https://thefederalist.com/2020/02/03/schiff-trump-will-sell-alaska-to-russia-if-we-dont-impeach-him/
He should go back to being a failed screenwriter.
He should go back to being a failed screenwriter.
Schiff is a prophet
- Thread starter Crazyhole
- Start date
He said Trump could if he wanted to and he's not wrong. Republicans won't hold Trump accountable.
what he said is just plain stupid. if a rep said that i would laugh at them too. lol
Why not suggest that trump is going to sell california to Mexico? Because it's a ridiculous thought just like selling Alaska is a ridiculous thought. The irony is that we were told that trump was going to annex parts of mexico and then he was going to buy Greenland. So we go from expanding the country to selling it off. Derp, derpty derp.
You know what this was a reference too, right? It's right out of Dershowitz book. He legit said that if POTUS decided to recognize a Russian claim for Alaska, and gave it back to them, that's not impeachable (unless bribed or extorted). So yea, according to Trump's expert constitutional attorney, failing to defend a US State from a foreign occupying force is totally not impeachable.
So if you think Schiff's point is absurd, blame Trump's defense counsel for arguing it a legitimate (non-impeachable) exercise of presidential authority.
First of all, it came from a book written 2 years ago that was framed around the supreme court's role in the removal of a sitting president due to collusion. To my knowledge, dershowitz didnt invoke that hypothetical scenario during the Senate hearing. It's a legitimate constitutional question about what qualifies as a crime worthy of removal and if SCOTUS would have a role to play. Obviously it is an extreme example and totally hyperbolic but it's a really good question to ask when we are talking about where the line should be drawn on what is impeachable and what isnt. Schiff is using that extreme hyperbole and acting as though not removing trump for what is basically a marginal abuse of power will lead to the absolute extreme, taking the point completely out of context.
Way to spin the fact that you had no idea about this. Pretty obvious though still. Keep at it, you'll get there.
Yea this is 2 years old - not 20. And this is the guy Trump hired specifically to opine on specifically this topic. His published views on what is and is not an impeachable Abuse of Power is completely relevant. It shows the logical conclusions you have to rationalize in order to accept his position that Abuse of Power requires an underlying crime. This is what Schiff is highlighting. Not by creating his own fantastical scenario and applying Dershowitz logic, but by using a scenario that Dershowitz himself created.
Dershowitz was trying to point out that abuse of power is a nebulous term that can be shaped to whatever the person alleging it wants. That is a dangerous precedent to set as it gives an overly broad latitude to the Congress over the Executive. Crimes, OTOH, have well defined parameters and time-tested interpretations. He pointed out that the framers explicitly did not use abuse of power as a standard.
It's funny because, up until this POTUS, there's been essentially universal agreement that Abuse of Power is impeachable conduct. If it were true that it gave Congress too much leeway, then we'd have far more impeachments in our history than we've had. His arguments are on the fringe and I've found zero support for them among the crowd of established and respected scholars on the topic.
This isn't an expansive defense of Presidential power, it's an Authoritarian defense of Presidential Power. Requiring a statutory violation would require you to write volumes of laws targeting only the President. Trump has the Power to pardon every single federal inmate in the United States. He has the power to launch a pre-emptive nuclear strike. He has the power to declare a state of emergency, and all the powers that grants to him. In a state-of-war, his war powers are expansive.
The idea that in order to check abuses on those authorities, congress has to imagine every possible abuse and pass laws against them, is absurd. Laws that presumably requires the president's signature to put into place. This is inherently against the intent of the Constitution - why should the Executive branch have veto power over the framework by which congress can impeach him? Does that fracture the "sole" power to impeach and try given to congress, if POTUS has veto power of what is and is not impeachable conduct?
That's where civics loving Liberals, Libertarians and Moderates stop listening. This first line is the biggest load of BS, and it sounds like it's right from the Progressive Media.
Abuse of power has been extremely heavy at times by various Executives. And many of them lasted more than 3-6 weeks too.
I would like to have some evidence to back up the universal acceptance of Abuse of Power being impeachable. Because Obama might’ve been impeached for DACA, Bush for any number of things, and so on. The other impeachments had actual crimes (such as perjury) underlying them.
Well, the Democratic led House can impeach him for whatever they want. It's a political process, so they don't need any valid or even invalid reason.
I do think it 'lowers the bar' now though. They didn't use an independent counsel to investigate. There was no judicial process. So ... if Biden wins, expect similarly for his past actions as Vice President.
Executive orders are not abuse of power, they are perfectly constitutional in an of themselves. They can be challenged and beaten in court and often are. DACA was challenged in court, and parts of it struck down, parts of it allowed to stand, so I don't know how you can say that is an example of abuse of power. The executive order was perfectly legal, and it went through the legal system in the manner it was supposed to. That isn't anything similar to what we are talking about with Trump.
The DACA is just one violation of the ICA here. Because the Executive is regularly going against Congressional law.
I'm honestly tired of both parties in Congress not addressing immigration law, and the Executive just totally doing what it wants, in violation of existing law.
Simply put ...
If I was President, I would enforce all immigration laws to full effect, so both parties would want to change them. This includes screwing over non-American citizen servicemen and women and their families, and utterly pushing 100% of the blame on Congress to change the law, starting with them.
And I say this as an open borders Libertarian. I would also start prosecuting many people for fraud, from corporations to undocumented residents.
So you’re saying that Trump can issue an executive order for anything he wants, as long as it’s not illegal, and it will never constitute an impeachable Abuse of Power?
I didnt say anything he wants, but if it isn't illegal and the courts find it is within his powers as the executive, then why would he not be able to?
But with regards to DACA, DACA went through the courts. So how can something that goes through the court system be considered an abuse of power by the president?
You literally just made the same point that dershowitz did in his book.
I perhaps should have added a caveat. I don't think there's much debate over Abuse of Power being impeachable - the debate is whether or not underlying crimes are required as well.
This gets muddy really quickly because POTUS has all sorts of authority. One example I saw from a scholar on the subject was if POTUS established a policy for granting pardons to individuals who broke a specific law he didn't agree with. His pardon power is based in the constitution. Efforts to limit it by law would be difficult and create separation of powers issues if congress tried to constrain it. Yet at the same time, the policy of POTUS is inherently violating the separation of powers itself - undermining both congress and the courts - as well as his oath to faithfully execute the law.
I think this is a good read: https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-do-scholars-say-about-impeachment-power
I was talking about contemporaneous to DACA being issued. Or JCPOA for that matter.
DACA is interesting in its own right. Created by one President’s executive order, the argument to the Supreme Court that another cannot end it by executive order is that people are affected by it. That seems a dangerous precedent, as we would never be able to end any program created by a previous President’s EO without justifying it to a judge. Which gives the judicial power over the Executive.
The president can do whatever he wants unless the courts deem it illegal. That was exactly what dershowitz was saying in his book regarding the whole Alaska thing. The question is what role does the court have in determining whether an act is legal or illegal and how that affects impeachment. He gave an extreme example in that scenario, but you basically reiterated his point on what is considered legal or illegal.
It isn't just being legal, it also has to be under the powers granted to the executive. Executive orders are over turned by the courts all the time, so never has the president just been able to do what he wants no matter the legality or whether or not it falls under his power. I am not seeing how I reiterated his point at all, I am most certainly saying that there are checks on the president's power.
The courts interpret the law, that is the role they have in determining if something is legal or illegal (or unconstitutional with regards to impeachment), though impeachment doesn't always have to involve the courts to any great degree.
Last edited:
But it likely will be ended by the supreme court. So if it is ended, then the precedent you are talking about doesn't exist.
Again, you just made his case. If a president does something that might seem to be outside of his authority, should the court deem it to be a crime and how does that relate to impeachment? If trump sells alaska back to russia is that a crime that SCOTUS would rule against, or do they even have a role to play in that scenario and regardless of their POV, is it impeachable? Where do you draw the line when it comes to abuse of power? Why is DACA ok but selling Alaska isn't? Neither are technically a crime. What if Trump bought Greenland? Is that outside his authority?
How am I making his case? I am clearly saying there are checks on his power. The court doesnt have to deem it to be a crime for it to be impeachable.
The president cannot sell a part of the country without congressional approval. So is it a crime? I dont know, but it is certainly an abuse of power which would be impeachable.
DACA went through the courts, some of it was struck down, and the current president will likely end DACA this year depending on the court decision, so there is a check on the presidents powers with regards to DACA. Selling Alaska can't really be undone so it isnt remotely the same thing.
Yes buying Greenland is outside of his authority because congress is supposed to control spending, so they would have to sign off on it.
Is your argument that the president has no checks?
What you described is exactly what the Democrats gameplan has been since the Roe decision. They want legislation from the bench. Now that the tables have turned in the political ideology of SCOTUS it's all about checks and balances, impeachment, and media manipulation because the whole plan backfired.
Can you imagine the level of outcry against SCOTUS if they overturned Roe? Literally the same body of government that gave them what they wanted 50 years ago and they have deemed the ultimate authority would immediately be deemed illegitimate because their decision doesn't match their political ideology.
Why can't Trump buy Greenland? Jefferson bought the Louisiana territory without congressional approval.
That isnt true. The house approved of the Louisiana purchase 90-25.
https://history.house.gov/Historical-Highlights/1800-1850/The-Louisiana-Purchase/
He mostly negotiated it on his own but it wasnt official until congress approved it.
So it was legit to negotiate the purchase when it was clearly outside the bounds of presidential authority? Seems like an abuse of power, doesnt it?
Try to stay on point. Youre obviously quite triggered but most of us told you this was a sham impeachment by partisian dems. Tussia hoax part two
To me, the question here isn't just where you should draw the line (that's a good one) but this idea that you need a statutory crime. The Alaska hypothetical is absurd. It's not that you're saying POTUS has the technical authority to do something (perhaps he does), but you're telling Congress they DON'T have the authority to do something that is explicitly granted to them in the plain text of the constitution.
It's painfully obvious here. If 20 ish Republicans had voted to convict, Trump would be removed. Dershowitz can argue until he's blue in the face, but the Senate is the Judge and Jury and that would be the end of the story. He gave them a basis to help justify their votes, but the mere fact they got to decide for themselves proves they are the final arbiter of removing a President.
So I view it this way. POTUS, assuming he has 1/3rd of the Senate, has the authority to do whatever his political party will allow him to do. Abuses of Power tolerable by his own party will not result in removal, though they may be deemed impeachable by the house.
Is there question to motive? Abuses of Power are not just the act itself, but the motivation behind the act.
Look at Treason. How would you ever accuse a sitting President of Treason, if the President argues that all of his actions were done in the best interest of the American people? He's the executive - he sets foreign policy. If he believes selling nuclear secrets to China is in our long term strategic best interest, is he committing treason? Perhaps he hands over plans to a US offensive, allowing the enemy to ambush our troops? But he's the commander in chief and declares there was a strategic reason for this (we were gonna double cross them) it just didn't work out. He has the authority to share classified information at his discretion, right? So even an accusation of Treason is going to come down to motive.
I completely agree, and that's why I have been saying from the beginning that we needed the Bidens to be called as witnesses and Rudy's investigation in Ukraine needs to be disseminated.
See and that's where we disagree. You see a scenario where Biden is corrupt thus giving credibility to the idea that Trumps' motives were reasonable (tell me if I'm wrong).
I see that as irrelevant. Why? It's like arguing that the validity of a search warrant is based on whether or not you found something incriminating. Either the process you followed was reasonable on it's face, or it wasn't. Either it's OK for POTUS to leverage official acts in support of his personal attorney's oppo research efforts, or it isn't. The results of that research is irrelevant to the underlying question of abuse of power.
Again, this is POTUS singling out and putting a US citizen (Hunter Biden) in the cross hairs of a foreign prosecutor, without any due process or protections in US law. It's a huge deal and reeks of the precise kind of corruption we are fighting in Ukraine, where whoever is in power gets to target their enemies.
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
***June 14 Official Visit Weekend - Visitor List & Preview 🏈- Latest: Victoryisourcry
-
-
