Ethical lawyers in Washington DC and Cipollone's home state should immediately bring proceedings to have him disbarred. There is no way a competent lawyer could write that letter in good faith. Every lawyer is an officer of the Court and no lawyer has the freedom to deliberately misrepresent the law in the process of representing any client. Cipollone is not a fit and proper person to practice law.
29
Trump is burning the bridge over the moat. By implicating Pence and Pompeo directly as part of a chain of quid pro quo, he is foreclosing his "resign and get pardoned option," in exchange for "all or nothing. Another stupid bluff double down holding the 2 of Hearts. Trump will lose and wind up in prison. GOOD!
20
Sen. Lindsey Graham in 1999: “A president doesn’t even have to be convicted of a crime to be impeached. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office”
the video available at https://heavy.com/news/2019/09/lindsey-graham-twitter-impeachment/ . among others is a beautiful thing, a perfect conversation.
22
White House: "... congressional Democrats plainly seek to '... influence the election of 2020' " As plainly as asking Ukraine to dig up dirt on your likely 2020 opponent?
12
I'm proposing a new rule: if you remained silent and didn't call for the impeachment of George W. Bush or Barack Obama for war crimes, including torture, and are now calling for the impeachment of Trump for some form -of yet unidentified - quid pro quo, you need to shut up and sit down. You've lost any credibility you might have once had.
Spare me your crocodile tears. It just makes you look even worse than before, as hard as that might seem.
Trump, obviously for the wrong reasons , is correct to call out the utter hypocrisy of Democrats. Where were you with impeachment when Bush Junior lied us into the Iraq war? When he tortured people? Where were you when Obama, "We tortured some folks", decided not to persecute the sadist torturers, or when he decided to assassinate American citizens without due process, or when he put into motion the genocide in Yemen ?
This impeachment inquiry is embarrassing considering what has happened during the last two presidencies.
But ... Trump! But ... Putin!
You are doing more harm to America than Trump.
Your message to the world is that we'll impeach you for consensual fallatio and trying to look into corruption at the highest level of government, but if you just stay with war crimes and the illegal overthrow of elected governments, we'll have your back no matter what.
Is that what you’re going to run on in 2020?
Good luck with that-
3
Time to arrest him right out of the White House
8
It needs to stop. Democrats are still butt about losing the election. That is the plain truth. If he wants to investigate something illegal that Biden has done then he has the authority to do so. It might be digging up dirt on his opponent but we as Americans have a right to know if we might be electing a crook into office. I love that the dems and media is against him. it shows he i willing to make a difference and not there to please them.
4
So, once more the brave ,vanguard-ish NYTimes "board" are all for "action now!", let the crumbs fall where they may. Of course, no Times board sitter, has to be elected or re-elected. Their positions,(flat on their backsides), are safe as a mouse in it's house-, or a bug in a rug.No Times writer or member of a board, making suggestions as to what political operatives must decide to do-what positions they ought to take, and then face possible voter resentment. None of the NYTimes people will ever face the second thoughts of angry voters who remember too well the distropus efforts against poor old Bill CLinton, for hanging out and messing around with the extremely sexually aggressive Monica Lewinski. Some may recall(as I do) the Nixon smashup that was rammed through because Dems had so much vote power in both Senate and congress.
But Times have changed and everf ewer Americans understand or want to think about how our government works. It would have been far easier-considering the koo-koo behavior of Trump, now, to go the way of the 25th Amendment-slowly and quietly getting a hesitant GOP to see the benefits of ridding itself of this monkey on their back ,which is stealing their food and messing up the opportunities of GOP candidates to make appearances on TV to explain how they are not the monsters foreign powers we are abandoning think we are.
Please: NYT editorialists-please! shut the eff up!
Isn't one foot in your mouth enough for you?
Reading Cipollone’s ridiculous, frivolous letter, I thought that if this is the legal acumen he intends to bring to bear in Trump’s defense, Trump is in deep trouble. I also thought, My god, they don’t even try to make their frauds plausible anymore.
15
Why can't the Democrats purchase an hour of TV and "Town Hall" a national civics lesson? Educate the American people why this is such a dangerous place for us to be right now !!
Instead we get Schiff and Pelosi who stumble and fumble around looking like the Keystone Cops!
4
This is all typical Trump, a bully, con man and criminal throughout his long career.
Stiff and cheat your business partners, lenders, business partners and workers. When the bill comes due, threaten, lie and sue.
He knows the substance of this whole thing is terrible for him - impeachable at the least, and likely criminal - and more malfeasance continues to come out every day. So he will continue to attack the investigators and try mightily to distract the rest of us.
The real villains here are the Republicans in Congress and on the Supreme Court, who seem determined to ride all the way down with this guy and take our democracy with them. It is simply shameful.
14
I’m just so dismayed at the huge group of people supporting this maniac. Will this ever end and what then for the USA.
12
How will Schiff respond?
This is exactly what he wanted, the most he could have hoped for from Trump.
Trump's move it foolish. It is however a move against an abuse of the impeachment process by rabid partisans lined up behind Schiff.
1
March into the White House and arrest them all. Would anybody else be permitted to behave like this, undermining democracy further and further? It's incomprehensible.
8
Good piece in BBC news - Trumps arguments in letter just shoot himself in the foot - he can't just not 'play ball' as an argument - he gives no cogent reason for not co-operating other than he doesn't like the other side..
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49990160
7
Issues are moving at lightening's speed these days.
This article was rendered "obsolete" in view of Peter Schwitzer's article.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/09/opinion/what-hunter-biden-did-was-legal-and-thats-the-problem.html?action=click&module=Opinion&pgtype=Homepage
Ask yourselves, all: How did this "crisis" begin?
What have the House Dems ever held our President hostage (and his electorate that's growing hourly) for that ever passed for anything other than hyped up-opinionated rants? You didn't get him on anything Mueller (and, no, re-reading it a thousand times won't change that fact) and you can't get him on a phone call whose partisan leakers have ties to one of his opponents and the opposing political party - especially since not Volker or ever the President of the Ukraine have made Schiff's lies truthful.
Why does the fact that our President refuses to cave to political hacks seem to make so many believe it either implies guilt (for what?) or warrants additional actions for the silly impeachment inquisition to proceed?
Aren't you feeling even a little foolish yet for having been duped and spoon fed all this garbage by your captive media so you can simply regurgitate it here daily? All the likes and bluster and bother in the world cannot change reality.
3
Trump is an idiot but he has every right to challenge Congressional powers in court where they are not clearly spelled out, or where other laws or right may be applied.
Folks keep saying "constitutional crisis" but we have no such thing. Congress has investigational powers, but they are not unfettered. Trump has executive privilege rights and other rights, but they are not unfettered. And the arbiters of those questions are clearly the courts. So, while folks may not like the pace, things are happening just as our system is planned to work: three branches checking and balancing one another.
2
Trump believes he owns the United States and he's dealing with a board of directors that want him gone. But this Board owns all the stock but the CEO in Chief doesn't realize it. Time to oust the bum.
5
"When streams of unkindness, as bitter as gall,
Bubble up from the heart to the tongue"...
. Shakespeare
Godless democrats and their meaningless lives....getting all worked up with their useless opposition. They have the steering of a carnival kiddy ride. MAGA marches on! Republicans are known superior and more highly developed to every other in the cosmos. Republicans don't need others in the circle and they don't need others speaking unimportantly because Trump is speaking importantly.
Democratic barking cannot stop the centripetal force of cultism. Our pledge allegiance is to Donald J TRUMP. With super powers from abroad, Donald Trump is the central object and key to our future happiness! Rest assured fellow Americans! The values held forth at Club Mar a Lago will never give in to adult human ethics. For Honorary Club members , Jeffrey, Brett, Paul, and Mitch we pledge to maintain our sacred adolescent values . Oh, ye of little faith, traffic in a Republican future utopia.. Curl up in your easy chairs and turn to Fox news - Trump is soon to announce that he is God incarnate.
2
Enough with the limited scope in the march towards Impeachment. We need the greatest counter puncher and the knockout punch of doom to take down Trump the Republicans.
The Republicans have no shame or moral compass. McConnell covering for the Saudis? Trump grabbing them by their body parts. Children in cages or taken from their mothers arms, never to be seen again.
These people are ruthless and don't care about anything fair, just or compassionate. They are cold blooded sociopaths.
They must be stopped NOW!
10
Why hasn’t anyone been arrested? Congress has the power to take anyone into custody who ignores a subpoena. Time to start. That’s the only move the gangster in the White House will recognize.
5
What does Pat Cipollone do with the rest of his time? I am think Florida condo sales.
6
You can talk till you are blue in the face, impeachment is about reversing the 2016 election and positioning Democrats for the 2020 election.
6
Many thanks to the professionals who share their expertise in the comment section. I realize this puts a target on them for nasty emails and such so keeping the comment section open on technical analysis of the Impeachment inquiry currently going on in the House is valuable.
I share the frustration of many who comment and those who simply go elsewhere for information, that the NYT does not seem to get the "tone" correct on the Impeachment of the current president. In nearly all cases, it seems to be that this is not a "two equal sides to be objectively presented" issue. Donald Trump and his apologists are just wrong in so many talking points they present. Either the law is incorrectly presented (a consensus of commenters usually agrees) or the motives of the participants are given too much attention by Trump and faithfully reproduced by NYT.
I so miss one or two of the Public Editors at a time such as this. Perhaps the NYT will bring one back as an "acting" Public Editor.
3
Trumps letter shoots himself in foot - he put into writing that they have no reason to object to inquiry, other than they don't like the other guys..this has no legal basis.. The scary thing is, like with most things, once we find out how bad this administration has REALLY been it will be much worse than we know now.
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-49990160
2
It's time to blow the whistle on Trump. Everywhere Trump or his Senator enablers appear, Americans should pull out there police, dog or referee whistles and BLOW!!! IT'S TIME TO BLOW THE WHISTLE ON TRUMP UNTIL HE'S PUT WHERE HE BELONGS. OUT OF OFFICE AND IN JAIL. LIVE BY THE TWEET - DEFEAT BY THE TWEET!!
6
Time to stand up, & call out flagrant obstruction, & in your face criminality. Censure immediately. Investigate thoroughly, and impeach repeatedly.
7
Will Mrs Pence prove to be the Trump&Co administration's Martha Mitchell? Some people are saying...
Am I the only one who watches all of this in disbelievement?
The brazen rantings of a psychopath, a doctor strangelove, (https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/almost-everything-in-dr-strangelove-was-true), a no holds barred nut case who uses his powers ( and beyond) to destroy the world.
That has now become the norm for the US government run by the enforcers and sycophants of Trump ?
What to do when these people control the DOJ, Supreme Court, refuse to enforce any laws that might disadvantage them?
Well, Congress can halt funding for whatever they want. I am sure they can be creative in this.
How about turning off the heat for the WH especially when it gets cold?
Refusing to fund the Secret Service protecting the all knowing Oz?
Best is to throw the bums out in 2020 and set up a war crimes tribunal for their complicity in murdering Kurds, harming immigrants, etc.
Start fighting fire with fire.
Why should Trump and his lackeys be the only ones to have fun?
6
Send the Sergeant at Arms with a couple of Capitol cops over to Foggy Bottom and have them drag the witnesses, kicking and screaming, up to the Hill to testify. It would solve the problem and it would be great television.
99
The Impeachment process has been made a political tool by politicians. Our Founders did not intend for it to be. Impeachment is a remedy and part of the System of Checks and Balances.
Founders made it clear those who betray public trust are not fit to serve.
I am not unrealistic. As a young adult during Watergate, I witnessed the cowardice, the hypocrisy of members of Congress who put Party over country blindly supporting President Nixon. Dismissing facts and evidence, using what I viewed as Soviet-style propaganda and misinformation tactics to distort public perceptions, Republicans in Congress were betraying their Oaths of Office to permit tyrannical corruption of our democratic processes and institutions. I was totally disgusted with both political parties going in to Watergate and came out of it distrusting Republicans more because of their really bad acting and subversion of the Founding principles
Today’s Republicans seem even worse perhaps perfecting those Soviet-style tactics. The bottom line is their rejection of their Oaths of Office, abusing the public trust, their refusal to put country and Constitution first.
Our Founders gave Americans and the world an alternative to millennia of tyranny. The same two alternatives exist today. Forget the politics. If our government does not live up to Founding principles we succumb to tyranny. This is the bottom, bottom line.
"The Democrats’ next steps must reflect a fundamental truth about impeachment laid bare by the White House’s letter: Impeachment is a political process, not just a procedural fight."
No. That falls short. Impeachment is an authorization, within prescribed bounds, to let the House of Representatives borrow the unchecked sovereign power of the People. Given Trump's malign audacity, the nation cannot escape this crisis with anything less than that power's full exercise.
What the nation now confronts is the most extreme crisis since the Civil War. It is an existential crisis for the American system of government.The People must win a brutal battle for power, which President Trump has just announced he will fight without constraint, and without quarter.
In the end, this crisis may require the People themselves to take over the fight, in the streets. That should be avoided at all costs, if it can be. Otherwise, there will be blood.
Before letting that happen, the House must wake up to understand that sovereign power, which it has been authorized to exercise by the Constitution, is unconstrained. Stop quailing, and use that power. The nation's fate is at stake. Trump and his henchmen now scoff at a power which they must be taught to fear.
To the House: use your power—not your words, not your procedures, not your politics. Arrest, jail, and bankrupt as many of these malefactors as you can apprehend. Then investigate, publicize, and impeach.
3
...."Democrats plainly seek to “reverse the election of 2016 and to influence the election of 2020”"
By this faulty non-logic, NO impeachment may EVER proceed. By definition, one would have to be elected to office to be in a potentially impeachable position. Every impeachment that ever happens would, by definition, have to be a reversal of an election result.
This spurious argument in the letter, like all the others, amounts to "we simply refuse to comply because we don't want to."
They are disobeying the law, to which they remain subject regardless of White House credentials. Individuals, including the signators of the letter, need to be singled out and sent to jail.
At some point, barking dogs and arrogant children need to be brought to heel and put in line. We are well past that point.
5
I'm sorry. Trump doesn't get to rewrite the Constitution. He doesn't get to dictate to the House what its procedures are going to be. Most of all, he doesn't get to be above the law immune. Trump sycophant Joseph diGenova tipped the scales in talking about the House impeachment inquiry as "regicide."
That's right. DiGenova and Republicans apparently think at this point that Trump is a king! It isn't too far from proclaiming that he has Divine Right to rule. Actually the Evangelical Pharisees already seem to accept that insane theory.
My heavens, how far have we fallen when we have a criminal huckster being referred to as a king? Our founding fathers wrote the Constitution to prohibit just this kind of thinking. We are in deep, deep danger when people dare to speak of Trump in these terms.
4
The Republican Senators need to unite against Trump. Trump is deserving of impeachments beyond Ukraine. Then, Trump needs to answer for many crimes in courts of law., and he should not be pardoned. Pence needs to be impeached, also. Both Trump and Pence are total "cartoons" on the world stage and here in the United States. This is the truth.
3
The elephant in the room is that the more is revealed through provision of subpoenaed testimony and documents, the clearer will be the violations by trump of public trust, duty to the nation he swore to hold, and the law. Such could, possibly in a sane world, even bring some Republican senators to boot him out.
Thus all efforts to prevent such revelations, and to move on to the next trump travesty, now with Kurdish blood on his small hands and smaller conscience.
2
I find it amusing that the author of this column seems to believe that speaker Pelosi has any genuine intention of bringing this impeachment process to a floor vote in the house and thereby leveling the playing field a little bit.
3
The erstwhile law and order party -- not to mention that the Republican Party is erstwhile in every principle it ever held, particularly morality and family values . . . OK, they are not erstwhile in their love of guns and how they kill Americans daily, particularly with the ARs used in mass shootings, a very profitable item . . . .
As I was saying, the erstwhile law and order party ought to know that the Constitution says the president can be impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors. Those words confirm unambiguously that a present CAN be investigated and convicted of crimes. Trump has decided to be an authoritarian king, and the Republican Party has decided to stand behind that change in Americas governance. That's what's happening here.
We are only a few steps away from a permanent Republican police state.
3
I suggest Democrats create an endless loop of Lindsay Graham's 1998 speech about Presidential obstruction-and send it to Trump and every member of Congress- every day.
4
I just heard on NPR a number of Republican voters referring to the impeachment process as a coup, repeating the worlds of the Trump administration, Fox “News”, and evening Republican reps and senators. This is going to be a long slog.
1
What, Mr. Opinion writer. No comment about Rep. Schiff's blatant misrepresentation read in front of the cameras? Is that part of the process of starting an inquiry? What about his discussions with whistleblower(s)/attorney prior to starting this and denying it? What says you about that?
This is all about politics, not the constitution or rule of law.
3
So incredibly sad to see one of the most well thought documents, our US Constitution, being treated like a greasy fast food wrap.
I am not worried about the Supreme Court. The problem are Republicans in the Senate and Moscow Mitch.
In the mean time, Kurds will die, ISIS will continue their reign of terror, prices will continue to go up making us all poorer, except the 1% that elected Trump with Putin's help.
2
Pelosi and Schiff need to start holding daily press briefings to push back on this wave of nonsensical ravings coming from Trump and his cult followers. If they want to move the needle in their favor it will take a good deal more than a twenty second sound byte every other day. They seriously need to deal with this administration as if it were organized crime and start playing hardball.
3
Ms. Reynolds says, “The letter also criticizes the Democrats’ approach to subpoena power and argues that ranking minority members on committees had greater influence over subpoenas in previous impeachment inquiries.” Aside from the changes to subpoena procedures enacted since the Clinton impeachment, this claim wasn’t even true in 1973-74. When that Judiciary Committee voted to begin its inquiry on October 30, 1973, the Republicans drafted an amendment that would have allowed them veto power over issuance of subpoenas. That was defeated by the committee (https://timesmachine.nytimes.com/timesmachine/1973/10/31/91024202.pdf). Some things never change.
Political? Procedural? Trump is corrupt as sin and everybody knows it. The man will never get better and things will get worse. Keep it simple and get the impeachment through the House. The voters in 2020 will take care of the rest.
4
There seems to be a pattern with Trump. Create a controversy, zealously guard documents and witnesses would shed light on the culpability of the President until his enemies are foaming at the mouth. Then at the last hour release all requested information exonerating himself, and making his accusers look weak but blood thirsty. Is a trap being laid by the administration? Or do Dems have valid impeachment grounds? Tune in next week to find out.
1
The "White House" can only pretend to "reshape the terms of the impeachment political debate" if the press also pretends, as it does here, that there's a debate to be held, when there isn't.
1
Can you blame them? I mean it worked very well when William Barr"re=framed" and misrepresented the entire Mueller report.
And it worked very well when Barr and WH counsel - all working as Trump's legal lackeys -had everyone ignore subpoenas and ignore requests to testify.
The GOP did nothing. No, excuse me, they did lie down and roll over. So why not try the whole thing all over again?
Why not get all WH counsel to send angry, outrageous, baloney letters to Congress and shriek about how "unfair" it all is.
If it ain't broke - and all of Trump's lies and abuses and corruption haven't broken the GOP yet -why fix it?
1
I have to laugh after all this time when I read about the White House`s view of congressional authority. Surely to God everyone must realize by now that there is only one authority in the Trump universe. Or perhaps some people have not yet somehow realized that Trump is the one; the only; the supreme authority in the universe. If you do not believe me; ask Donald Trump.
Who makes the rules for breaking the rules?
Or does it depend on whose ox is being gored?
The hypocrisy of endless Whitewater scourings and vindictive Bengazi and private e-mail interrogators who now support stonewalling House subpoenas for witnesses and documentary evidence of wrongdoing with voter suppression, interventions with Russia, Ukraine, Turkey and Syria, is brazen and blatant.
Converts to the New Normal who try to entrap others with process strictures, executive privileges, and administrative malfeasance are duplicitous and pathetic.
Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler have truth, honesty, and the Constitution on their side, but we the people must rally to
their cause.
1
Make no mistake about it - this is Trump's initial salvo to defy the rule of law and set himself up as president for life.
1
IF we manage to get out of this, get rid of Trump somehow. I hope to heck the Dems don't go back to 'politics as usual.'
Otherwise, we'll be here again.
The elements that allowed Trump to win are still here - A man that can't spell "ethics" or "rule of law" much less is in any way concerned about following the rule of law.
We have to get rid of the electoral college, we have to fix so very many things. Trump better be seen as the mother of all wake-up calls.
That is IF we can dig our way out of this mess.....
2
If this is our best we are doomed.
That letter is sufficient grounds in itself for impeachment.
Full stop.
Trumps needs weaklings who like to yammer on and on and on about this that
And always miss the point.
Any president who formally states he will refuse to give congress the testimony and materials congress needs to do its job should be immediately impeached.
Any president who formally states he will ignore congress if he decides he doesn’t like its politicks should be immediately impeached.
These are simple rules of this republic.
That they are now being chatted about as complex metaphysical issues by supposed experts shows just how craven our elites are and what geniuses they are at missing the point.
2
Mr. Trump goes to Washington intending to represent oligarchs and discovers We the People have a voice, much to his great dismay.
2
Did he dictate the letter to the counsel?
He wants to play “ Monopoly “ and invent new rules, and change them, to suit himself. Try “ Hangman “, Donald.
Seriously.
2
Donald Trump has been the over-sized rich kid who cheated to win everything in his life. It is time to remove him from committing crimes as the Accidental President, and it is also time to bring him into the courtroom as just another citizen. Pence should be impeached with Trump.
2
What messes up Congress’ logic in procedures are articles like this one lending false profundity to an 8-page letter consisting entirely of a list of juvenile declarations and soul-sapping repetitions. I’m tired of reading the word, but the letter truly deserves the moniker, a ‘tranche’, which while minuscule, constitutes the greater part of what the White House calls knowledge. To say the letter is not serious would be to give them way too much credit.
1
My brother made the interesting observation that
Trump is simply amoral; he truly does not know the difference between right and wrong. Hence his pleas of always being the aggrieved party.
It’s stunning really. He’s really no more a mature reasonable adult than a small child is. He is manifestly unfit for his office. All the more reason that he be impeached and convicted as soon as possible.
5
Please, people. Stop saying that Democrats "want to reverse an election". Many rubes believe that Hillary Clinton becomes president if the current pretender is impeached--nevermind convicted. Can we be clear? Mike Pence becomes president *if* DT is removed. This is not "undoing" an election, and the process is laid out in black and white in the constitution, a document most Americans (including the "president") are woefully ignorant of. Now, it is likely that Pence is also guilty but if so, that is also his fault, not the fault of those who are seeking the truth. (Republicans also know that Mike Pence is worse than a Dan Quayle, gravitas-wise. Maybe that's the problem?) Begone, Pence, before someone drops a house on you, too.
2
An important goal that a majority of the American people support is the impeachment inquiry. White House, get to work.
A fundamental truth about impeachment is that you don't let a man dictate rules when he is a president violating his oath to uphold the Constitution.
1
“The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.”
For pity’s sake.
Molly,
I’m not much for publicly lauding writers. After all it’s your profession and if you practice it for NYT I expect you would do it well. That aside, this article allowed me to see the Forest through the trees regarding the White House counsel’s letter. Before you exposed the strategy (expediting articles ahead of a new storm) I thought the letter was merely the ravings of an attorney with little constitutional background and a hint of Trump-Giuliani legal intellect..
1
I wonder if John Dean might have some advice for Pat Cippolone about how to live with oneself after serving a prison term for covering up high crimes and misdemeanors for a criminal president. He certainly has shared quite a bit with the public in the past number of years. one must surmise that Mr. Cippolone must have been one of the WH officials who listened in on the phone conversation with the Ukrainian president. Whose role would be the most obvious one to order that the record of the call be kept in the high security server than the WH Counsel? The old adage about those not learning from history springs to mind.
3
I know this - Trump and his White House will continue to act with contempt toward the rule of law, and if the Democrats don't play hardball and issue subpoenas and charge with contempt the lawlessness of the Trump White House will continue unabated. This is indeed a crisis. The man is unfit for office in every conceivable way. It's a sickening spectacle
2
If I still lived in Washington, D.C. I'd be organizing people to be out in front of both Congressional office buildings and the White House chanting, "Rule of Law, Rule of Law." I'd encourage Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, Socialists, etc. to wear their party colors and shwag. We are either a nation of law with co-equal branches of government under the constitution, or we are a corrupt plutocracy, just like Russia and China. "RULE OF LAW!!!"
3
It's simple: Donald Trump has got to go. Get on it now, congress. Do the job you were elected to do: uphold and protect the Constitution, which Donald Trump is using to blow his nose.
2
I'd be very interested in hearing what The Federalist Society has to say about this, those proud defenders of constitutional originalism. My guess is they would expose themselves as the blatant hypocrits and cheap opportunists that the republican party has morphed into over the last 50 years.
2
I think Ms Pelosi is handing this perfectly. At the same time I'm deeply concerned by the unprecedented obstruction by the White House. It is unclear what the house can do about this, other than litigate. That will take time, and provide the GOP and Trump valuable distraction.
We've never witnessed such a gross misconduct by a President, his sycophants in the GOP. They need to voted out of office, all of them.
2
Hear that swooshing sound?
That our democracy slipping away as we slide down the rabbit hole.
3
Shorter you: "How soon will the Republicans turn this around and make Democrats look like fools?"
Does anyone think the Democrats will have the guts to go after the Republicans. My money is on "NO". Has anyone chronicled all of Trump's obstructions? Or how about all the Senate's complicity to all of the President's obstructions? Democrats do not study, chronicle then strategize and then attack. Democrats are a big tent so one must get conferences to agree on the most useless effort.
2
What's crystal clear now, if it hasn't been since his crime family's back door agreement to work with Russia's FSB to throw the US elections in 2016, is that trump's white house and his shrinking mob of swamp crawlers are using every trick in the book to push a fascist dictatorship down the throat of America. There should be no compromise with these criminals. Any republican who still thinks they represent "conservative" politics while mouthing support for the fascists dictator trump needs to be laughed off their reality tv stage, if not frogmarched into a cell for obstruction of justice. This is not playtime at a sports game. Nothing less than the future of democracy in the USA is at stake, and republicans are gunning hard to destroy the public trust once and for all. Wake up, ye 'Muricans.
1
Mr. Trump is an evil man, and he is trashing everything he can reach. The Republicans love most of the destruction, and do not understand that he is also destroying the social, political and economic structures that sustain the population of the ENTIRE WORLD, generally with NO exceptions. In the meantime, it grows warmer...millions if not billions will die quite prematurely, rather sooner than later it begins to seem.
Including some or most of "us". How many?
1
This piece says that "On their face, many of the procedural arguments are shaky. The letter states, for example, that the inquiry is “constitutionally invalid” ... "
Excuuuuuse me. "Shaky"? Try "willfully obtuse" or ... ahem ... "idiotic on their face."
As a lawyer, if I were representing the House before a judge (or before the Supreme Court) on this issue, my first statement would be to quote Article 1, Section 2, Clause 5:
"The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment."
The second statement would be to quote Article 1, Section 5, Clause 2:
"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, ..."
The third statement would be: "The Executive Branch has no role in impeachment, and has no power to instruct the House as to what rules or procedures the House may decide to use."
The next statement would be: "I respectfully request that the court follow the Constitution and 200 years of precedent and declare that this Executive may not interfere in the House procedures in this impeachment, and further that this Executive be instructed to reply to all subpoenas or to be subject to inherent contempt and any penalties that flow therefrom."
Finally, I would ask the court to SANCTION the opposing attorneys under Rule 11 for bringing a frivolous and meritless action. The plain text of the US Constitution is a text that uses commonly understood words that are readily interpreted by anyone with an understanding of simple English.
4
Can we discuss the conduct of Cipollino? As a member of the bar, he is obligated to conduct himself according to certain ethics rules. Clearly, his interpretation of the Constitution is incorrect and he must either know that or he doesn't. If he does know, he is deliberately misrepresenting the Constitution in an effort to cover up criminal activity. If he doesn't know, he is an inept counselor. He should be disbarred.
3
Article 1, Section 5 is enough. Even the Supreme Court has been deferential. So why is the House dithering? Just stop taking anymore broadsides from this corrupt White House and impeach this lying President. They already have enough evidence and they do not need more which won't be coming their way anyway. So impeach Trump solely on obstruction to conduct House investigations. They have the power vested by our Constitution. So just use it.
1
When has trump ever focused on the goals that are important to the American people? The only goals that concern him are his own. This evening, the stark evidence of his abysmal, failed presidency is that two million Californians are without power for who knows how long because the wind is blowing. Old people. Sick people. Drivers navigating streets with no stop lights. Families with no refrigeration. The infrastructure president? Just another cruel don con.
Godspeed, House Democrats. Godspeed.
1
The White HOuse letter is legal rubbish. Hard to believe
a lawyer signed his/her name to it.
even if arguendo the House held an impeachment
inquiry vote which it does not have to do, Trump
will never cooperate
There is no reason to believe anything the man
says. His word is worthless
A cautionary tale to REpubs who will choose
Trump over America, he will turn on you.
he turns on everyone
Trump is counting on the MSM to do his
dirty work. The issue is Trump, his lies
criminality and unfitness for office that is
the isse]ue
2
Trump is right that the Democrats have discredited themselves and any possible proceedings against him by their deranged pursuit of the totally fake Russiagate hoax. They completely destroyed any credibility and perception of fairness, legality and impartiality such inquiry may have. Russiagate was a failed witch hunt, so they went looking for a new one and found it quickly. The Democrats just hate Trump and are out to get him no matter what. That is clear as day and will always be clear as day. Having a totally crazy spokesperson as Rep. Schiff is not helpful either.
1
OF COURSE impeachment is an effort to overturn an election. What else could it be? A person who is elected demonstrates that he or she is unfit to be in that office and is impeached. It will certainly influence the NEXT election for that office, as that person will—one hopes, if the impeachments proves warranted—not be elected again.
Gad, isn’t that obvious? Republican must be throwing this out there for the “stupids” who cannot see the noses in front of their faces. This is just plain logic!
2
America wake up. In Australia when Trump comes on TV everyone bursts out laughing
2
Can we just say it already? The Republicans do not believe in the Constitution. They are trying to make Trump a king.
114
Congress alone can decide this matter. It can impeach and remove federal judges that rule against it too. Congress is the preeminent body under the US Constitution.
5
Will somebody tell me why the White House can't simply run out the clock until the election? Or if it cannot, what difference will it make if the House of Reps wins at the Supreme Court. Surely Trump couldn't care less if Giuliani or Pompeo go to jail. And Trump himself is immune because the Senate will never convict. When the rule of law breaks down so do the forces that enforce it. It's called a coup.
9
It would seem to me that the legal used by the lawyer that signed this letter is so poor as to constitute legal malpractice. As such, that attorney should be brought before the overseeing state bar and lose his license.
13
Until someone is punished for ignoring a House subpoena, Trump wins and Pelosi loses.
16
There is absolutely no evidence DJT will respond in any positive way if Speaker Pelosi accepts the WH conditions/demands. Speaker Pelosi, keep your collective hands on the plow, and move on. Ignore what he and his say. It's all bologna. We will all keep our eyes on the Prize; a free, secure, generous, fearless, resolute country willing and able to help our neighbors, at home and abroad achieve the same goals all just and peaceful peoples. Pax, jb
9
Our Founders understood individual integrity, honor, and dedication to the public trust were essential characteristics of elected and appointed officials. They had created an alternative to the tyranny that had dominated human existence for millennia and the corruption, greed, and inhumanity that had oppressed the “common man”.
Under tyranny, no one can trust the tyrant. History is full of examples where a tyrant would “disappear” or confiscate all the worldly possessions of even the most loyal supporters because a tyrant knew such support was contingent on reciprocity; the tyrant never trusted them.
Even today, there exists but two alternatives: democracy or tyranny (autocracy, monarchy, theocracy, oligarchy, communism).
Those who defy their Oaths of Office defy our Constitution, defy the rule of law, destroy the public trust - our democratic process and institutions - and should be removed through constitutional means.
I understand people speak of Impeachment as a “political tool”. As written in the Constitution, it is a remedy and part of the System of Checks and Balances. Expectations of integrity, honor, living up to Oaths of Office by members of Congress means recognizing without bias or loyalty to a political party or individual when an elected or appointed official lacks integrity, honor, betrays the public trust, defies the rule of law and the Constitution.
I think the letter from the White House is pretty clear.
12
The angst implicit in the editorial and in the comments thereto indicate to me that anger is driving this push by Pelosi and other Democratic leaders in the House.
The White House letter promises a quid pro quo that, if the House holds a formal vote toward articles of impeachment, the WH would be more willing to cooperate. As is known, such a formal vote is not spelled out explicitly by the Constitution, but has been the operating theme in the last two impeachment attempts.
What the WH wants here is a chance for cross examination of witnesses in the procedures and no closed door inquiries. Essentially, if the Dems are certain of their chances of impeachment, let them do it in a way that the public, Republicans included, can see what is going on and those Republicans in the House can stand up if they have not already been beaten into submission..
3
@Bill
This isn’t a Dem or Repub issue, but a constitutional issue, and tne only “defense” the Repubs have is political, not legal. Let the chips fall where they may.
13
Trump will never cooperate. He will keep pushing the goal posts until they fall over.
22
A few easy rebuttals:
First,Trump is trying to reverse the results of the election of 2018- which supersedes 2016, and put into power a Democratic majority (which would be larger than it is had there been less gerrymandering) that is representing the majority opinion of the voters, who favor the impeachment inquiry that is well underway.
Second, there is no basis for the WH to demand the House return to focus on legislation to serve the public’s needs. They have already passed bills on gun control, the environment, and immigration issues. McConnell refuses to allow the Senate to act on them.
Trump is thwarting democracy and sabotaging the Constitutional protections designed to insure representative government.
27
Clearly the letter is just noise. It is nothing new in his behavior that we haven't seen before. I don't believe there is a person in America who truly believed he was going to cooperate (testimony and documents) with congress during this inquiry.
What is new is his power to muzzle the Republicans from even criticizing the President's behavior in both the House and Senate. This is even more glaring as the Republicans came out in force to admonish the President for withdrawing from Syria, yet deafening silence about Ukraine.
So now we have Republicans collaborators enabling the President's bad behavior. History will not be kind to the Republicans.
11
I wonder how the originalists on SCOTUS are viewing this; it would be very, very difficult for any of them to hold for Trump (and basically overturn the Nixon case) should this dispute reach them.
5
Nancy knows what she's doing.
Why hold a vote for an impeachment inquiry which will pass with only 2 Republican votes. Then Trump will announce it's a partisan which hunt.
Do the inquiry, then take the vote for impeachment.
11
Every dictator lives in a world where everyone is his enemy with the exception of a small cadre of loyalists who share the belief that they are under attack by outside forces.
Decisions are made on emotions and political calculation not on facts. From the outside everything seems erratic and unfocused largely because it is exactly that. From the inside the common belief in a universal set of enemies makes it all seem normal.
Yes, America has enemies, real enemies that mount destabilization campaigns, fund groups that do everything from direct action to subversion. Unfortunately, the actual enemy isn't seen because the perceived enemies block the view.
In my assessment, the actual enemies of the USA are deeply entrenched inside the Administration shouting in the ears of the faithful and pointing away from their financial and direct support of Al Qaeda, Taliban, ISIS, Wahhabist Islam, while stirring the pot all over the planet. At the same time, our long time allies are marginalized and dismissed.
The doctrine of "Trust Nobody" permeates the dictator's regime while the supporters cheer not realizing that they are next as the dictator adds to his list of enemies. Paranoia runs rampant as the center collapses.
"...and then they came for me, and there was nobody left to stand for me."
12
Trump, the man who believes precedents and procedures in government are to be ignored, uses his attorney to object to impeachment proceedings based on precedent and procedures.
You can’t have it both ways, Donald.
31
Speculation is over. By refusing to comply with the obligations of his office that are explicitly prescribed in the Constitution, Trump clearly crossed over from posing as despot to taking his first official step at being despot. Since taking office, he continuously pushed further and further as Republicans laid the red carpet with their backs. Each new outrage in behavior was followed with a hand wringing and accommodation, rationalized as no big deal, a minor erosion of no significant import in vast edifice of political practices and protocols.
Now, the point of bringing down the entire edifice been crossed. This is no longer about politics or political survival. This is clearly an open and direct attack on our Constitutional government that cannot be excused as simply political maneuvering in a game of bluff. If Congress does not push back and, indeed, seize this action as a reason itself for impeachment, then we may very well look back and see this as the official beginning of the end of our way of government. No more tsk, tsk. It is time to say stop!
55
The Trump White House is clearly stating that Congress does not have the authority to remove him from office, regardless of the vote in the Senate. Trump has already informed us he does not consider Pelosi to be the legitimate Speaker, thus rendering all House actions illegitimate. I think he is only a hair away from declaring the House to be officially disbanded and ordering all members to go home. And if he does, some Republican Senators will be "deeply troubled".
36
Declaring the House to be disbanded? Like fellow Putineer Boris Johnson tried with Parliament? Even the Tories didn’t facilitate that, unlike our GOP.
10
Trump thinks he can dictate how the constitution should work for him and that's how his letter to Congress indicted. The constitution is a done deal. This is not a case of bone spurs that he can't participate in the process, he just refused to and thumbing the rule of law. I think he and the white house counsel who wrote the letter didn't realize that they both work for the people. I hope there'll be enough Republicans that will put the republic first before a dictator.
22
Just as it took millions marching in the streets and rallying at teach-ins to change public opinion to bring the Vietnam War to its ignominious conclusion, we need to organize Marches for Impeachment for millions to surround the Congress and Federal buildings across the land to demand removal of this fellow before any more harm is done.
21
@bruce
<==
Add to that thousands and thousands surrounding local senatorial offices across the country to demand removal of this continuing threat to the Constitution, democracy here and abroad, and national security.
12
Now that it's started, Congress has to go all in with impeachment. It can't sort of do it, it has to put its full weight - whatever that is - into the process and see it to its conclusion. The entire republican party is saying that the constitution doesn't apply to them, or at least the parts of it they don't like today. The president will never be convicted but each and every member of the party who obstructs the investigation should be exposed for what they are - white collar criminals.
17
What the White House laid bare is that this "inquiry" is a farce. The chairman started with a "parody" of false quotes; many members already said they are voting for impeachment; and they have restricted the questioning of witnesses and are withholding the first transcripts, all while preventing the GOP members from being allowed to subpoena additional witnesses. The whole thing is more akin to an old east bloc show trial than any sort of American process.
7
The letter is a clarion call to Trump's supporters. It's a call to Republican Congresspeople and to his voting base. They are the official set of lies behind which they can all rally in defense of the criminal Trump, with violence if need be. I don't think we have taken Trump's words about civil war and his supporters having all the guns seriously enough.
11
Trump has control of our legal system. Pat Cipollone Was an assistant to William Barr. That says it all. Trump is destroying America. Why are current and former Whitehouse officials silent. When will Americans realize Republicans are destroying our government. Most importantly, we have lost trust in our legal system, especially the Supreme Court. I feel like I’m living in Russia or Turkey.
16
What adult person would willingly put their signature on that document? I'm pretty sure whatever Bar Association he is registered with needs to be looking at him very closely. It is as if one of those sad people Jerry Springer exploits for money wrote it.
9
There are only two fundamental questions. Is the Congressional impeachment action justified and lawful. The answer is yes, and yes. What the White House is doing is the bureaucratic equivalent of resisting arrest. It is a criminal regime struggling to stay out of the handcuffs.
18
Remember Susan McDougal. She served 18 months for not answering three questions for a grand jury in the Whitewater investigation. Yes, it’s time to lock people up for ignoring subpoenas.
37
Was there ever any good reason for not just having the House Judiciary Committee start the formal hearings as in the past?
Nadler isn't ready? Pelosi isn't ready?
Why not do so in parallel with Schiff's investigations?
After stalling on impeachment all year, since they took the House last November, do Congressional Democrats know what they are doing, now that they've been dragged reluctantly into doing it?
This is the same Democratic Party that could not find a way to stop the Nov. 2016 election of a GOP presidential candidate whom the prior GOP presidential candidate publicly called a phony, in March 2016.
It is the same Democratic Party that has never seriously and objectively tried to figure out how that disaster could happen.
It is the same Democratic Party whose current presidential "front runner," or near to it, has a conflict of interest now over a conflict of interest with his son in the past, and a House speaker who has trouble speaking without slurring.
Don't hold your breath waiting for them to pull off a skillful impeachment.
2
@Sage If you recall, three million more people voted for the Democrat candidate than voted for the orange buffoon who is in office. Not much the Democrats can do about a bizarre electoral college system that allows that to happen. Would you care to address any of the actual vile behavior by Trump that prompted all of this? Or the Trump henchman who instructs an ambassador to "call me" rather than continue having a text record of a conversation? The people who keep screaming they had perfect phone calls and have nothing to hide are certainly putting a lot of effort into hiding a lot of things.
2
Sage,
What are you talking about? 3 House committees are now holding inquiries into impeachment. The RNC allowed Trump to run as a Republican. The DNC had no power over them on that. Nancy Pelosi slurs her speech? What you are referring to is probably the doctored video that was exposed some time ago. Put down the Fox and friends vape pen, it'll kill ya!
2
One of the arguments put forward here are valid. This is tailoring the process to suit the Republicans. Full speed ahead Nancy!!
6
Wake up America, it's all in bad faith. There is no "both sides." Trump and company are bad faith actors who are fundamentally against the United States' form of government.
22
This can't be said often enough: One impeachment is not all we get unless we give up. Charles Blow, a regular Times editorialist, pointed this out in these pages recently. We don't need to pack all our eggs in one basket, or all our grievances in one impeachment trial. Let's begin with whatever seems most strategic (as a non-politician, that would seem to be obstruction of justice, but I would be content with any choice made by those in a better position to choose), write and pass an article of impeachment, send it to the Senate for trial, lather, rinse, repeat at least daily. (We won't run out of impeachable offenses.) Let all members of both houses of Congress go on record as for, against, or indifferent to treason. Let Moscow Mitch show us how he plans to deal with an impeachment trial (he won't be presiding; the Chief Justice of SCOTUS will), and let's keep on gumming up the works in the Senate (and SCOTUS, for that matter) until they get it right.
8
Impeachment is political, not just a procedural fight.
Well, of course. The White House letter is all about trying to frame impeachment on their terms and by their rules. (Trump says he might cooperate as long as it's fair? Who defines 'fair'?)
To put it simply, Trump is trying to force the Democrats into fighting the battle he wants, where tweets matter more than facts, and lies repeated enough times become truth. (How long before he starts yelling "Lock Biden up!"?)
There must be no hesitation, no uncertainty on the part of Democrats. The media must not play Trump's game for him either, repeating the talking points he's using only reinforces them.
9
"So why might the White House pick this moment to escalate its political fight?"
The answer is pretty obviously in order to obstruct justice. Every bit of news that has come out about this since the whistleblower complaint was made known has been disastrous for the president and has laid bare the rank corruption of Trump's withholding Congressionally-appropriated funds and using our diplomatic channels to force Ukraine to announce an investigation of his key political rival.
Trump is doing all he can to prevent the truth from getting out, simple as that.
13
First of all consider the source for this executive branch maneuver, the Trump White House as it is currently constituted, the loyalist dregs. Their bunker mentality is on full display. At this point in time the House must not lose sight of the lines that lead directly to the President.
8
So...
According to the GOP
We can’t impeach because it’s too close to an election
We can’t replace justices if it’s too close to an election
But only if it’s a Republican in office. Otherwise, it’s the exact opposite.
Neener Neener
10
One should consider that the GOP playbook is suffused throughout their posturing document. They wish to portray the House's actions as strictly partisan. That diminishes anything the House does as a partisan move rather than a political process (impeachment) grounded in the Constitution and separation of powers. It makes the Democrats motives base rather than appropriate.
The GOP is really a minority party. Recognizing that, they have gerrymanered through conquering statehouses, they have played dirty tricks with voter rights and polling places and they rely heavily on propaganda arms to create an existential threat by their opponents that has sometimes spilled over into violence or the threat of it. Aided by the Democrats own abandonment of labor, their only electoral hope is in the desperation of long suffering white workers twisted into a personality cult while hiding the party's own leadership role in making their own voters lives more insufferable.
The problem is to what extent the GOP leadership can only see Dems as their own mirror image (partisan warriors) rather than conceding there may be patriotic motives for preserving institutional balance and the Constitutional system. The trap for the GOP is how much of their own koolaid they have drunk. At some point of no return, being married to Trump, as more Americans grow tired of manufactured rancor and division, enough of us may simply want our country back enough to offset millions permanently lost to reality.
12
"Impeachment is a political process, not just a procedural fight."
Well, yes. The Constitution does, however, spell out some specific and nonnegotiable requirements and details pertaining to impeachment. Congress is explicitly given the prerogative to impeach, for instance, and the executive and the Executive Branch do not have a say in that. The Constitution does describe several impeachable actions, and gives specific examples. One such example is using public assets or position for private gain. It assigns that specific wrongdoing to the category of "high crimes and misdemeanors" which is an impeachable act.
15
Pelosi should have taken a vote of the entire House before initiating an impeachment inquiry because of precedent, and also because impeachment is of the greatest significance to the life of the nation. In all fairness to the American people and the target of the impeachment attempt. Pelosi should take a vote of the entire House as soon as possible. Unfortunately Pelosi's failure to take a vote of the entire House has now become a major issue, a major red herring, and by influencing public sentiment could jeopardize the entire impeachment and removal
effort.
3
@David A vote is not required for an inquiry. It's the vote after an inquiry is finished, which will happen as required, that should have Trump worried.
5
@David
theres no rule that says she has to do that. its an inquiry. if trump were innocent what would he be afraid of.
this is all smoke and mirrors from trump and co.
u dont want to mess with congress.
2
Did the writers of the Constitution and those leaders of the
States that approved envisioned a day where two parties and only two parties controlled every aspect of the Government ?
Though it may change over the next few months, right now it
seems that if you are a Democrat you must vote to impeach
and if you are a Republican you better vote not to impeach.
If memory serves me, correctly, when Nixon was impeached he had "no" votes from Democrats and "Yes" votes from Republicans.
I am left wondering why Truman and LBJ and Bush II were not
impeached over the Wars they led this country into but were never declared wars by Congress as the Constitution expects to be the case if we are going to send our young adults off to
kill and be killed.
There is no provision in the Constitution for drafting our youth and sending them off to a United Nations Police Action, or
to interdict North Vietnamese forces...is there ?
Perhaps we need to write a few Constitutional Amendments to clarify what can and cannot occur during an Impeachment.
Perhaps the sub-Committees and Committees need to have
60 % of their members vote for a subpoena for it to be issued.
Trump might well be guilty of crimes that should bring about
impeachment and conviction and thus removal from office,
but the Democrats are not making that as clear as they should.
From where I live, I hear a lot of talk about how the Democrats
just want to undo the 2016 election and prevent Trump from running in 2020...
3
Nixon was not impeached. Republican leadership came to him a few days after the tapes were released and told him they could no longer support him. Two days later he resigned. The same will happen here. It may take a few months but people we see this play out. Sentiment is already shifting. Democrats are not trying to undo an election. He bartered with a foreign government to create a scandal on the family of his main political opponent. That’s illegal.
23
It’s not just about Ukraine.
The Mueller report roadmap should also be used.
The Mueller report had shovel-ready (gavel-ready?) unequivocal findings to impeach for obstruction of justice — but in addition there was a lot of evidence for conspiracy too, which could have been definitive — if there had not been so much obstruction.
Now with Ukraine — Trump is directly involved in a Crime. He cannot claim Executive privilege now, the way he did with the Mueller probe.
We need to get the facts about Trump’s conspiracy with Putin.
Of course, Trump is not going to “go along” with this! Of corse, he will keep obstructing and lying and suing and complaining.
But this is because he is betraying our country — he is not America’s friend!
And now look at Turkey and Syria — one can rationally hypothesize that Trump is trying to help Russia with this move.
This is what real treason looks like.
25
Another reader posted elsewhere: “People need to start going to jail.” I agree.
31
@Andrew Law -- America would be a very different and much better place if Obama had jailed the Republicans behind the war comes and wars of aggression under Dubya.
He couldn't because that would also have swept up too many Democrats, friends of Hillary and friends of AIPAC. But really, jailing them too would have been one of the bigger advantages.
We would never have had Jeb or Hillary, and we would not now have Trump.
Those are the wages of the dishonesty we allowed after the Iraq War.
6
Trump, you will be impeached. You may delay the inevitable, but you will be impeached! Maybe resign now and avoid the embarrassment?
15
Ok, well, at least he gets to build his wall. Not the one he promised, but still . . . .
4
To truly “reverse the election of 2016" as Trump's lawyer asserts is the real motive for the impeachment inquiry would mean inserting Hillary Clinton into the White House. As lovely a fantasy as that sounds, that' s not what is going to happen if the impeachment process proceeds. If by some chance, Trump is removed from office, Mike Pence, a member of the same party as Trump, would take his place. The 2016 election would not be undone. But the phrase “reverse the election of 2016" is a catchy one (as well as nuts) and the lemmings who watch FOX can glom onto that catch phrase and run with it until the cows come home.
Thinking people know that the impeachment process is necessary to remove a criminal and a criminally unqualified person from the White House.
19
Smoke screen. Trump is not one to be easily disciplined.
4
@Tom
He should be for all the illegal things he has done.
Our ultimate fate likely rests with the Supreme Court as it is apparent the president will appeal any negative opinion from a lower court. If the Court fails on political lines, such as in the 2000 Bush decision, then we may need to rely on mass protest or action by those who have sworn to protect the Constitution.
6
@Bruce Michel No, the House will impeach him, with or without cooperation. The list of obstruction charges will be shorter or longer but the outcome will be the same.
5
Correct, Brett Kavanaugh will be the deciding SCOTUS vote to get him off the hook. Because he doesn’t belong on the court anyway.
If the SCOTUS invalidates the House’s subpoenas then it’s time for patriotic Americans and red states to stop paying their federal taxes.
3
Would anyone expect anything less from the Swamp, if someone was to try and take the Swamp on? I am amazed at the number of people that know there is a Swamp in DC, but think Trump is the problem.
6
@hapEguy
im sorry to say, the swamp IS trump.
hes fooled many many people so you shouldnt feel any more suckered then the rest of the 60 million voters who fell for his snake oil.
This feels like Trump wins. I imagine all criminals would enjoy having the power to set the terms of their own investigations.
3
Why are you attacking this patriot? He is trying very hard to do what he thinks is right. Our society lauds people who do what they think is right, like Sgt. Beau, Gandhi, Manning, Snowden, Elon, Jobs.
2
Are you going to take Trump’s word for it that he’s a “patriot”? I’ll sell you the Brooklyn Bridge—$100 sound reasonable?
NY Times - Please remind me how the Clinton White House responded to such House impeachment activity. I seem to recall Clinton ultimately having to participate in a deposition. Was the SCOTUS involved in that impeachment process? Seems like they will be involved in this one.
4
Impeachment is not a reversal of the 2016 election. It is the response to what Mr. Trump has done since then.
54
Let the full house vote. But not by Trump’s method.
Trump has already threatened witnesses. His pattern of damaging Congress members after unfavorable results is well established. He most certainly wants to intimidate the House before the vote he demands.
Let the house vote, by paper ballot. 235 “for” and T can claim party line. 234 or less gives T a temporary victory but queues a full discussion in the House. IMHO the result will be 236 “for.” If a few Republicans want to get Trump’s attention, that would do it.
2
All the letter from the WH reflects is that the GOP has joined this criminal enterprise. If I were the dems I would consider adding a RICO cause of action to any impeachment proceeding. They should ask for extra punitive damages.
9
Cipollone’s letter asserts that if House Democrats “return to the regular order of oversight requests, we stand ready to engage in that process.” I’m sorry, but that’s a bunch of hooey.
The Trump administration has pointedly refused almost all congressional oversight, starting with sealing White House visitor logs on Trump’s first day in office, to shredding Oval Office paperwork — literally by Trump’s own hand — on a daily basis, to forcing White House employees to sign NDAs as a condition of employment, to inappropriately classifying regular communications, to categorically refusing to comply with any House subpoenas, including those prior to the impeachment inquiry.
Stonewalling, altering, and destroying evidence has been standard operating procedure for Trump and the Trump Organization in the 4000 lawsuits to which they have been party, and Trump continues to use this tactic in the White House.
So, I’m sorry, but I just don’t believe Cipollone, and I certainly don’t believe Trump.
38
Without a doubt Trump's single accomplishment in his mistaken position is revealing the flaws in the 3 pillars of our government. Under Trump the 3 pillars might as well be 1 which simply isn't sustainable for a democracy, Congress should be united in defending the Constitution and condemn Trumps actions - but they aren't. This situation we currently find ourselves as a country is a crossroads, one direction leading to a bright future and the other a dystopic past. I only hope when Trump eventually falls, he takes the no-good's enabling him by expensing ample amounts of hot air on his benefit, basically laughing at the premise they are supposed to be protecting the Constitution against ALL enemies, foreign and DOMESTIC. The Republican Party represents the clearest most discernible danger to this country.
31
Pelosi is smart to let the drip of constant revelations erode Trumps support. We can expect more horrifying corruption and criminality to leach to the surface. Even Fox "news" will have nowhere to misinform lest they risk a backlash from angry viewers that finally realize they have been lied to all these years.
24
in 2016 Trump received 60 million votes, Clinton 63 million. Americans had to accept that this is our system, for better or worse. If we want it changed, we have to amend the constitution. Same is true with impeachment. It is the system we have, if enough citizens believe it to be unfair and too political, they can, through their representatives, change it. Until then, it's all we have. Democrats should vote on a wide impeachment inquiry and let the chips fall. If the Dems vote to proceed and the Executive branch refuses to cooperate, that would be no different than Hillary Clinton moving into the White House post election 2016.
8
good point; trump won without the popular vote because of the electorial college. now, he needs tp suck up to the fact tthe House has control over impeachment inquires and hearings rather than whine incessently. Alternatively and in our back pocket is dumping him uncerimoniously at the polls in 2020.
1
Democrats need to push back hard on the catch phrase, “re-litigate the 2016 election.”
Trump chose to violate the Constitution. Trump could have pursued his right wing politics without doing so.
However, when he chooses to break the law, he has no one to blame but himself when he is held accountable.
44
@Ben
Exactly. He has been president nearly 3 years and will unfortunately go down in our history as our 45th president, so no, this isn’t about overturning the 2016 election. If it were that, Hillary would be president after a successful impeachment.
12
@Kally And we would be able to immediately replace two Supreme Court Justices and numerous lower court appointments. All of whom will be laying waste to American justice for decades to come.
7
Why escalate now? Because Trump was caught red-handed and needs to stall or stop any investigation that might uncover more corroborating evidence, of which there is probably enough to get most people beyond reasonable doubt.
23
I believe the law is only as good as its enforcement. The current composition of the senate neutralizes principles which most reasoned persons hold dear when it comes to impeachment (or anything else for the most part when it comes to this government from the White House). It seems the impeachment effort is only one which shows who believes in the law and who does not. And I fear it will come down to who has the power to confirm what is right, or not. As it stand now, what is right, what is the law, will lose. I do not know what we have gained, at least in the short run. I pray I am wrong.
3
@gary wilson We gain the knowledge that we tried to do it the within the law.
I am tired of hearing the Republican argument that impeachment is “annulling the vote of 63 million Americans”, as the Wall Street Journal editorial states today. No. An impeachment is not an annulment. The presidency of Donald Trump will still exist when he is the impeached or removed from office. Maybe the writer is getting this confused with a marriage annulment in the Catholic Church. Although even they have evolved to say that the marriage no longer exists but don’t deny its previous existence.
When will the Republicans and Trump apologists grow tired of hold their noses and defending this man who believes he is above the law in his great and infinite wisdom. No man is above the law and no president who violates the constitution should be allowed to remain in office.
29
Whether we continue as a democracy will be decided by a political process. We find this disturbing and want to say that such fundamental constitutional questions are beyond mere politics.
We want to say this, but the demonstration that it is false continues.
2
I believe the standard Trump strategy applies here--stonewall with the objective of dragging out the impeachment proceedings, while daily smearing individual Democrats, the party, and of course, the process. The Mueller inquiry took far too long to reach a conclusion--and Trump, with the same strategy, won in the court of public opinion.
He'll try that again.
16
@Daniel
I believe it is time to acknowledge that we have Mueller to thank for the problem we have today: a rogue, unstoppable authoritarian president determined to destroy American democracy. Mueller could have stopped him. He is less though partly responsible for a Republican Party increasingly unashamed that, after two decades of trying, it has nearly succeeded in establishing permanent one-party (read: fascist) rule. Mueller had evidence, if not six ways to Sunday at least two or three, of a conspiracy involving the Trump campaign and Russia. Start with the cigar club meeting and move on to the provision of polling data. Why didn’t his report lean strongly on the evidence for conspiracy? One can’t but wonder whether his staff lawyers will someday tell us the truth. Tomorrow would be a good time to start.
7
Impeachment is NOT a political process. Just because the Republicans are trying to make it so does not mean it is. Democrats are obeying the constitution and Trump is trying to invalidate it. Full stop.
44
On January 22, 2017 when Kellyanne Conway asked us to embrace the concepts of "alternatives facts" it was obvious we were no longer engaging an administration that had a respect for anything besides wielding their own power. Shame on others in their party for embracing gas lighting as a constant form of communication. No integrity. I hope all of their reputations to be permanently damaged in the near future. A low information voter in Alabama may not understand these issues but these Republicans have been to law school. They know what has transpired yet they sit and watch out democracy crumble, they participate with their silence,......yet call themselves patriots. We are living in a time where laws and words, are apparently allowed "alternatives". I wish I could file an alternative tax return based on my alternative income.
38
In 2015, when subjecting the Obama administration to subpoenas, the Republicans changed the rule to allow the House majority to issue subpoenas unilaterally. The chickens have come home to roost.
72
@Dave
Yes. To continue the bird metaphor, what's sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander.
I thought it was an excellent letter that raised troubling issues of fairness and partisanship which should never be even a question in the most serious question of impeachment. The House represents the People. Why didnt Nancy ask whether to even begin an investigation? There are a lot of significant irregularities that must be addressed if the People are to respect the actions of the House.
3
Did you read the article? Have you read the constitution? The House sets the rules for impeachment, not the judicial branch and certainly not the administration, for which The House is required to provide oversight as clearly stated in the constitution. The majority in The House, led by Speaker Pelosi, sets the rules for an impeachment inquiry and that’s just what they’re doing. Elections have consequences.
59
You haven't been paying attention. Pelosi conferred extensively with her caucus.
33
@NYer
\
Ask who? SHE IS THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE. She is the one person invested to make that decision.
There are no irregularities here. She's following the constitution to the letter.
60
In this case, any reshaping of impeachment is un-constitutional. That is non-negotiable, not up for debate. The Constitution is un-ambiguous, to be used by the letter. Unless Trump is asking for an Amendment. But he won't be eligible until it happens. And so, he has to be impeached. Period.
19
Is impeachment a political issue?
Or is it a governance issue?
5
My suggestions:
1. The letter from the Council for the President on Behalf of the President is clear, irrefutable proof of Contemp of Congress at the order of the President. Immediately charge the President with Contempt of Congress.
2 Immediately issue Congressional subpoena or Congressional Witness summons to replace every prior request from the House of Representatives for all information or testimony with a date for compliance.
3. Issues Contempt of Congress charges for each and every non-compliance with the subpoena or witness summons.
4. Arrest and incarcerate everyone who does not comply within 1 calendar week of the Contempt of Congress charge. (If there is no available jails, rent them from one of the private prisons as far from Washington DC and the offenders' residence as possible).
5. Since each of these non-compliance/Contempt of Congress actions are at the direction of the President add the full count to the Article of Impeachment for the President [and/or hold these as criminal charges for when he is out of office].)
81
I would add one more suggestion to this fine list:
6. Not only jail those who do not comply, but fine them the maximum penalty every day they refuse to comply.
33
@Sally McDonald You gave me an idea! Fining the President is not the same as indicting him, so the DOJ memo doesn't apply. I like that!
The case for impeachment is pretty straight forward, clear and simple to digest. This is what why Democrats should be flooding the airwaves with ads highlighting Trump’s criminal activity. Public support will follow giving Congress the energy to carry the investigation and finalize the charges. Congress can continue interviewing individuals that Trump can’t claim power over them.
21
It seems pretty straightforward to me. If the White House doesn't want to present evidence in its own defense, the House inquiry can only rule in favor of Impeachment.
The House asked nicely for testimony and were met with an angry denial. The House will now have to subpoena witnesses in the President's defense. They will be met with an even angrier denial. And the longer the White House denies, the more time the Intelligence Committee has to find incriminating evidence (and the more time the President has to make incriminating actions).
The President's decision to stay in his room and pout doesn't help his case.
38
"Why might the White House pick this moment to escalate its political fight?"
Easy: Because Trump is guilty, and they know he's guilty (probably of much worse than we've learned about so far.) There is no defending Trump, so they've locked the bunker doors and are just hoping for the best.
74
If you, or I, or any other Joe Blow did not appear before Congress when subpoenaed, where do you think we would wind up? We may not be able to bring charges against Trump (as we are conveniently told), but that doesn't mean the minions can't be charged. And, I don' t buy that it would affect government function one little bit. It doesn't function now.
36
Ultimately this comes down to whether Republicans in the Senate recognize that if they allow Trump's 'rules don't apply to me' gamble to pay off, they are giving away their power entirely, for good. It won't always be Trump -- if nothing else old age will get him eventually... and if he's in until he dies of old age, we will have lost our republic long before then.
Senators, both Republican and Democratic, need to recognize Trump's letter for what it is -- a declaration that Congress, and Congress's Constitutional role, are irrelevant. What Trump is telling -all- of the Congress is "When I feel like it, I'll go along with your legislation, and your rules, and when I don't feel like it I won't go along, I'll do whatever I want."
Now, if the Republican Senators don't see this, or are unwilling to go to Trump and say "Now, hold on a minute..." then there isn't really much good in having a Congress anyway. If the Constitution's direction regarding impeachment are not worth enforcing on Trump, then why would Trump do anything else in there...? And in that case, what do we need Congress for? Trump will just move money around as he wants, do what he wants, flout the law with impunity, and do as he wishes. If the Senate fails to enforce the Congress's perogatives and Constitutional role, their last act of any real power will be backing up Trump on their destruction.
26
The most important reason for procedure is to ensure fairness of the process. The letter from White House counsel clearly explains how the process being used by the House of Representatives is unfair to President Trump and unfair to others in the Executive Branch.
The Democrats have one chance to unseat President Trump in 2020, and they are blowing it, big time. The Democrats might be able to fool the American people with the impeachment inquiry, however when the articles of impeachment have been drafted and adopted by the House, you can be certain that the Republican controlled Senate will require due process in the impeachment trial.
The impeachment trial will give Trump the stage to communicate directly to the voters to expose any unfairness of the impeachment inquiry. The backlash against Democrats could be overwhelming in 2020.
2
@Fred Dorbsky What is unfair about the whistle blower process? The whistle blowers report has been corroborated. Trump wants to know who the whistle blower is so he and Fox news can discredit him/her. This is obvious - right?
We will see if the backlash is overwhelming
but I doubt it will be enough to keep Trump in office.
20
@Fred Dorbsky
There's nothing about impeachment that qualifies as "fair." If Trump acted like 99.9999999999% of other people, there wouldn't be any issue here.
4
The letter is a sad device, used by cheating spouses and disobedient teenagers since the beginning of time, i.e., "the best defense is a good offense". It's a tacit acknowledgement of both the House's authority and the White House's fear of the same. It is time for strategic but resolute action.
16
"The Democrats’ next steps must reflect a fundamental truth about impeachment laid bare by the White House’s letter: Impeachment is a political process, not just a procedural fight."
This sums up the steps the Democrats must take neatly.
6
As Seth Meyers said last night, Trump's attempt to "refuse to cooperate" is akin to someone being arrested and taken away in handcuffs screaming "I refuse to cooperate!"
The Democrats have to steamroll any attempt by Trump or other Republicans "refusal" to cooperate.
The Constitution is extremely clear on procedure here.
26
I'd like to see the House respond by sending big tough guys to arrest Trump and his entire mob.
16
It makes little sense to apply legal reasoning to a lawless White House.
I have hope, however, that an increasing majority of Americans recognize the flailing of Mr. Trump and his minions and recognize them for what they are: an admission that there is no legitimate defense to the charges that are the subjects of the House impeachment inquiry.
30
Yes JJM
And when will the 2 political parties and the media recognize there is a significant number of voters who are Independent! Tired of the political gridlock and based on the popular vote did not go with Trump!
Independent voters can win 2020!
Why not find them in contempt and throw them in Congress jail until they comply?
14
It's time Americans in the mainland take to the streets following the Puerto Rican example and demand the president and his allies resign
16
President Trump (it still pains me to use those words), a man who believes he can shape reality to suit his purposes, has no regard for the Constitution or the oath of office he took.
The Republicans who persist in backing him in spite of his absurd demonstrations of unfitness for office and multiple, daily lies, are violating their oath of office as well.
26
No standards bind the House Committees. But the standards applied in criminal investigations make so much common sense that they should be deemed applicable here. The issuance of any subpoena should be supported by evidence constituting probable cause of a crime. Absent probable cause, investigations are bad faith fishing expeditions. Think Joe McCarthy. And once an investigation is up and running it should not be drawn out endlessly absent a likelihood of success. Think Benghazi.
Trump's telephone conversation seems to be enough to establish probable cause. But the likelihood of success is much compromised by the anonymity of the principle witness and the fact that the purported victim -- Ukraine -- is not cooperating and is tainted by a long history of political corruption. The House must find ways to close these daunting gaps. They rightly have the chance, but the clock is ticking.
7
@michjas, and while we're at it, let's import the relevant provisions of Sharia law and maybe some ancient Middle-Eastern stuff from the Bible, some Ten Commandments, eh? That the Constitution requires the House to establish its own rules matters not at all.
Trump is no match for Pelosi. She is demonstrating that, unlike the President, she is unflappable; and, that the House of Representatives, not the President and his Administration, controls the impeachment process. Neither the President's petulant behavior, nor the endless attempts at obfuscation by his shameless enablers, will change that fact. He should be very, very afraid - and that's exactly how he's acting.
1059
@David Sadly, I disagree. It I see 6:26 AM on Thursday, and so far the Democrats are just meekly accepting it -as usual. There is talk of more subpoenas, but does anybody honestly believe that the Trump people will comply? This notion of tacking on obstruction and leaving it to the Senate to be the first to question the first hand witnesses? Crazy. The Senate will just put Robert Mueller and Hunter Biden on trial. It's time for inherent contempt. With every hour of inaction, the Democrats lose a little momentum and Trump wins the political battle bit by bit.
16
@David
Except that Pelosi will always follow what is lawful and moral. Trump and the GOP will not. They are willing to do anything, including pull apart our entire nation, to have power. That may be hard to beat in our current dual reality climate. Close to half the population have no idea what is really going on. They listen to propaganda all day. Do you think the average Russian or Chinese citizen has a clue what is really happening in their country?
31
@David
I don't know if Pelosi herself is that impressive
What's clear is that the weight of the evidence is strongly in her favor
6
Re How Will the House Respond to Trump’s Constitutional Escalation?
The first loser in the fight between the Houses, (White House and House of Reps) is the Kurds.
Trump’s desperate smoke screen will choke many of them to death. 11,000 Isis prisoners get freed to fight another day. Innocent Americans then join in the dying and crying.
Congressional committees should meet in secret and issue a request to the military that they quietly maintain their positions until the constitutional crisis is resolved.
No good answers here. Either way Putin walks away the big winner.
835
@RjW totally agree. The Turkish incursion is and should be a disqualifier for that country's continuing membership in NATO. Their assault on neighboring (and prostrate) Syria, their overt genocidal approach to preventing any effort by Kurds in or near their country to assert long overdue nationhood is proof enough of their bad faith. That Trump was so quick to abandon a valuable ally to satisfy Erdogan on the basis of a phone call, tells you everything you need to know about this president. He's utterly beyond qualified to hold office, he's a kind of time-bomb. The fact that he has control of the nuclear codes ought to terrify everyone. Republicans included.
177
@RjW
The amount of Kurdish blood on Trump’s hands (so far) is small compared to the flood from others within Syria whom he failed to protect from Assad as he worked to support Putin’s interests, and it pales in comparison to the Yemeni casualties which he has facilitated even more directly as he supports the interests of the Saudis.
One would think that the Republicans would take this opportunity to jettison Trump purely out of their alleged “pro-life” concerns - let alone the priority he assigns to the interests of countries other than our own.
24
@Dwight It's the Russian connection...in Syria and in Ukraine. Always doing things to help Russia from a geopolitical and environmental (warm up Russian's polar properties; cede province of Ukraine to Russia). man this guy is evil, this Trump .
10
As outrageous as what Trump has done is this:
"How Will the House Respond to Trump’s Constitutional Escalation? The White House wants to reshape the terms of the impeachment political debate."
As a former prosecutor who is a civil rights, criminal defense, and federal appellate attorney, it's disgraceful.
This is not a "Constitutional Escalation", it's a blatant Constitutional Violation by Trump, so there can be no shifting to how the "House Will Respond" to an "Escalation". The "White House" can only pretend to "reshape the terms of the impeachment political debate" if the press also pretends, as it does here, that there's a debate to be held, when there isn't.
Congress is the institution created by the Founding Fathers to exert vigorous oversight of the Executive Branch in order to prevent the rise of an authoritarian despot. In Federalist 51, James Madison explicitly extolled these very checks and balances so as to protect our republic.
Congress's power of oversight is unquestionable, so Trump's refusal to accept that power is the most flagrant violation of the Constitution imaginable. The Constitution is effectively destroyed and our tripartite system of government finished if Trump, the GOP, and the press pretend that the existence of the Constitution is an open question.
The headline should simply read: "Donald Trump and The White House flagrantly violated the Constitution in refusing to accept the Powers explicitly vested in Congress by the Founding Fathers."
1864
@Robert B As an attorney, you should know that while Congress has the right to oversight, they also cannot act as an authoritarian despot in the matter. They must abide by constitutional processes and rights.
And guess who gets to make those calls? Not Congress, not Trump, not me, not you, but the courts. As fully intended. So while Trump cannot run roughshod over Congress, Congress cannot run roughshod over Trump. Both can have they day in court to decide some of these issues.
Three branches of government working in concert, THAT is what the founding fathers envisioned.
22
@Robert B
Excellently said. I couldn't agree with you more!
64
@Marvin
"They must abide by constitutional processes and rights."
Which is EXACTLY what the House is doing and with which the Courts have already agreed with. It's all in the Constitution.
201
"Impeachment is a political process, not just a procedural fight."
In this case, it is that Hillary lost and Democrats won't accept that, won't learn from it, and want to run another Republican-Lite like Hillary behind this smoke screen of all-about-Trump instead of all-about-what-voters-want-from-SOMEBODY.
4
@Mark Thomason
You keep on with that canard.
To everyone else it's clear that Trump had besmirched and denigrated the office of the Presidency.
9
@Mark Thomason Utter poppycock. We are a nation of the rule of law or we are nothing. The House has the right to carry out an impeachment investigation regardless of its political motivations. Pelosi certainly avoided this as long as she could--rightly divining that it would be bad for the Dems in 2020. Trump has no bases to not comply--we've already covered this ground with Nixon. This is not about protecting Biden or promoting Biden. This is about the Constitution.
9
So the White House wants Due Process rights, such as the ability "to cross-examine witnesses, call witnesses, and present evidence," etc?
Excellent! That's the purpose of the trial, and the Constitution gives the Senate "the sole power to try all impeachments."
Nancy Pelosi should simply tell the President to take his request to Mitch McConnell, where it belongs. Let's see if the President really wants a full-blown trial....
18
americans the democrats need your support now. there should be big crowds marching in all cities and towns chanting enough is enough. don‘t give away your democracy just like that. it‘s high time you defend it openly.
16
How will the White House respond to Trump's relentless defiance of the Constitution? That I cannot say.
But one thing's for sure: They won't respond by allowing Trump to give the Medal of Freedom to Ed Meese. Nosirree, Bob! Why . . .
I'm sorry - what's that you just said . . . ?
5
This is some mighty flabby thinking under a mighty untrue headline. This is not a constitutional escalation on the part of the President. It is a flat out violation of the constitution.
22
A president who is incapable of supporting and following the rule of law is incapable of fulfilling his oath sworn duties as president. A president who does not recognize congress as a co-equal branch of government as defined in the constitution, is incapable of fulfilling his duties and must be impeached. Right there is one article of impeachment, not just obstruction.
He is not fulfilling the duties of a president. If Trump has relinquished the duties of the presidency, then he must relinquish the power of the presidency. The power of the presidency is given to fulfill the duties of the president. You don't get one without the other.
17
I'm glad to see this analysis. In the White House's efforts to sucker Trump's base by muddying the waters, it's vital to have analysis at the coarse-grained level that Ms. Reynolds provides.
The WH Counsel letter is ridiculously argued, full of specious rhetoric that is legally irrelevant, meant to confuse Americans about differences of politics and law (the WH clearly doesn't UNDERSTAND the difference; so, no surprise that the attorney represents his client accurately); and differences between inquiry and indictment.
I'd enjoy a detailed analysis of the rhetoric, but then Trump would enjoy the wasted time in such distraction.
8
Trump won't play by the rules. Rather than let the process take its prescribed course, which at this point is likely to result in his impeachment by the House, followed by a likely acquittal by the Senate, he persists in trying to prevent the impeachment in the first place, thereby digging an even deeper whole (new charges of obstruction of justice). Bill Clinton prevailed in the Senate, and more importantly, once the process was in motion he "took it like a man." Trump is no "man" in this case. More of a coward, I would say.
8
Trump’s lawyers are officers of the court. If this letter turns out to be baseless and they are deemed to be helping their client obstruct a valid Congressional investigation, they should be disbarred.
11
Pelosi SHOULD authorize an inquiry vote. Trump might be surprised at the results when representatives have to go on the record on whether they agree with his blatant corruption.
3
@KH
There does not need to be any inquiry vote.
It is the proceedings that do.
1
Judge Sotomayor recently wrote : "Granting a stay pending appeal should be an “extraordinary” act. Unfortunately, it appears the Government has treated this exceptional mechanism as a new normal. Historically, the Government has made this kind of request rarely; now it does so reflexively."
If Congress goes to the courts and the courts say the administration must comply with their requests, the administration will immediately appeal to the Supreme Court if think they can win there. If they think they will lose, they will slow walk the appeals through the normal process.
7
Speaker Pelosi should promptly conduct a formal House vote to authorize the inquiry. It doesn't matter if this is perceived as a capitulation-- that procedural action is simply dotting their i's and will firmly establish the legitimacy of the inquiry! The claim made by Republican abettors that the investigation is politically motivated will be rendered totally and incontrovertibly irrelevant. Whether it is perceived as motivated by bias or not, the Congress has been legally empowered to conduct such inquiries, and failure to cooperate is an abridgment of the separation of powers that should be philosophically difficult for any congressperson to abide.
Of course, it's possible that the House is also adding obstruction of justice to the impeachment inquiry, in addition to what has already been reported by Mueller. This might explain why they have not taken a House vote on authorization, since doing so would allow Trump's lawyers to claim his failure to comply was an objection to procedure.
3
"failure to cooperate is an abridgment of the separation of powers" this is sophomoric nonsense.
When will we begin to talk about what is driving Trump's impeachable offenses - his lack of mental health? The conversation needs to trend toward the issue of the 25th Amendment and Trump's mental condition that cannot tell truth, nor the difference between his political drama and reality. I think this would be cause for deeper reflection in the psyche of the American public - a healthy pause for recognizing and the realization of Trump's paranoia and narcissism driving the dangerous rivalry of divide and conquer among us.
17
People have suggested Trump would resign. I don't believe it. I don't believe Trump will leave of his own free will. Either he wins or he becomes a martyr in his own time, or in his own mind, as the case may be. Trump lives and dies by his image or invulnerability and anything that suggests he quit or was pushed is anathema to him. Where once Pence dreamed of following Donald to the Oval office I believe Pence is now trying to stay out of jail.
15
The simple question to republicans is how would they react if Obama asked Russia, Ukraine, China, Britain, and who knows who else to say they were investigating a political opponent based on made up nonexistent dirt in exchange for getting hundreds of millions of dollars in aid or some other benefit?
Trump has essentially declared himself dictator and Republicans are doing nothing to stop him. We are seeing what amounts to a coup going on. Trump is shooting a hole right through the constitution; destroying our democracy, and Republicans are helping him do it
27
The next steps are quite simple - subpoena the needed information and have the House lawyers ready to go to court the same day the White House says no. As others have said, get both sides to agree to getting this heard QUICKLY and then off to the Supreme Court.
There is no other way.
The letter from the White House reads like the President himself made the outline and the White House Council had to make it stick, poorly, really, really poorly. It has the logic of a narcissist DARVOing, which is what is happening. Eventually the President's sycophantic alternate universe will come crashing down as protecting a narcissist can only go so far before all of the reasonable people jump ship and it sinks as the President is an anchor. From what I see, this President has no chance in the Supreme Court.
7
I want the House of Representatives to conduct their investigation and then have an impeachment vote. Like any person who believes in the Rule of Law, we respect the job of prosecutors to investigate to make their case. May we all keep a level head and encourage our elected officials to follow through so that the facts can emerge .
22
Congress is a CO-EQUAL branch of government.
Trump needs to face up to that.
585
@Jean agreed. And he has dreams of being an authoritarian leader, so facing up to his having equal power with the other branches would end that dream. I truly believe this man in high office has had a break with reality. His tweets have less and less grounding in the real world.
39
@Jean - The fact is that Trump is incapable--seriously, he really is incapable--of facing up to something that he believes is not true, wrong, or whatever. It doesn't matter what the truth is--once his mind is made up about the truth, he is incapable of changing it. He can be forced to back down on small matters that don't mean a whole lot to him, but other than that, he really does get locked into his belief about something. Read some of the books about him.
11
@mouseone His tweets have never had any particular connection to reality. Ever.
14
All the politicians saw this coming on election night in 2016. Trump's behavior is no surprise. The fact that the U.S. government continues to be a heavy burden not just on the lower and middle class but in its lawlessness.
18
How should Congressional Democrats respond to this refusal of the White House to comply with this impeachment inquiry? I have no idea... but I know talk is cheap. There needs to be a BOLD and SWIFT response. Americans respect tough leadership. Democrats have a reputation for complacency. This is an opportunity for the Democrats to show they can take charge. What are the options for a response? Are Congressional Democrats seeking the advice of the top legal minds in this country?
21
How many more crimes will Trump commit, and the GOP find ways to excuse, before Trump does something really damaging?
25
@proffexpert Done & Done
4
@proffexpert, Donald has already done numerous damaging things.
2
The letter coming from White House counsel Cipollone has served a duel purpose on behalf of president Trump:
1) It has the tone of being scolding to the House of Representatives which effectively attempts to reduce the position of that body in relation to the executive branch--thereby fixing an uneven balance of power clearly in defiance of the Constitution itself;
2) Mr. Cipollone and the White House certainly know that this letter would be published by major news media for full reading by the American public, especially the president's so-called "base", therefore serving as an excellent propaganda tool in valuable misinformation about the whole impeachment process.
This entire response on the part of the White House to the legitimate impeachment inquiry process being carried out by various House committees is a monumental disgrace to this country and to the legally-based system of checks and balances on which we rely.
39
I find amazing that the executive can simply block people from being interrogated and refuse to turn over documents and also that the courts take long time to judge and enforce the executive to comply. This matter should go directly to Supreme Court, which should respond quickly.
31
Trump is trying once again to divert attention. Fortunately, Pelosi is skilled. And the House has the evidence that it needs.
Hopefully, they will do the public impeachment hearings in late October and early November, vote on impeachment between Thanksgiving and Christmas and send the indictment to the Senate.
Ultimately, this is not about Trump's actions. He is guilty of violating his oath of Office and endangering the nation. Moreover, he confessed with the memo of his talk with the President of Ukraine.
The real issue is Will the Republican Members of the House and Senate honor their oaths to defend the Constitution against enemies foreign and domestic or allow Trump to get by this High Crime. Voters in 2020 need to know the answer to that question.
32
@Pat Choate
There are moments that one wonders whether there is not a large part of the voters is that not even interested in having an answer to this question. Lets hope I am too pessimistic.
5
Interestingly, I have not seen much, if anything at all, about the fact that the Senate has no constitutional requirement to hold a trial. In that instance, the House would have no judicial remedy.
The Constitution confers on the Senate "the sole power to try,” which is a conferral of exclusive constitutional authority and not a procedural command.
Sen. McConnell could choose not to present the case to the Senate.
The Senate could adjourn before or during the trial (as they did during Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial).
The Constitution does not even specify what constitutes a trial.
4
@Francis Pay attention. He's already gone on record as saying he would have no choice but to follow Senate rules, which require a trial.
12
@Francis I think McConnell said the other day he has no choice but to take up a Senate trial if the House votes to impeach. After that, I assume the Senate has a pretty wide latitude to hold the trial as they want. I believe Pence would preside over the trial.
5
Chief Justice Roberts would preside, and presumably have some say on how it proceeds.
9
Here's my prediction: the moment the current President is forced to turn his tax returns and financial information to the House, he will resign. He will do this because the information will be so damaging to his future business prospects that he cannot under any circumstance allow it to be released. Undoubtedly, the information is likely to indicate that he hasn't paid any taxes in years, has in fact received abundant credits and rebates, and has secured funding from parties that he can't bear to disclose (ie. banks associated with the Russian FSB). He forever complain of being a victim of being a witchhunt, but at least will be able to continue as a businessman. If this financial information is released, he will be done. You saw it here first.
128
Congress may want to ask the Supreme Court to fast-track a hearing determining the validity and legality of their various subpoenas and inquiries. They have fast-tracked issues of vital importance before--Bush v. Gore comes to mind.
I still find it amazing and appalling that so many people think that Republican and Trump's actions outside channels and with corrupt intent are fine, but Democrats using well-defined channels with Constitutional-based intent are rogue agents trying to destroy the Constitution. They see it exactly backward.
123
@Jacob Sommer You also see it backwards. Congress has a right to investigate but does not have unfettered rights to do anything they please. And Trump has every right to things like executive privilege and the right to challenge things like getting his tax returns without a "legitimate" reason.
That is why we have courts.
Neither side is destroying the Constitution, we are seeing a perfect example of three branches of government checking and balancing each other. And even within Congress, the House and Senate doing so.
1
@Marvin You seriously don't think there is a legitimate reason for seeing Trump's tax returns? No need for scare quotes, as taxpayers we have a right to know who he is selling us out to, even though his sons already told us.
17
@Marvin No "legitimate reason" is required for certain House committees to review any American's tax returns. And if you think this is normal, and an example of how checks and balances work, then I suggest you stop reading the news and spend a weekend reading and studying the U.S. Constitution.
16
The claim that impeachment is an effort to reverse the results of the 2016 election is the silliest of them all. Impeachment and conviction would lead to removing Trump, and installing his running mate and vice president (also chosen via the electoral college) as POTUS. Impeachment would NOT return Obama to office, nor would it result in Hillary Clinton being sworn in. There's no "reversal" being attempted. Word have meaning, and the words of the constitution allow for the House to be the sole determiner of whether and HOW impeachment happens . The "reversal of the election" claim is just one more of the linguistic games and fallacies that comprise the silly letter from the White House Counsel.
116
@Jeff G t"he words of the constitution allow for the House to be the sole determiner of whether and HOW impeachment happens"
Yes, but that does not mean Congress has unfettered rights to do as they please. They must also operate within the bounds of other laws and other constitutional aspects.
Trump have every right to free speech, be it silly or not, and has every right to challenge things in court as he sees fit.
1
Marvin, this is not a legal case but rather a congressional process. Drumpf doesn’t get to call his own witnesses and cross examine them as he might in court.
Also, what other “congressional aspects” do you suggest apply here?
8
I'm beginning to think that Trump knows he will eventually be impeached and plans on resigning before that. In the meantime, he needs to make as many deals with people like Erdogan as he can before he leaves office. So, stall, stall, stall, get Ivanka a few more trademarks with China, then bail.
31
@tom harrison Actually, when he was elected I assumed he'd resign before the end of his second year, but absolute power does indeed corrupt absolutely and I think his grasp on it will not be given up lightly. In addition, there are several investigations into criminal behavior being conducted right now that will likely end in indictments if he's not the president. Add to that the amount of money he's making from the presidency and, well, you get the idea.
22
@tom harrison
A week or so ago it sure sounded like he was pushing for a civil war rather than resigning.
1
@CritterDoc - He is not the slightest bit worried about the SDNY because he will just leave the country and move in with Roman Polanski.
If the bizarre effort of the White House succeeds, it will apply to future presidents -- including Democrats, Socialists and those roses by any other name, unless the Supreme Court rules that investigating and impeaching are out of bounds only for President Trump. Of course, the Supremes could delay ruling on these issues until after the 2020 election.
The Constitution's language regarding impeachment is substantially clear. As it stands, no president is immune from impeachment proceedings. Will the courts make Trump the exception?
14
the White House says:
, the letter states that if House Democrats “return to the regular order of oversight requests, we stand ready to engage in that process.” But it ends by asking House Democrats to “abandon the current invalid efforts to pursue an impeachment inquiry and join the President in focusing on the many important goals that matter to the American people.”
If this means that the President and his people are willing to invite the Congress into the deliberations and actions of the Executive, because it is so clear to both the Congress and the people that the President seems incapable of carrying out these activities by himself or with his current group of appointees, then it might be something worth considering. The congress would have to be allowed into all the Presidents political actions-both domestic and foreign, so that they could with ease and certainty, ensure that the most powerful office in the world, is not being abused for crass, illicit and lowbrow blackmail and ridiculous "Hollywood-like", gangster like threats against states and individuals, abusing the power of the USA as an enforcement tool.
If the President is serious about cooperating with the congress and it's leadership-including it's minority members-this might be a useful idea. As long as the President is willing to give guarantees of his future probity & behavior then has been the case, until the recent series of investigations.
1
I think Nancy and the democratic team have been very clear for the last two weeks and before.. She doesnt have to take vote and the president with his brilliance knows that. This is a way to keep his great thinking in the main TV frame everyday.
Poor me no one likes me, pity the old white president who is making good decisions like putting kids in cages. Leaving the Kurds to be slaughtered, taking away health care, I could go on but what is the point we all know what it is.
Trump broke the law and the democrats have lawyer's who really went to law school, they are not TV lawyers. Rudi can puff all he wants. The talking heads can talk all they want. the law was broken, Trump broke the law and lied, he has people covering up the cover up.
Rick Perry, Moscow mitch, Rudi, Barr they are involved in breaking the law and doing the cover up. How did so many white men become ignorant about the law, guess whatever Trump is giving them they just couldn't refuse.
Nancy and Adam are just doing their jobs, no one told trump like Nixon to break the law. I love the GOP legal team, plenty of Hollywood drama. Who is going to play Trump and Rudi, inquiring minds want to know.
15
The dems should just impeach trump & when the senate republicans dont hold him accountable than any insanity trump does & we all know he will, than the republican party will be held accountable on election day. His behavior is squarely on the very people who ENABLE it.
11
@Joe Bingo. That is PRECISELY what will come of this successful impeachment. Those Republican Representatives who vote against impeachment, and Republican Senators who vote against conviction need to be on the record as supporting presidential corruption.
7
What is illegitimate is to ask foreign countries, and extort them, to investigate a U S citizen for the benefit of the campaign of the sitting president... like this gangster in the Maison Blanche.
15
“I can’t emphasize enough; it’s not just Ukraine.”
And Donald Trump and Mick Mulvaney and Mike Pence and Mike Pompeo and Pat Cipollone know this. They’ve run a sting on all of us since January 20, 2017, the 45th president’s unvarnished declaration of his “American Carnage,” if you will. The Trump administration is nothing less than a criminal syndicate that’s being financed not by street collections but by our taxes.
If the House surrenders to this four-flushing letter of bold and groundless demands, we would have been better off under a British monarchy. And who wants to answer to those who made the last sacrifice for what, through cowardice, treason and slimy ambition, we blithely threw away on the dung heap of ideology?
23
Every worthless utterance from the White House should be met with a clenched fist. The mobster Trump and the Trump Crime Syndicate encompassing the GOP respect nothing else.
As for his bevy of well heeled Capos, a fine of $25000 a day, doubling everyday should provide an incentive.
This needs to be acted upon immediately!
23
The delay tactics evident during Trump make me wonder if our democracy and separation of powers is actually functional anymore. The system can obviously be “played” by any number of lawyers. Is it possible that our system of government cannot work in the midst of morons and the greedy? Or am I just overreacting?
17
@Barry It is working perfectly. Three branches of government checking each other to ensure no one is abusing their powers unconstitutionally. Trump does not get to ignore Congress, Congress does not get to run without boundaries. Courts will decide the boundaries on both sides.
5
Slow and steady wins the race. Keep on keeping on Democrats!
15
Censure immediately. Investigate thoroughly. Impeach repeatedly.
15
Why can't the Senate act on Trump's obstruction? Is it because they are traitors? Trump is Putin's lapdog and the GOP and moderate democrats are Trumps lapdogs. Trump is a traitor and thus any congressperson that supports him is a traitor.
9
With the counsel letter, Trump has basically delivered the following message to the House: Go to hell, and take the Constitution with you.
If this is not a dire constitutional crisis, then nothing is.
To quote Sen. Harris: "Dude Gotta Go!"
23
@William Fordes That is why we have courts, to decide what Trump can do and what Congress can do. There is not Constitutional Crisis, things are working as they are supposed to work. Each side can have their say in the courts if they want to.
2
Marvin
I seen all your posts about the courts but the courts have no stake in this.
The constitution is clear on this,
Congress has all the power.
Do you think that the Dumpster Fire in the White House would be writing letters to Congress if they could get the courts to intervene?
3
The Trump Crime Family doing what it does best, abusing the public.
When the Traitor/Criminal Trump is impeached form office he will need to be restricted form foreign travel as he will lily flee to Russia or Turkey or some other compromised corrupt state like Israel.
9
The only two Presidents in history to be served subpoenas were Richard Nixon and Thomas Jefferson. One of the two refused to appear in court. If your guess was Richard Nixon, you’d actually be wrong; it was Jefferson. But that was because he was too busy to travel, Jefferson subsequently produced all necessary documents and promised to be examined in Washington related to this matter about Aaron Burr’s attempted invasion of Mexico. Jefferson’s refusal was never challenged in court.
Andrew Jackson openly challenged by Congress in its request for information, but technically he was not subpoenaed. If Trump himself were to be subpoenaed and refused, he would find himself in a dangerous place historically, as a Thomas Jefferson he is not, despite the protestations of Lou Dobbs. This initial defiance is alarming, but we are at the outset of an unpredictable course. Impeachment seems to be the reasonable course.
16
There is one reason that this push by Democrats will forever be seen as flawed and it's summarized pretty well by a quote in the article:
As the House general counsel, Doug Letter, argued in federal court on Tuesday, in reference to the inquiry, “I can’t emphasize enough, it’s not just Ukraine.”
The problem is that this SHOULD ONLY be about Ukraine. The Democrats are trying to lump in the Mueller report and taxes and everything else they can think of, but that makes this look political.
If the president is going to be impeached it should be for facts - not wish lists or dislikes. The Mueller probe turned out to be a total waste of money and time as far as trying to remove Trump and it shouldn't even be talked about at this point.
You can't remove a president because you don't like him, you have to prove your case and show evidence. If they keep saying things like "it's not just Ukraine" then this will be seen as completely political and Trump knows it. That's why he's saying things like "They are trying to overturn an election", and honestly he's saying the right things to make it seem that way.
Democrats have to stick to facts and only focus on this one instance. if they go outside the lines of this one offense it will not be seen as an investigation, but rather a political act.
The first effort failed and this is their last chance - don't screw it up by even mentioning Mueller.
59
@John Connor, actually the Mueller report details multiple impeachable offenses.
264
@John Connor
I prefer a narrow impeachment too. However, we should note: Shutting down investigations operating on different timelines isn't really advisable. Ukraine might develop in 6 months whereas Emoluments has already taken years. Both are impeachable.
I think the point Democrats need to communicate is Congress has the ability impeach the same President more than once on different articles. They will hold separate votes for separate issues as relevant information is made available by the courts. First stop: Ukraine.
131
The facts of the Mueller report are that Trump committed obstruction of justice. That report is directly relevant to Trump’s current obstruction of justice.
297
QUESTIONS!
What happens if subpoenas are ignored? Will U.S. Marshalls apprehend and bring in witnesses?
What if DT orders the Marshall's service to stand down? Would that be an illegal order that can safely be disregarded?
10
@LarryAt27N Eric Holder was help in contempt for ignoring a House subpoena, he was never close to being jailed, and the case really just close this year, some 7 years afterwards. That was an AG, the bar will be higher for a president.
He was a wrecking ball before he became president and nothing has changed. The Republican party sold its soul to the devil in 2016 and paid a small price in 2018 and hopefully, will pay an even higher price in 2020.
I can only wonder what the Republican candidates of 2016 think about the shape of their party now and how they lost to this sorry excuse for a human being.
Speaks volumes about us as Americans.
13
It’s time for arrests. The laws are clear.
12
Let the courts sort it out at their glacial pace... while every subpoena-defying individual, starting with Rudy, sits in jail. Ken Starr did it to Susan McDougal. It's time for Adam Schiff to do it to Rudy Giuliani.
2
Compares to the Democrats making deals with Iran and also changing the landscape of Health Care with ACA. Why not reshape the terms of impeachment? Because it's not in favor of the Democrats- I think not. The Democrats could not have picked a worse person than Schiff to be their point man. His hatred for Trump goes way back - and it's personal. I know what the left means by alt-right- but its really just a social media phenomenon. Funny we never hear much about the alt-left other than it runs the main stream media (apologies for the redundancy). If the leftist liberals really knew what was best for the country they would not have gotten us essentially nowhere in making it all happen.
1
@DED : Ad hominem arguments will not save the GOP this time. The Constitution is clear, the House has the power to impeach. The President is obstructing that process. This is not about the personal history of one of the players. It's about History with a capital H.
13
When the word of the president cannot be trusted because he lies constantly, that should be enough to impeach.
9
@kj Maybe it should be, but unless it is under oath, it is not. And even if it is under oath, that does not mean removal from office, see Bill Clinton.
1
TRUMP, It will be recalled, paid $25 million to settle the suit in federal court for those people (AKA students) defrauded by the defunct ersatz, bogus Trump university. So if Trump see himself with no better alternative, he may again choose to pay up. This time meaning to send records and authorize the testimony of witnesses. There is danger in setting such a precedent from the unprecedented unpresidential repugnant excuse for a president. It might be a good idea for the House to begin to freeze the personal assets of those who have ignored subpoenas. Starting with the people down on the low end of the totem poll. That should dislodge the system, as the little guys decide it's better to turn on the boss that to be destroyed financially.
6
Time for the Republicans to remove those phony little American flags from their suit lapels so they can fight more vigorously for the monarchy, czarship and oligarchic dictatorship that they represent.
Republicans have abandoned the Constitution, the country and the American people.
Impeach and incarcerate all those who defy the House of Representative's its Constitutional duties.
390
@Socrates - so true. We need to send them all crown pins to attach to their lapels.
19
As are most communications from the WH, the purpose of this letter is to spread misinformation. Get all the enablers yelling "unconstitutional impeachment!" forcing everyone's attention from the true crimes. SAD! But, note that the right-wing propaganda machine has been growing for years, so it is ready to exert its considerable strength to confuse and confound.
4
It seems like what they should do is raise a glass to Trump for continuing to dig a deeper hole for himself for obstructing justice on top of all of the other laws he is breaking.
7
Ms. Reynolds, Trump is not trying to “reshape” the impeachment debate. He is trashing the Constitution’s mandates. And his procedural arguments are not “shaky.” They are insane.
8
I'm sorry but didn't trump put his little hand on the bible (before it burst into flames) and swear to uphold and defend the constitution? Has he even read it? I highly doubt it. Is there a picture book constitution available?
5
One thread of the Republicans' argument confuses an employment evaluation with a criminal process. They claim a right to examine witnesses & cross-examine adverse witnesses & claim a right to 'due-process'. They claim Democrats are being unfair & possibly unconstitutional in their effort to impeach the president. Some Democrats & defenders of Pelosi's approach fall into this trap by talking about how a House impeachment is more like an indictment. Nonsense.
An impeachment is an evaluation of a federal employee's performance that often, but not always, concludes with a recommendation to terminate the person's employment. Of the almost 20 impeachments, most of which were of federal judges - only 3 were presidents, that was the process in the House. No one was fined, incarcerated or otherwise suffered a criminal sanction of any kind because of that process. Comparing the House impeachment process with anything related to the country's criminal process is disingenuous or intellectually lazy.
The decision to accept the House's recommendation is the Senate's alone, which may not accept the recommendation to fire the employee, as it declined to do with President Clinton. The Senate imposes no criminal sanction - a fired employee is not fined or jailed by the Senate.
Republicans vandalize the impeachment discussion with their emotional & reckless insistence that impeachment is or is anything like a criminal process.
9
The GOP is grasping at clearly unconstitutional straws in an effort to postpone the inevitable. It amazes me that Republicans, formerly the "law & order" party and true lovers of the "American Way," now turn their backs on centuries of established law in order to prop up their fatally flawed president. It's as if they don't really love America, they only love power.
1076
@KenF
I hope that your last sentence is not something that has just become evident to you. The GOP lust for power has been nakedly out there for decades for all to see. Power and the retention of it is all that matters to them.
167
@KenF
Wasn't it Republicans who used to carry a copy of the Constitution around in their back pockets to prove what patriots they were ?
113
@Stretchy Cat Person
I am fairly certain that they still do.
16
Impeachment is NOT a political process. It is the Constitutional duty of the House of Representatives to impeach a president who has met the low standards of conduct described in the Constitution as "high crimes and misdemeanors". In the current political environment, Republicans and their allies in the media have chosen to spin impeachment as a political process. Same folks who deny climate change.
1019
If Impeachment charges of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." (article 2, Section 4) were criminal:civil charges then the Constitution would state the trial occurs within the Judicial branch i.e. the Courts. This is not so.
The Constitution makes any Impeachment trial is held in the Senate, by Senators, presided over by the Supreme Justice. A vote is taken of the Senators with 2/3 to Convict.
Impeachment does not follow the same procedures or standards of evidence that Court trials do. Nor is the sentence of removal not jail the same. While the Founding Fathers certainly wished Impeachment to be free of politics, the process is inherently political because it is politicians and not judges trying conviction of the President.
33
@Jeff G
It doesn't matter if it's a political process or a criminal process or a civil process for remedying by removal for behavior by the president that has determined by Congress to be "high crimes and misdemeanors."
It especially doesn't matter because of the memo/guideline of the DOJ that states that the President cannot be charged with crimes while sitting in the White House.
As long as that is what stopped Mueller with stating crimes committed by Trump and as long as that would stop the DOJ from bringing criminal charges against Trump for violating FEC laws and the emoluments clause of the Constitution, impeachment is all we've got.
The American people must understand this or our nation is doomed. We have turned into a Banana Republic.
50
@Peninsula Pirate It is most definitely a political process, but that doesn't make it illegitimate. Politics is the means by which we gain and maintain power in our system, and the means by which we make policy decisions. The framers clearly believed that an abuse of political power by the president calls for an exercise of political power by Congress to correct the situation. Politics isn't a dirty word. Exercising it responsibly is the obligation of all public office holders. It becomes problematic when they prioritize holding onto or expanding political power at the expense of what's in the nation's best interest, as Mr. Trump has done.
135
If they were right and had the nerve they would have a vote so the Republicans could get in. However they just want to play their name calling game. This will go to the courts and Trump will win.
@Ricardoh They don't have to. And why would the democrats let trump dictate any terms whatsoever?
7
@Ricard
So you think it is a good idea that in impeachment hearings the executive should not have to comply with investigators requests for evidence and witnesses?
You think impeachment should be toothless?
The framers gave the power of impeachment to congress as the only avenue for removing a corrupt president.
So if the Pres does not have to comply in an investigation how is congress to be able to accurately determine whether or not wrong doing has occurred?
Could the framers have given the power of impeachment to congress but not the power to investigate the executive in order to uncover possible wrong doing that would lead to impeachment?
Imagine this were a democratic president who had apparently been involved in serious wrong doing.
Would you be OK with that presidents obstructing republicans investigating his possible wrong doing?
7
@Rich Huff Does not matter who is okay with what, what matters is what the courts allows as valid. On both sides.
1
A straight party line vote would feed Trump's narrative that this was an attempted "coup" by the Democrats. (It's absolutely not a coup which, by definition, is a violent, illegal seizure of power, but that word will be effective with Trump's base and amplified by the RW media.) That would be an unforced error by the Democrats.
However, Republican leadership has acknowledged that Nancy Pelosi is better at counting Republican votes than they are themselves. If she can pick up enough votes to make it bipartisan, then she should hold the vote. It seems likely that she could get some Republican votes, at least for an inquiry.
If that makes other Republicans look bad for voting "no" as more information comes out, that's a bonus.
5
How should the House respond? Hold those who defy subpoenas in contempt of Congress, and have them arrested by the House Sergeant-at-Arms until they comply.
23
@Kevin Brock Makes sense. Why don't they arrest them? The White House's flouting of subpoenas is not only illegal it's unfair; no ordinary person could get away with it. All the pieces are in place to protect Trump from almost any legal gambit. It feels like some, probably rich and powerful, person is working very hard to shield him: the big question is why. As just a citizen of the world, I wish he could be reigned in and made more normal.
3
@Kevin Brock - We have a neighbor lady who didn't appear in court when ordered. They sent 9 U.S. Marshals fully locked and loaded to haul her off in handcuffs. No one "asked" her to appear, no one sent her attorney a list of questions that would be asked, hell no, they just came in all SWAT like and dragged her away. She is just a poor black woman who doesn't know Rudy from back in the day.
8
@Kevin Brock Yeah, does not really work that way. See Eric Holder, subpoena, executive privilege, Fast and Furious.
This crisis says a lot more about a derelict political party, i.e. Republicans, than it does about a corrupt president and executive branch. Trump is just being Trump, enabled by his Republican partners in crime.
9
The House should go full speed ahead on two articles of impeachment - Ukraine and obstruction.
Make the vulnerable Republican senators (Collins, Gardner, McSally) either vote to acquit and endanger themselves in the general election, or vote to convict and get a serious challenge in the primary.
7
@John Graybeard Wouldn't a great concept be that Collins, Gardener and McSally voted their conscience and put the country first?
2
@Armo You mean like all the Dems Senators in the 90s that did not vote to convict Clinton when he clearly committed perjury, obstruction and witness tampering?
It is not just if the president commits a crime, the conviction rests upon the ability of them to continue on with their job or not.
Clinton CLEARLY committed crimes, but was PROPERLY acquitted.
So, not only do you have to prove a crime, you have to show its seriousness moving forward.
For example, if you claim Trump obstructed a Mueller investigation that turned up nothing on him, you think a Senate will remove him from office for that? No, they will not, nor should they.
@Marvin Yes lying to congress was a crime and he was impeached.He lied about consensual sex. Also not much turned up in the Meuller report? I disagree. The fact that trump obstructed the investigation over 10 times by Mueller's count impeded the investigation.I agree that clinton is not one to hold a bar up to, but your fellow committed treason. There is a huge difference there.
1
One should never go into battle with Trump armed with a single article of impeachment.
Every White House defiance of a Legal request from the Congress - MUST be met with an additional; "Article of Obstruction".
Trump had publicly stated that Pelosi is handing out Subpoenas like their "cookies" -
Well Speaker Pelosi - "Let the Cookies Fly" !
No need to limit requests and subpoenas to just Trump - it's time to "Cookie-Blast" the whole criminal gang .
The likes of Pompeo, Barr, Giuliani, Ukrainian Ambassadors, and the entire White House Staff . . .
ALL need to be dragged in on the "Congressional Carpet" !
The House needs to "Double-Down" for every time Trump and his gang whines about being treated unfairly - or that the "Deep State" is coming after him.
Trump and the GOP - ARE the "Deep State"
What we really need is a continual barrage of dirt to come out on Trump and his crew - we want that shifting tide of the American Public to continue to move closer to wanting an impeachment inquiry.
The "Line in the Sand" will probably end up in the Supreme Court, as it did with Nixon . . . and sadly, with how easily Trumps "turns" decent public servants into his own personal "hit men" - - - we do need to worry about the High Court siding with Trump -
We do need the Supreme Court to rule in favor of our Constitution, and the Oversight Rights of Congress
If not - and they side with Trump . . . then my fellow Americans - "all is lost" !
14
It also shows that Trump is not schooled in the Constitution. He's about to be taken to the woodshed.
11
It would be nice to know which persons are feeding such information to Trump. He does not have procedural knowledge or the intelligence to seek and understand such governing principles. Self serving people are sending him up like a pin ball on an ever changing table of high crimes and misdemeanors.
4
@L. W.
All the informed and competent folks who were willing to say:
"that is a bad idea Mr. President, if you want to accomplish this, then a better way is to...
...are gone.
All that remain are the man's toadies, all "yes men" who are all too willing to say:
"As you wish, your eminence".
Making it far more likely we are seeing the beginning of the end of the trump presidency.
3
It is clear that Trump does not want to be held responsible to our constitution, regulations, laws, or precedents. He wants to change our basic tenants to serve himself. He thinks by claiming he does not like the rules, he can not be held to them. Then anyone could claim they do not like a law so it is irrelevant to them. How can any country survive that illegal behavior?
But there is another way for him to have his own way; to leave our country and find himself someplace else where dictators and autocrats do as they please. Is self exile the solution?
The problem is that other dictators would probably not like a competitor and would not accept him. There is, however, another appropriate location for Trump and his obsequious thugs: Jail.
9
This is not a time for hesitation or weakness; this is a time for an aggressive protection of what is left of this country.
If subpoenas are not answered those people should be thrown in jail. There is no need to wait for the Supreme Court to decide on whether Donald Trump is a danger to the national security of our country and to our democratic way of life.
There is no need to ask judges for an opinion about a president who is clearly off the rails. This is even obvious to the Republicans in the Senate who can’t bear to mention it publicly.
What we are seeing is precisely how tyrants and dictators become powerful.
This must be stopped.
13
@RD So forget about that due process stuff, huh? You are supporting what you claim you are railing against, tyranny and authoritarianism!
Aren't we tired of hearing about how impeachment is 'a political process'? Everything that goes on in Congress and the White House is 'a political process' in some general sense.
But when the House sits in an impeachment inquiry, that is a JUDICIAL process where it is essentially a grand jury for legal purposes, if I understand the legal experts on tv. That's why the House's subpoena power becomes more potent when brought to a court under an impeachment inquiry.
That was what the whole shilly-shallying dance for months before the Ukraine outrage....about document requests and subpoenas... was about. Is it or is it not an impeachment inquiry? Because there is a difference in the minds of the courts... and why a lot of subpoenas were stalled in court for months (because it was argued just a 'legislative subpoena to provide information for future lawmaking').
Of course there is politics involved, but can our journalists get the terminology straight? The American people are confused enough as it is.
7
@Bobby
It is a political process.
The senate has no constitutional requirement to hold a trial, and the House would have no judicial avenue for remedy.
The Constitution confers on the Senate "the sole power to try,” which is a conferral of exclusive constitutional authority and not a procedural command. The Constitution does not even specify what constitutes a trial.
Sen. McConnell could choose not to present the case to the Senate.
The Senate could adjourn before or during the trial, as they did during Andrew Johnson’s impeachment trial.
2
How can the President of the United States just choose NOT to participate in an investigation about his possible crimes? Can anyone else do that? Does that mean there are no rules for the President anymore, and he can just do whatever he wants? If so, why am I paying taxes?
78
The McConnell Rule stopped a supreme court nominee ... so how about the Pelosi Rule which authorizes a House inquiry by her single say-so.
"But neither the Constitution nor the Rules of the House require such a vote. Congress, as the Constitution states in Article 1, Section 5, has the power to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings” — including in the context of impeachment. The Supreme Court has been deferential to that power."
11
Why can’t the court proceedings for each of the documents and witnesses that have been subpoenaed by Congress and blocked by the White House be fast-tracked, so we can get some meaningful hearings underway?
13
@Ken Standig
And more damning news for Trump and his supporters...
Televangelist Pat Roberston said that President Donald Trump's response to the Jamal Khashoggi killing and the decision to pull support from Kurds in Syria puts Trump "in danger of losing the mandate of heaven."
Yikes, Evangelicals are even jumping ship!
4
Are the House Dems really going to vote to impeach Trump without any attempt to be transparent or to allow Republicans to call countervailing witnesses?
I don't see how vulnerable House Dems will be unwilling to vote for an impeachment process that adheres to due process values, but will be willing to vote for actual impeachment after a clearly partisan "inquiry".
What happens when it goes to the Senate?
There, Republicans will be sure to expose all the exculpatory evidence that was hidden in the House investigation. How do you think that will make the vulnerable House Dems who voted to impeach look to voters?
1
@frankly0 The President will get his chance to defend during the trial in the Senate. This is the phase of investigation, just like when you see cops on TV questioning witnesses and finding evidence before the indictment.
13
@frankly0
An impeachment is the equivalent of a Grand Jury indictment with the House acting as the prosecutor. Once the trial starts in the Senate all the exculpatory evidence, the ability of the administration to call witnesses, etc. become a part of the due process needed in our Republic. However, to say that this process is unconstitutional because it lacks transparency and the ability for the administration to call witnesses on its own behalf is to say that all Grand Juries are unconstitutional. Gather the evidence, impeach i.e. indict (or not if the evidence is not there), go to trial in the Senate. It is truly that simple and the histrionics from the Republicans can not be allowed to derail the process.
8
@frankly0
What exculpatory evidence?
8
Upon reading the White House lawyers' letter it's very clear that they mistake an Impeachment Inquiry for it's sequel. Impeachment itself is an indictment the trial following takes place in the Senate, where judicial process takes over from that of the legislature. In other words a Impeachment Inquiry doesn't require that the subject cross examine accusers. The defendant will have his opportunity for that in the trial. On the right to Impeach and to Inquire about grounds for Impeachment is written into the Constitution, without ambiguity. The fact that the Legislature is co-equal with the Executive is embedded in the Constitution and our Law. Obstructing a coequal partner in the government is Obstruction and itself becomes an additional article of Impeachment. Period.
36
Relying on the courts will take too long. The House can impeach based on obstruction and the transcript of Trump's telephone call alone, perhaps also with additional testimony of the second whistleblower. They can also start enforcing their subpoenas with $50,000/ day fines. I would like to see them lock people who defy subpoenas in a spare washroom in the Capitol, but I doubt they have the nerve to do that.
12
It's always useful to ask what Republicans would do if party affiliations were reversed. Of course they would have begun impeachment proceedings before HRC was even sworn in on whatever charges they could invent.
Meanwhile, our champions in the Democratic Party can barely manage to move glacially towards...something...while the President and his minions tell them what they can do with their subpoenas and hearings.
We need lions here, and we're getting nervuos house cats instead.
16
Several issues:
1) If each time POTUS is mentioned in an article, his title accompanies that mention, then Speaker Pelosi should get the same treatment and not be referred to as 'Ms. Pelosi' at the beginning of graph 11.
2) Since the House functions as a Grand Jury during the impeachment process, with the Senate functioning as a jury should there be an impeachment trial, then House procedures will not - and should not - look like a TeeVee trial, despite White House wailings.
3) At what point - exactly - did this White House suddenly become concerned about 'process' and 'procedure' or guard rails of any sort; it's out loud laughable that they pretend so now.
4) Because this White House has absolutely refused on many many issues not involving impeachment, to cooperate in furnishing documents, testimony, or witnesses to this Congress in the pursuit of its Constitutional oversight duties, it is not Congress's fault that things are at a stalemate.
5) The charge of 'trying to reverse the election 2016' utterly ignores the election of 2018, which saw 40 GOP'ers thrown out of the House for following along with the White House for 2 years.
Bringing us to the last point, that starting with the government shutdown at the end of 2018, GOP'ers try to pretend the House is illegitimate since Dems are in charge; this is of a piece with GOP'er actions in N.C., Michigan and Wisconsin following their 2018 election losses.
29
What happens when Trump’s people ignore congressional subpoenas and consequently the rule of law?
Well... apparently nothing. Apparently, Democrats are totally okay with a King telling his subjects what to do, and they just take whatever he throws at them without any consequence whatsoever.
It’s tragic, and I wish upon everything in this world that it wasn’t so. But for some reason that remains unfathomable to me, it is true.
4
Ms. Reynolds says "its fundamental purpose is much broader." But she fails to state how broad. Its purpose is to declare the Executive to be above restraint by Congress.
10
Why can't the House vote on a series of impeachments?
Each impeachment vote would then (presumably) go to the Senate for trial.
13
@Peter Stix If the White House Counsel denies the House's authority to impeach, why can't the Senate deny the House's authority to impeach?
This is a a genuine constitutional crisis.
@Peter Stix An additional thought.
Suppose the House votes for impeachment, the Senate declines to convict, AND DJT is re-elected. He could become the first Presidrnt to be impeached twice!
Let's hope (pray?) that doesn't happen.
The House is just in the first step of the process - investigating the details and questioning those concerned. A House vote is not needed to start or proceed with an investigation. Constitutionally the House has the right and duty to investigate the executive branch.
The entire House votes AFTER the investigation, which sends the whole thing to the Senate.
3
First, this entire proceeding by the dems will run well into next year, thereby giving trump more opportunity to continue his overwhelming fund raising campaign and recruit more followers. Second, in the event that the house votes to impeach, the senate will not convict. Third, as the dems have no electable candidate, trump will win his second term. Last, the dems will most likely start the whole show again.
1
@TED338 Your arguments make a lot of bad assumptions, that only continued obstruction by the White House may delay the process, however enough first hand evidence already exists..i.e. a W.H. transcript of the Zelensky/Trump phone call, Volcker text messages, and Whistle Blower Testimony from at least two different people- to convict the President of
the U.S.A. Shifting public opinion, in favor of Impeachment and removal,may persuade enough Republican and Democratic Senators to convict Trump of Articles of Impeachment. Current Polls show all four of the top Democratic candidates running for the 2020 Presidential Democratic Nomination are preferred over Donald J. Trump. As long as Trump continues in his corrupt and lawless actions new articles of Impeachment should be considered against him.
3
Speaker Pelosi authorized an impeachment inquiry without a vote, ignoring precedent from the Nixon and Clinton inquiries and a 1986 ruling by the House Parliamentarian.
And what action is occurring is happening behind closed doors, without any effort to work with committee Republicans.
That seems to be a partisan escalation by Pelosi that Trump is entitled to ignore. Should she actually hold a House vote and assign the Judiciary Committee to lead the inquiry, as precedent suggests, then a return to regular order moots Trump's complaint.
1
@Liberty hound : The House decides on its own procedures. It is not a court so past decisions are a guide, they are not binding. Procedural quibbles will not save this President in the House. He must face the music. The Senate may fiddle while our Republic burns but the House should choose not to.
44
@Liberty hound
Under House rules at the time of the Nixon and Clinton impeachments, House committees required a floor vote before they could issue subpoenas. Those rules changed (thanks to Republican activists) so that now, those committees are authorized to subpoena right now. Why vote?
If an investigation results in discovery of high crimes or misdemeanors (highly likely) then the drafted articles move from committee to the full House. At that time there would be a full roll call vote.
Trump is not entitled to dictate House rules. Trump is also not entitled to ignore House subpoenas. Doing so is a failure to conform to the Constitutional role of Article 1 oversight and investigation. The inconvenient truth for Trump, who has little use for the truth, is that the Constitution empowers Congress to investigate him and to possibly impeach him. Unless you want to shred the Constitution, supporting Trump at this point is dangerous to our system of government.
46
@Some Dude Both you and Cal Prof make valid enough points. But the Speaker directing something is not the same as the House deciding. And by moving forward with a democrat-only investigation launched only by her say-so, Pelosi deprives the inquiry of its legitimacy as the will of the House.
1
There is what the constitution says and there is what Trump says.
Survey says - constitution.
62
The letter is simply great evidence of yet another of what will likely be many Articles of Impeachment. This one titled: "Contempt of Congress."
89
@Jon Doyle Exactly right. Contempt will be one charge and Obstruction will be its subsequent iteration as the first felony begets its consequence and sequel.
12
It’s obvious that Trump is all about abuse of power. I mean in business, personal life, politics, that’s really all there is. I was hoping this article would get further into the nitty gritty of what the non-cooperation letter puts forth. Not really knowing how past impeachment processes work I read the non-cooperation letter and thought..... hm ..... I don’t know. Are there important differences in the process going on that should concern us? Could that question be addressed somewhere so that I can feel confident of the process that has been set up by our leaders?
Everything depends on this going down right and we know the end doesn’t justify the means without some seriously bad unintended consequences.
12
Stonewalling and obstruction, pure and simple. Trump thinks Impeachment helps him in the next election and since he and #MoscowMitch are pretty sure the Russians have hacked the voting systems, they just have to stonewall until this Congressional term expires.
29
So far, I am pretty satisfied with the way Pelosi, Schiff and the Democrat's have played this.
They seem focused, serious and fairly expedient, all of that makes a nice contrast to the shrieking cabal comprised of Trump, Pompeo, Guiliano and now Cipollone.
Add in the low brainpower of Mcarthy, Nunes, and Jordon, and I'd say things are going the Dems way (so far).
If a republican or three can speak out soon, then this crisis might be resolved.
89
@J I am unimpressed. By failing to hold a House vote, spreading the inquiry across six committees, and freezing out Republican lawmakers and the White House from any negotiations or meaningful participation, Pelosi has stripped the inquiry of any legitimacy.
Impeachment of a President has to have some bi-partisanship to it. Otherwise, it sets a precedent for internecine political warfare forever.
2
@Liberty hound - Under that argument, an Authoritarian who has his party cowed by fear and threat wins unilaterally. That is the Precedent that Trump wants to set. We cannot allow it.
Our Constitution cannot stand if one party says: "Unfortunately, no Lawmaker from the other side of the aisle has joined our inquiry, therefore we cannot proceed."
The Republicans did not care about the lack of Democratic Support when they hounded Obama and Clinton in their 'Investigations'.
And it is not Written in the Constitution that 'There must be qualified cooperation between respective political parties' in order for the Congress to enact impeachment.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans EXISTED when the Constitution was framed.
18
@Liberty hound . There could indeed be a bipartisan effort, if Republicans acted the way their forebears did in 1974. Although the initial investigation by the Judiciary Committee was approved on a party-line vote of 21-17, by February 6, 1974 the House vote 410-4 to authorize a formal inquiry (a fact that the WH counsel’s letter ignores), so significant numbers of Republicans had begun to see the facts clearly. Today’s Republicans could take a lesson in democratic engagement from them, and look at the evidence, not just what the president and Fox News tells them.
15
I hope the answer to the question you pose is 'forcefully'. With the complete stonewalling by this administration of legitimate requests for information and testimony by the House under their constitutionally supported oversight duties is a danger to all Americans. If the next action is to pursue these requests through the courts, the whole process will move way too slowly. The wisdom that says the House should simply now interpret the refusal as obstruction and a signal that the assumptions one can draw from Trump's actions are all in fact correct should inform their next actions. An Impeachment vote in the House by Thanksgiving at the latest is appropriate. At that point we will see if Republicans in the Senate still believe in the Constitution and conduct a trial in their chamber as our founding document calls for. Regardless of that outcome, the process being allowed to play out will help to insure our democracy continuing. I am both hopeful and fearful as to what will happen.
30
Impeachment may indeed be "a political process," but it's a Constitutionally authorized and defined one. The President's refusal to respond to subpoenas and to make members of the administration available for Congressional testimony (etc.) is about as direct a violation of the Consititution as can be imagined. Trump's enablers should wake up to the fact that if a Republican president is permitted to defy the legally authorized actions of Congress, there will be nothing to prevent a Democratic president from doing likewise. And since Republicans have not yet completed their efforts to permanently suppress opposition votes in the general electorate, it's still more than possible that another Democrat could be president one day.
68
@paltrey
The GOP will change the rules and procedures as soon as a Democrat become President.
4
@Thomas Zaslavsky You're assuming that some day there will BE a Democrat President. In my view, all bets are off.
1
The main constitutional crisis our nation faces is a President who refuses to accept the constitutional right of the House to request and review information. So, what is the House to do?
We are all waiting to see...which is the crisis in a nut shell.
What is emerging is that the House has very little power though it is supposed to be a "co-equal" branch of government and has been further weakened by the president's stonewalling.
This article reminds us that McGahn's contempt of congress hearing isn't scheduled til October 31, which suits the President's purposes just fine because it serves his delay and deflect tactic.
That the House must wait in line, as it were, for hearing time from a local judge, shows how amateurish the House Democrats have conducted themselves, so it seems, by playing into Trump's delay tactic.
Now that an impeachment inquiry has been called, retroactive filings to expedite prior scheduled hearings stemming from the Mueller Report should be filed, so the judges hearing cases know these are matters of national security and merit immediate review.
Finally, the House needs to "weaponize" their dealings with the White House in any way they can (dust off "inherent contempt") because the President has issued a blanket refusal to participate; thus, denying his oath of office to the constitution, which obligates him to respect the demands of the House.
181
@Chuck
Another armchair "progressive" sure that "he and only he", to paraphrase Trump, has the ability to guide us.
1
@Neal Trump has shown his stripes. I don't think it is unreasonable to begin to move against stonewalling and obstruction from anyone in the executive branch. It's time.
6
As much as this might slow down the process, allowing the Supreme Court to weigh in on the House's authority, will destroy the arguments Trump is essentially making to voters. The Senate will probably never convict, but at least Democrats can use this to blow up the claims of illicit constitutionality during the election.
10
@mo Highly unlikely that a Republican-dominated Supreme Court would rule in favor of the House and against a President of their own party, no matter what the Constitution says.
20
@paltrey I fear that as well, but it would nevertheless be an important stress test of our constitutional system of government.
7
@mo agree with you here in terms of the risks involved. Based on the little we've seen of Chief Justice Roberts' institutionalist approach to the way he runs the Court, we have to hope his legal principles will outweigh party affiliation. Trump is so entirely outside the Constitutional framework and apparently so badly "lawyered" that it's hard to imagine that Roberts would jeopardize his reputation to back up Trumps ignorant, impulsive justification for defiance of the Congress.
3
The House should put forth articles of impeachment and begin the process as soon as possible. There are no further obstacles to doing this since Mr. Trump is refusing to cooperate.
Do it now and preserve our system of government.
40
"How Will the House Respond to Trump’s Constitutional Escalation?"
Only Speaker Pelosi and the Chairs of three Congressional Committees responsible for the Impeachment inquiry know where they want to go with this White House letter.
And my guess is, they already had a game plan for this very occurrence. Prior to heading down this path, a planning meeting took place, different scenarios were discussed, i.e. What Ifs? and a plan for each.
I have great confidence in Adam Schiff, Speaker Pelosi, and others on the team, that they will keep a steady as you go, and continue the inquires, subpoenas, etc as necessary. The White House will stonewall, and the approval ratings of the President will disintegrate.
Adding fuel to the impeachment is Turkey, and the Presidents unilateral withdrawal of American troops. Even Fox News, for once, is presenting the facts, and the Senate Republicans admonishment of this action by Trump.
36
@cherrylog754 Imagine Trump having a game plan....
3
Yesterday's letter came to Pelosi from the White House Counsel -- the office responsible for keeping the President within the boundaries of the Constitution.
Pelosi should be challenging the Counsel's authority to make such a statement, allegedly on behalf of the President, and should demand a direct reply immediately from Trump himself.
112
@Sequel You are making the mistake of thinking of the White House as an institution staffed and manned by conscientious individuals with moral and ethical standards.
EVERYONE brought in by Trump had to pass ONE requirement: Get down on both knees and swear allegiance to Donald Trump in ALL things.
Mr Cippolone does not work for the Institution called the White House Counsel-- He is Donald's 'Fixer'.
14
The White House has more than one potential impeachee. Attorney General William Barr and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have combined with Trump's personal lawyer to engage in international discussions to benefit the president's campaign. Barr needs to recuse himself from the Ukraine inquiry. They're both good candidates for impeachment. The Vice President has been involved in the Ukraine issue - and the president suggested the inquiry include questions for him. Mike Pence is another excellent candidate for impeachment.
The president is the obvious target - and his obstruction only enhances his chances of walking away from this presidency with an asterisk beside his name.
54
Hungary, Poland, Russia, and other countries show what happens when the executive branch of a nominal democracy decides they are no longer bound by rules and precedent.
Can't happen here? Looks like it is.
482
Impeachment should not be seen as a political process. It is intended to be a consensus process in which Congress, as a co-equal branch of government, exercises its oversight of the Executive. In the case of Richard Nixon, there was strong bipartisan support, and impeachment looked inevitable. But that was a time when we had a responsible Republican Party. Today's republicans sold their souls to the devil (spelled differently) long ago, and have no convictions or credibility left to offer. That is why is it is split by politics. In sum, a Republican president has committed impeachable offenses, and the abject slavery of the Republican Senate to that president is putting a monkey wrench into this process. History will not be kind to those who stand in the way.
106
@PT
In 2015 the Republicans running the House changed the rules to allow the committee majority to issue subpoenas unilaterally. Democrats objected. Now the shoe is on the other foot and the Teapublicans want to forget the precedent they set.
2
If nothing else, this entire debacle shows that Congress should seriously consider passing a number of laws to prevent further such situations. Among them should be an absolute requirement that any elected federal official (not just the president, but members of Congress also) must divest from all investments and have them placed in a blind trust for the duration of their time in office; that no member of the family (not just spouse, but anyone more closely related than a second cousin, including in-laws) can be appointed to any government position or take an outside job that in any way suggests the official's position has been traded upon for influence; that Citizens United must be rejected with a law that explicitly says that money is not free speech; that any elected public official must make public both individual and business tax records for a minimum of one decade prior at the time they file to run for office and for the duration of their time in office; that no member of one of the three branches of government may willfully deny the proper authority of any of the other branches without significant consequences including both financial penalties and incarceration. I could think of quite a few more, but the point is that *no one* should be above the law, and that wealth should be neither a means to evade the law nor a means to exert undue influence on elections.
369
@KristenB
Great comment! Your list should be given wider circulation!
19
@KristenB
Yes this debacle must result in legislation to ensure this epic of corruption ends with Trump.
And both parties need to pass rules to the effect that no candidate can get on the ballot unless their tax returns are public.
14
Start impeachment proceedings for the whole lot of them...Trump, Pence, Barr, Pompeo, etc....and enforce contempt of court charges with fines, incarceration, etc. to all those who refuse to testify/hand over materials.
Show some spine or say good bye to the USA and democracy as you once knew it.
558
@captain canada
The law is only the law, and the Constitution only the Constitution, if the country is willing to enforce it.
48
@captain canada
Exactly correct. Democrats need to step up now and do their Constitutional duty as a co-equal branch of government, or else we may as well address the President as "Your Majesty."
35
@captain canada Slow and steady will win the race.
4
"The White House’s allegations that congressional Democrats plainly seek to “reverse the election of 2016 and to influence the election of 2020” . . . ."
A reversal of the 2016 election would remove Trump and make Hillary Clinton the president. Not the same thing as impeachment and removal, as Hillary is not the vice president!!!
55
Let's start here:
"Historically, Congress and the executive branch have sought mutual accommodations over witnesses and documents ..."
This form of argument is insane, in this context, and the implications of even suggesting it offensive in the extreme.
There has never been an administration, a President, a set of cabinet chiefs so openly and contemptuously committed to ignoring not only traditions and ways of doing business but the law and the Constitution as this one.
Your argument here is pure Trump: "I will do whatever I damn well please and you will follow every rule ever laid down by people I agree with".
This President, before Day One, ignored the law broke with procedure, literally destroyed elements of the Constitutional plan of our government, done his victory dance, spat on the grave of our former nation and, at every turn, sent out flagrantly dishonest henchmen to force Congress and the courts to follow previous procedures and traditions.
This is a President determined to become King. This is the arena in which he will make the attempt. He has already destroyed SCOTUS, now a partisan encampment and outpost of the doctrinaire Federalist Society, as destructive a force as there is among the camp followers of government. He has a confederate in the Senate who has already done away with tradition and contorted the law for personal and party benefit.
For you prissily warn Democrats they better behave smacks of something much worse than willful ignorance.
58
I am waiting for 45 to declare himself king. Or maybe he thinks there is no need to declare it. Such a fearful, insecure man who needs to constantly fight any constraints. I'm tired of the show and more than ever have no compassion left for his tiny soul. I just want him gone.
322
@Barbara Harman On Faux News yesterday, Joseph diGenova declared the efforts at impeachment to be "regicide". So his followers already view him as king. Based on his words and actions, I'm sure Mr. Trump agrees.
37
@Bob Schneider: What's heartening is I just went over the faux website and right there on the front page is their most recent poll that said more Republicans and Independents are for impeachment than against it and think that Trump is getting what he deserves and is not being persecuted by the Democrats. Won't he long before the GOP Congress bolts en masse. The end is in sight (fingers crossed!).
11
@Sheila Go to the comments on the Faux news poll article and there are a whole lot of commentators saying (1) "Well, no one ever polled me!" and (2) "Fox is part of the MSM, and I never thought they were really fair and balanced!" His "core" of supporters will never, ever admit that they have been taken for a ride for all these years.
4