Posted on 11/13/2019 3:52:08 PM PST by Reagan80
As impeachment hearings begin, some have raised dubious objections to the process from a constitutional basis. Former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker suggested there can be no impeachment since “abuse of power” is not a crime, while University of Chicago Law Professor Steven Calabresi argued that President Trump
was denied the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in the closed hearings held by House Democrats.
Neither argument is compelling. The fact is that, if proven, a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven. Yet the more immediate problem for House Democrats may not be constitutional but architectural in nature. If they want to move forward primarily or exclusively with the Ukraine controversy, it would be the narrowest impeachment in history. Such a slender foundation is a red flag for architects who operate on the accepted 1:10 ratio between the width and height of a structure.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Looking forward to your lawful execution for sedition and treason as an accessory after the fact, Turley.
bump
It already collapsed today, for EVERYONE to see..the only ones giving it any credence are the Never Trumpers and of course CNN and MSNBC..the whole impeachment nonsense died today..my 3rd cousins best friends sisters husbands dog heard SOMETHING..if this case were against Obama the media would laugh Republicans out of the country
If the House calls for articles of impeachment and Trump is impeached, Trump will be branded, wearing the “Impeached” moniker for the rest of his life, and go down in history as impeached (like Clinton).
Schiff: OH THE HUGE VANITY!!
Actually Laz there’s an almost limitless number of warranted and legal quid pro quos between a President and another nation-state.
Quid pro quo is easily proven and I’m baffled as to why the Trump admin and supporters are denying it.
The real question is whether there was a corrupt, personal motive to get an investigation of the Bidens. And without documentary evidence or first person testimony a supposed corrupt motive cannot be proven.
So we have a POTUS acting within granted constitutional powers...but Dims say his motive was personal and criminal.
They have to substantiate corrupt motive.
I see it not as a Constitutional crisis of the checks and balances between the Legislative and the Executive but more as a "Test" of those boundaries.
Up until now, the opposition has never had the balls (or stupidity) to pursue election nullification based on, basically, nothing more than their unhinged desire to do so. Up until now the opposition always had an actual crime to use as a foil while attempting to crush their political rival in a co-equal branch.
And even in those past situations, the results have been decidedly mixed. So what on earth would propel the idiot Dims to pursue this battle now, when the premise is not even plausible and the stakes so high?? Insanity? Insatiable lust for power?
They are piling up the BS at a ratio of about 1:1,000,000. :)
“...go down in history as impeached (like Clinton). “
Yes, and we can all see how that destroyed Clinton. /s
Nothing alleged about those . . .
I’m sorry. I just don’t trust that guy.
Has no one noticed that the US gave Ukraine the money anyway and Ukraine did not investigate young Biden? No quid pro quo was ever exchanged.
Bill Clinton committed the crime of perjury, for which he was punished in ways other than impeachment. Yet, Democrats and their allies in the law professoriat said that was not a "high crime or misdemeanor." Trump committed no crime, but the same bunch of suspects now claim that IS a high crime or misdemeanor.
I think what Turley is saying is that since the Constitution does not define the phrase, it means whatever the House says it is. I don't think such a naked power grab will play well to most Americans.
Some folks are concerned with their reputation and family legacy.
You can not claim that Sessions will save Trump...
Turley recites the above dumb Deep State talking point. He's wrong.
If there is credible evidence that a political rival has committed a crime, then of course a quid pro quo is the correct thing to do.
Turley is usually on the money, but I think he’s wrong in this case. I don’t see how Sixth Amendment protections can be set aside in something as critical and subject to partisan abuse as an impeachment inquiry, even if the Constitution doesn’t literally spell it out; it is a baby-step inference, much more closely tied to the spirit of the Constitution than the “penumbras and emanations” used to justify Roe V. Wade.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.