Manafort files lawsuit charging Mueller probe is illegal; says he was double-crossed

The Washington Times ^ | December 3, 2018 | Rowan Scarborough

[Cboldt]

-- ONLY Congress may impeach and try impeachments. --

Agreed. It's a bit circular though - a formal accusation of wrongdoing brought by the House is by definition, impeachment.

-- And only upon impeachment and conviction may an Officer of the U.S. be removed --

That position is that the president cannot (constitutionally) fire Officers. Only the Congress has that power. I'm not saying Congress doesn't have that power - just that it is not the sole possessor of that power.

Otherwise the firing of Comey, for example, was an unconstitutional usurpation of Congressional power, by the president.

Nitpicky remark on my part, the correct word is "cited," rooted the same as "citation."

[Jim W N]

I believe Comey would come under the heading of “inferior officer” which doesn’t require Congressional impeachment and removal.

Yes, I tend to screw that up - “cite”.

[Cboldt]

-- I believe Comey would come under the heading of "inferior officer" which doesn't require Congressional impeachment and removal. --

Does Congress have the power to impeach and remove the Director of the FBI? If so, the Director of the FBI is subject to impeachment and removal by Congress; and can be removed by the president.

Does the president have the power to fire the Attorney General?

FWIW, the line between "inferior" and "superior" is a little murky. But I take your positions as:

• Superior officers cannot be (constitutionally) removed from office except by impeachment and conviction.
• It is unconstitutional for the executive branch to investigate a superior officer for criminal wrongdoing.
• Only Congress may take legal action against a superior officer, see Article I impeachment, trial, penalty on conviction.

[Jim W N]

I think your summary of my positions look pretty accurate and fall in line with the text of relevant constitutional clauses “cited”.

[Cboldt]

I don't think those positions necessarily follow from the power of impeachment, because impeachment and criminal processes are independent. Impeachment is by Congress, penalty is removal from office; criminal indictment is by executive, penalty according to the law.

Sort of like criminal and civil law being independent, even though both venues may be appraoched on the same conduct. See, for example, OJ Simpson cases. Criminal acquittal, found liable in civil court for wrongful death.

A given fact pattern can give rise to action in one venue or the other, or both, or neither.

I understand that you disagree with that - I'm just laying it out as my point of view.

Thanks for the civil exchange.

[Jim W N]

The problem with your point of view is you are not making the distinction in criminal procedure, as the Constitution clearly does, between Officers of the U.S. and underlings.

[Cboldt]

-- The problem with your point of view is you are not making the distinction in criminal procedure, as the Constitution clearly does, between Officers of the U.S. and underlings. --

I don't see the problem or issue as you see it. We agree that the constitution gives congress the sole power of imeachment and removal from office, but I think that's the only thing we agree on.

Judgment in Cases of Impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

I don't read that as indictment depending on impeachment; only that impeachment does not substitute for or preclude indictment.

[Jim W N]

I read that as to say that AFTER CONVICTION and REMOVAL, the once Officer, now citizen, is liable to relevant legal criminal procedure.

[Cboldt]

-- I read that as to say that AFTER CONVICTION and REMOVAL, the once Officer, now citizen, is liable to relevant legal criminal procedure. --

That isn't contentious. What is contentious is your position that BEFORE CONVICTION and REMOVAL, the Officer is immune from executive-initiated action - even from being investigated on suspicion of criminal conduct.

[Jim W N]

Since indictment (impeachment) of an Officer may ONLY be made by The House, it seems reasonable that the things required to bring indictment including investigation would also belong to the House. It doesn’t make sense for one completely separate body to go on a investigation spree if they have no power to indict.

It would also appear that is not the constitutional intent. For whatever reason, the Constitution removed criminal procedure for an Officer from the executive branch. Maybe because it would be harder and less likely some personal frivolity or grudge, if done in Congress.

[Cboldt]

-- Since indictment (impeachment) of an Officer may ONLY be made by The House, it seems reasonable that the things required to bring indictment including investigation would also belong to the House. --

The point of our disagreement hinges on the differences between impeachment (judgment limited to removal and bar from office) and criminal indictment. It's best we not mingle those terms as though they are equivalent. They are parallel in many ways (accusation, trial, judgment on conviction), but different by the entities involved in accusation and trail, and on the penalty upon conviction.

The House doesn't indict. It can't. It can only impeach and with the concurrence of 2/3rds of the Senate, remove from office. I think vital to have a coherent discussion, your statement would have been more accurate as "Since impeachment of an Officer may ONLY be made by The House, it seems reasonable that the things required to bring impeachment including investigation would also belong to the House."

If the executive wants to indict, the system you've set up puts him at at least a timing disadvantage. The executive (the entity with the power to indict) has no investigation. The House could of course share or hand over its impeachment investigation, but the Congress lacks the power to bring criminal charges - for good reason.

[Jim W N]

OK, we’re really beginning to split hairs here.

Impeachment means to formally charge with a crime or violation of public trust.

Articles of Impeachment is a formal document alleging the charges against a public official, similar to that of an indictment in a criminal proceeding.

https://thelawdictionary.org/impeach/

ONLY Congress has the power to impeach (”bring charges against”) an Officer of the United States.

You know, I think I’m done.

Thanks for the interesting discussion.

[Cboldt]

I don't think defining our respective views amounts to hair splitting. we have radically different views of the relationships between impeachment and criminal prosecution by the executive branch. We have a substantial (and probably irreconcilable) difference.

You agree that impeachment and indictment aren't the same thing. It's the basis for you finding that a superior Officer can't be indicted, and can only be impeached. Indictment is the "accusation power" of the executive; impeachment is the "accusation power" of the House.

We agree that only the House can impeach.

Our disagreements are over whether or not the executive can remove a superior officer, and whether or not the executive can investigate and indict a superior officer.

Another way to say that is that we disagree over whether the House and executive have concurrent powers of accusation against superior officers. You find that they do not, that the House power to impeach precludes the executive power to indict; and precludes the executive power to investigate crimes.

If impeachment and indictment were the same thing (that is, if the two terms were literally synonyms), then the executive could impeach, and the House could indict. Obviously that isn't the case, see constitution giving sole power of impeachment to the House, and the duty to faithfully execute the laws to the executive.

[Jim W N]

Differing opinions are fine especially if they are supportable, but when it comes to the feds, the basis for a valid argument is the Constitution as written and originally understood and intended. It is that constitutionally-based rationale where I find my disagreement with you.