honorentheos wrote:Because its where their responsibilities other than organizational/hierarchal stuff begin. You wanted me to quote how the original 13 states divided out their reps?
Section 8 covers Congressional Powers in general but Article 1 Section 2 discusses the House of Representatives specifically, along with their "sole Power of Impeachment." I just didn't understand why you were trying to prove what Article 1
didn't say about impeachment without going over the section that actually talks about it.
Anyway, you asked for, and I quote, "their basic Constitutional duty" among which impeachment isn't listed.
Neither is
governing or legislating described as a "duty." But you've described it as a duty and responsibility even though that isn't the wording anywhere in Article 1. That's just not the terminology used, but it is obviously implied.
Like you said, it's implied in the constitution, but it isn't this fundamental demand on them that means they are neglecting their duties if they don't go around impeaching presidents as first order business every session.
I mean following this logic the VP has no responsibility or duty to cast a tie-breaking Senate vote since Article 1 doesn't
literally say that. And I didn't say they should go around impeaching presidents as a "first order of business every session." But when the President has committed obviously impeachable offenses, it is a dereliction of duty and an insult to the Founder's concept of "checks and balances" and that "no man is above the law" for them to forgo that process simply because political strategists say it may weigh against them in the elections.
The Mueller report doesn't say this, and whatever you and I both may think about Trump's behavior, the US criminal justice system did not draw the clear conclusion Trump should be charged with a crime.
Irrelevant to the fact that he
did commit crimes and Mueller basically drew us a map saying XYZ is a crime, and then he describes what XYZ is. Then he goes on to note several of Trump's actions that fit XYZ's definitions perfectly. Mueller didn't draw that conclusion because he wanted it left up to Congress as he was obligated
not to indict. Mueller could have recommended charges but he didn't for three reasons:
1. The OLC's 1973 decision that a sitting president cannot be indicted.
2. He believed that if their report suggested Trump could face federal charges without actually bringing them, it would not be fair because there would be no trial, and he wouldn't have an opportunity to clear himself.
3. He feared that a sealed indictment could be leaked and significantly impede his ability to govern.
So he would have basically said the same exact thing had Trump been caught on video blowing someone's head off. Moving that hypothetical case into the hands of Congress wouldn't make that any less a legal issue because murder is still a crime and as Mueller said, no man is above the law. Mueller also said if he believed Trump were innocent of any crimes he would have said so. He also lays out a clear intended path for Congress to do what he has already stated he cannot do, which is to take the investigation to the next level:
"The OLC opinion also recognizes that a President does not have immunity after he leaves office ... Given those considerations, the facts known to us, and the strong public interest in safeguarding the integrity of the criminal justice system, we conducted a thorough factual investigation in
order to preserve the evidence when memories were fresh and documentary materials were available."
Clearly, contrary to Bob Barr, Mueller intended for Congress to use the evidence he accumulated to finish what he started and he did not intend to leave it up to the AG to determine if Trump was innocent or guilty.
It left the question of whether or not his behavior should be subject to Congressional action up to Congress, making it clear its a matter of politics rather than a legal question.
I guess we're using the word politics differently. Typically it is used in a negative way as to suggest it is all about partisanship and nothing else. But this is clearly based on a legal premise about laws that have been broken.
And, again, I think politics says that's a road that makes little sense and working towards winning in 2020 will be a much more effective means of removing Trump from office.
One that makes little sense and rests solely on bad assumptions about past impeachments of entirely different Presidents for entirely different reasons. Lying about a sex act is hardly on the same level as being a threat to National Security or intentionally trying to obstruct justice on a dozen occasions within the first two years. Trump has already amped up his contempt for the law by engaging in even more obstruction by trying to prevent White House aides from testifying against him. He does this because the longer he keeps getting away with it the more he intends to do it.
You really, REALLY want to see the nation go pop?
I really, REALLY reject your premise that the nation goes "pop" with an impeachment of the most corrupt President in US history. I really, REALLY would like to see some evidence that politicians in Congress take their office serious enough to put country first over their own political ambitions.
How many people really didn't give two ____ about the Mueller report or thought Democrats were too focused on the Russian probe last year? Leading up to 2018, it was a common polling result and while you may not realize it, the number was sizeable to the point it could turn an election. People like SPG and Ajax already see everything going on as an illegal attempt to remove an elected president. They're nuts, but it wouldn't take much for the same people who didn't give a ____ about the Russia investigation to see Democrats as circumventing democracy to try and get their way if the House moves on impeachment with the evidence that is available now.
Trump's approval numbers just dropped again after the Mueller report's redaction was released. He has the lowest approval numbers of any President in history half way through his first term with a good economy.
Letting the election in 2020 remove him is the right call on many, many levels.
And what happens if he gets reelected because more and more people see Dems as the party of DO NOTHING and more and more people start to give Trump a pass because despite his bad behavior, he's still "winning" against the Media and the Dems he has demonized? You're seriously willing to risk another Trump Presidency by leaving it up to the people? How'd that work out last time?
I guess you and I just differ on how big a threat this guy really is. I don't think we can wait another 18 months. With every passing day his presence poisons the office. Even though it could take at least 18 months, the process of impeachment would involve public hearings of Trump aides over the next 18 months and we all know that's going to be an absolute nightmare for him and his chances. I'd rather that be what the media focuses on leading up to the election as opposed to his BS red herrings.
Plus, I think the investigations that are ongoing that spun off of this are more meaningful.
They probably are, but they're impotent while he's still President. If he wins a second term, he'll likely never serve time because he'll be 80 if he isn't already dead. He'll then go down in the minds of his followers, not as the convict President who broke laws, but as the guy who swindled everyone on the Left and got his way up until the very end. They'll probably nominate Don Jr. in his honor.
And who knows, maybe the House will successfully get Trump's tax filings and the evidence for criminal conduct will cross the threshold where even Mitch McConnell can't turn a blind eye to it anymore. But that's not where we are right now.
Trump has lived his entire life damned with the legal system and using teams of lawyers to delay and/or suspend legal proceedings. Even if the House does get his tax returns it isn't likely to happen anytime soon.
