon to uphold precedent of an 8–0 against a sitting President, text of law, nor the words written into the Constitution.
And they call themselves “originalists.” Breathtaking in its irony.
Thomas Jefferson believed the new nation wouldn’t last 200 years. The US was on borrowed time, and it seems to be up. Hard to watch for this Truman baby.
2
Trump has got to go and he probably won't go peacefully. We are at a turning point and each of us needs to make a choice whether we are loyal to the Constitution or to our new king.
2
I believe Trump's goal is to go to the SCOTUS, where Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are beholding to him. Add in Thomas, who is beholding to the Republican Party, and Roberts, a not-so-secret partisan, and Alito, and the fix is in just like it was in 2000 with Bush v. Gore.
That's the point: Make it look like it's fair when it's not.
2
I always thought that the dystopian future movie V FOR VENDETTA (2005) was highly fanciful when it made reference to the ongoing "US Civil War." I no longer see that as so fanciful since in Donald Trump we now may have our own Jefferson Davis.
1
Add me to the list of people asking "Who will enforce? Sgt-at-Arms?"
Does the Congressional security force does not extend past Congressional premises?
They can call the hearings, but no one will show up. Do the few dozen Congressional security officers fan out across town or further to arrest people? Who would back them up?
I suppose the Supreme Court can answer this. Given its current composition, I expect Congress is about to lose its oversight power, in the way Florida lost its right to count its own votes in 2000. The decision would be "one time" intercession full of language about not setting a precedent, etc., but the damage to our system was complete then and will be validated again. The 2000 activist Supreme Court sliced a wound that will always be ready for reopening by sympathetic majority.
From that point on, all limits on Presidential compliance will be off. Expect a string of dear leaders wearing epaulets and gold braid with military parades in place of our quaint inaugurations.
@Stuart the US Marshalls would be responsible for serving any subpoena off the Congressional premises. The Secret Service could be used to shield President Cheeto, but even Bill Clinton considered this tactic and realized it wouldn't work.
I agree completely. Congress should: (1) vote to begin the official impeachment inquiry; (2) issue subpoenas; (3) when those are ignored go immediately into federal court and get an order enforcing them. Given the 1974 unanimous opinion -- written by a Chief Justice who had been appointed by Nixon -- it is hard to imagine that the Supreme Court would ignore precedent. Ultimately, the question is whether the president is above the law. In 1974 the Court answered this question in the negative and it is hard to believe that the Court would be so political that it would alter that answer.
1
I believe Trump's goal is to go to the SCOTUS, where Gorsuch and Kavanaugh are beholding to him. Add in Thomas, who is beholding to the Republican Party, and Roberts, a not-so-secret partisan, and Alito, and the fix is in just like it was in 2000 with Bush v. Gore.
That's the point: Make it look like it's fair when it's not.
2
He will refuse to leave, under any circumstances. The time to march? OVERDUE. This is not a sudden development; it's been coming for years.
4
The crisis is a political one. It is that the Senate will not convict Trump on ANY article of impeachment, no matter what. Thus, the details of who co-operates with whom is all smoke and mirrors. However, there is and will be considerable damage to the rule of law caused by specious arguments like the idea of an "unconstitutional impeachment" and possible Supreme Court rulings siding with an Imperial Presidency.
2
Thanks for the histrionics but no, Noah, no it is a "Constitutional crisis", it is a list of well-known rules. Congress can have inquires and subpoena all it wants, the Executive can assert a defense and refuse comply, the Courts decide whether a to compel a response or not. Just like any other litigation.
2
@GSBoy, except for the fact that impeaching the president is completely different from "any other litigation".
@GSBoy
This isn't "litigation"; it's an impeachment query.
Mr. Feldman is a law professor. I'm going trust his judgement over that of someone who apparently doesn't understand what's going on.
4
"Given the extreme weakness of Mr. Trump’s arguments, it’s probable that the lower federal courts would side with the House. Going to the Supreme Court, however, is always a bit of a gamble." Isn't that sad that we have to worry about the so-called "rule of law" conservatives on the SC to actually follow the Constitutional law?
5
If the Supreme Court orders cooperation and individuals in the administration continue to refuse, they could be jailed. If Trump is then impeached and the Senate refuses to remove him in spite of defiance of the Court, the only recourse is the ballot box. There is hope in that, but keep in mind that even among NY Times readers, some believe, for instance, that there was nothing wrong about the Ukraine phone call.
We are as good as we choose to be. In the end, Trump supporters will get what they deserve: reckless trade wars, wasted resources and loss in our credibility as a legitimate partner in the world. Too bad they are dragging the rest us there with them.
1
I don't see why the House cannot send its sergeant-at-arms to the White House to enforce its subpoenas. The drama of Donald Trump refusing to accept them would make for great television. It also just might make the Republicans wake up to the evil that lives at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
2
A word salad that ignores the obvious - the House should vote to start a formal impeachment process. Until that happens, the courts are unlikely to overturn executive privilege. This whole essay can be replaced by that simple statement.
There is a simple way to proceed: allow full bipartisan participation in the hearings and allow the president and all witnesses full due process. Impasse solved.
But Schiff won’t do that.
@Stephen Gianelli
No, that is exactly what Schiff *IS* doing. All Republican members of the Judiciary Committee have the same right as Democratic members to participate in hearings.
4
It would be a true crisis if the conservative Supreme court sided with trump. I’m not sure it’s trumps job to cooperate with the people trying to prosecute him. This is why we have independent branches of government. The problem will be if the Supreme Court justices fail to be independent or if trump ignores a court order.
1
The major difference between Trump and Nixon, as stated correctly here( and as this gray haired dude vividly remembers it) is that Nixon refused a subpoena from Archibald Cox, the special prosecutor ( after other indictments and after Nixon was named as an "unindicted co-conspirator"). The Supreme Court ruled that the President could not refuse the subpoena, not that he could not be indicted.
The house inquiry was ongoing, but it was the prosecutor's subpoena that the court ruled on.
Nevertheless, I find it hard to believe that even a Republican Justice would agree that the President can dictate the terms of an impeachment inquiry. If this stood no President would ever be removed from office. The House functions as a grand jury, and does not "convict". That is the job of the Senate.
4
@FCP Very important points. I am not absolutely confident that Supremes Roberts, Gorsich, etc. will act in accordance with your final paragraph, but I am optimistic because in their own ways at least eight of them believe in the rule of law. Possibly not Kavanaugh.
4
Whatever the Supreme Court decided and ordered, Trump might simply ignore them. Heretofore, we have been living a slow-moving coup. It's possible that the coup is now picking up speed.
1
"First, the Constitution doesn’t indicate what is supposed to happen if the House tries to exercise its constitutional power of oversight to investigate the president and the president flatly rejects the House’s constitutional authority."
In other words, the men of honor and character who created the Constitution could not imagine a person so lacking in honor and character as Donald Trump could ever come to be President of the United States.
9
Exactly. The GOP didn’t have to nominate an obvious con man. It’s on them. I imagine the framers thought decent leaders would protect the populace from snake oil salespeople.
3
If the crisis is to be resolved by the Supreme Court, one of the issues it would have to decide is what it takes to legitimize an impeachment inquiry. Here, the principle witness is anonymous. The victim is beyond reach and is the most politically corrupt country in Europe. So the question is whether a viable case is necessary or whether Congress can go forward based on pumped up evidence that convinces only those unconcerned with real evidence. Of course, Congress has a long history of specious and mean-spirited investigations, including Joe McCarthy's and Benghazi. So an impeachment investigation that lacks testimony from the principal witness and the only victim probably passes muster.
@michjas
"one of the issues it would have to decide is what it takes to legitimize an impeachment inquiry."
No, it not only doesn't need to address that issue, it, quite arguably, can't. The Constitution gives the sole authority to impeach to the House of Representatives in Article I, Section 2. The Court's jurisdiction simply doesn't extend to a political question of that sort where the Constitution unquestionably grants the authority to another branch of the federal government.
2
@michjas No need...the official transcript released by the White House of the "perfect" phone call is all the evidence that is needed. A quid pro quo is irrelevant.
1
I always get a kick out of it when politically-motivated folks who know nothing about the law explain fine legal ponts off the tops of their heads, blindly insisting that the law supports their views because, because, because, well it has to.
@Robert:
I can only assume you are a renowned Constitutional scholar. An impeachable offense is whatever the House decides it is Period!
Impeachment is bringing the prima facie case to the Senate for trial. As for the trial, well that depends in part on the polls. Make no mistake, if Republican Senators start seeing that staying with Trump is going to cost them more than voting to convict then they’ll rush to that side so quick they’d beat Usain Bolt! The latest couple of polls show 1in 6 Republicans for kicking Trump out. If that gets to 1 in 4 with Democrats totally united and a majority of Independents supporting conviction Mrs Pence might start measuring the carpets.
BTW: maybe you don’t remember but I do that Republicans thought lies about sex were good enough to Convict Bubba. And I count 5 laws broken in this incident already ( excluding non-compliance with legal subpoenas) importantly soliciting campaign help from a foreign government help. I must confess while I am an attorney I’ve done no criminal law work, but these are so clear for this Constitutional non-expert !
BTW#2: look back a couple of weeks and pundits were saying this could cost the Dems.
3
After exiting the 1787 Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin when asked on the street what kind of government did you give us, told the petitioner "a republic, if you can keep it". Today, two hundred thirty two years later we may be witnessing the loss.
4
Check out what Lindsey Graham said at the time of the Nixon impeachment. Can hypocrisy rise (or sink) to the level of being its own constitutional crisis? Did Lindsey Graham take an oath to defend the Constitution? How can he possibly be keeping his word in (a) excoriating Nixon for failing to comply with a House request and (b) supporting Trump in failing to comply with a House request? One of those must be a breach of his oath. I wonder which one. . . .Not. He has sold his soul just like the rest of them.
3
It seems pretty simple to me. There is already a factual inquiry into Impeachment and hard evidence of the crimes is already in the possession of the House Investigative Committee.
First, the Ukraine call transcript does, in fact, document that the President committed a crime. According to the FEC Chair, Weintraub: "When a foreign national is the source... such contributions are nevertheless banned.”
Second, we have the whistle-blower report, parts of which have already been corroborated. Presumably we have this person's testimony as well as that of the 2nd whistle-blower's.
Third, we have the text messages clearly establishing a Quid Pro Quo understanding among the diplomats working with Ukraine.
Fourth, we now have a convenient letter from the White House stating in no uncertain terms that the President will Obstruct Justice, which is, of course, a crime all by itself.
Finally, the House sergeant-at-arms may not be able to go jail the President directly, but they can sure go get the underlings, including the White House Counsel who issued the letter, William Barr, (already in contempt of Congress), and Secretary Mnuchin, who have all illegally blocked lawful subpoenas.
Trump's team is obstructing justice at a level exceeding anything the nation has ever seen. Time to play hardball. Imprison the law-breakers and Impeach the President. That's something that's very clearly not a part of the President's calculations.
6
We are missing an alarming subtext: Trump is lockstep with Putin’s systematic plan to destabilize the U.S. and Europe. The Federalists’ greed has dug a very deep pit indeed. Let us pray they all fall in together, and none too soon.
5
I remember the Clinton impeachment. Democrats made the "tortured" decision to condemn Bill for lying about Lewinsky but stopped short of admitting it was an impeachable offense. Bush used that scandal to taint Al Gore for being part of the tawdry Clinton past, hurting him on election day.
Republican will not acknowledge the act of asking a "favor" from a foreign government is wrong. They are betting the farm Trump's resilience will persevere and I for one would not bet against them. We are all now immune to "Trump outrage" - even the tweets are now just laughter more than outrage. If your drive by a wreck enough times sooner or later you stop seeing bodies.
Republicans have programmed us into indifference. We did nothing when they created an alternative constitution theory to block Merrick Garland. We ignored the insinuations Obama was a Kenyan. We were indifferent when the tea party blamed minorities, the poor and homeless for the 2008 crisis. Scapegoating immigrants is now blasé.
Republicans have developed a keen sense of political impunity because we will not hold them accountable. I remember several progressives voting for Jill Stein rather than accept the "corruption" of elitist Hillary. Well here are the just deserts - Trump is not as bad as you thought, HE IS REMARKABLY WORSE, but you made your point - Happy!
4
The president does not believe in the separation of powers. Not for our boy from Queens, the stable genius, the outlaw in residence. Who can imagine the depths Trump goes to in order to defy all that he feels is not his to obey. Absurd. "...it also would effectively put the president in ultimate control of the impeachment process." The blatant exercise of blunt power can not hold. The word "rogue" does not begin to describe Trump. Time's up.
1
Obviously the next step that makes sense for everyone is for Trump to resign.
5
@Edward Allen I apologize if this was meant to be sarcasm, but you can't be serious. Trump has a complicit GOP, packed courts thanks to a complicit Senate, a rigged Supreme Court thanks to a complicit Senate, millions of racist supporters, the full support of US Christians, and absolutely no shame or morality. He will not resign.
3
The truth is, that without the good faith actions of government and law enforcement, the constitution is nothing but words on a piece of paper.
6