House Impeachment Manager Rips A Giant Hole In Trump's Defense

[babylonsister]

https://www.politicususa.com/2020/01/19/house-impeachment-manager-trump-defense.html

Jason Crow shreds Trump's impeachment defense on CNN's State Of The Union
Posted on Sun, Jan 19th, 2020 by Jason Easley
House Impeachment Manager Rips A Giant Hole In Trump’s Defense


House impeachment manager, Rep. Jason Crow (D-CO), gashed Trump’s impeachment defense by arguing that requiring a crime means no president can be impeached.

Rep. Crow said on CNN’s State Of The Union when asked about Trump’s impeachment defense:

The president’s team is trying to say that the president can’t be indicted because it is DOJ policy that the standing president or the sitting president cannot be indicted, but at the same time making arguments that the House of Representatives and Congress cannot subpoena documents or witnesses, and that we can’t bring an impeachment case, and that it has to be a crime, and that high crimes and misdemeanors do not include abuse of power and abuse of the public trust.

So if all of the president’s arguments are true that a president cannot be indicted, that the abuse of power and the abuse of the public trust does not constitute impeachable offense, and if that is true, no president can be held accountable, and that the president is truly above the law. And so those arguments can’t be possibly true or stand because then the entire system of checks and balances would not hold.

Trump is making a more dangerous argument than defending himself with witnesses and documents. Trump is arguing that the concept of impeachment without a criminal act is invalid. The Trump argument goes against every reading of the constitution, with the exception of one lawyer, who is on Trump’s defense team.

If the framers would have intended for criminal acts to be the standard for impeachment, that is what they would have written in the constitution. The Founders would have specified criminal acts instead of crimes and misdemeanors.

Trump is using the impeachment trial to attack the system of divided co-equal branches of government.

Rep. Crow was right. Trump’s argument is a grave danger to the underpinnings of the system of governance.

[mucifer]

1. presidents are now gods. That is all

[mopinko]

7. yeah, not even kings. gods.

[Mister Ed]

13. Unless they are Democratic presidents...

...in which it would be "tyranny" for them to do so much as issue an executive order commemorating the music of John Philip Sousa.

[AZ8theist]

19. Or wearing a tan suit.....

[calimary]

39. No kidding.

[PatrickforO]

14. Well, the ancient Romans got into that habit. Deifying emperors.

Bad idea.

It was a bad idea then, and is a bad idea now.

[Jersey Devil]

2. What really undermines the Repub argument is that there were no federal statutes when the

Constitution was ratified. So if "high crimes and misdemeanors" means violations of federal statutes as argued by Repubs, then what in the world were the framers referring to as "high crimes and misdemeanors" if not abuse of power and abuse of the public trust?

[kentuck]

3. That was an impressive argument.

The Constitution will be thoroughly discussed.

[onecaliberal]

4. There were no federal laws when the constitution was penned.

[kag]

5. Proud to say that hubby and I

supported Jason Crow in his 2018 campaign as well as the upcoming election. He represents a district near us, and he is very impressive.

[bucolic_frolic]

6. That is the crux of the matter

Once they beat back Trump's defense folly, we have a trial of some sort. Unless Senate Republicans all think voters are not paying attention, or all think like MAGAts.

[Hermit-The-Prog]

10. Republicans in office are MAGAts ...

The Republicans in office want to kill the system and feed on its dead carcass.

[KPN]

8. They are making a circuitous argument. The

President has not been convicted of a crime, while at the same time saying the President cannot be charged with a crime. So why the fuck do they think “impeachment” authority is in the Constitution?

[Mustellus]

9. This is the essential step to declare Trump Ruler for Life

Mussolini replaced his Parliament with a Parliament of CEO's

Hitler burned down the Reich stag, and never rebuilt it

Trump has to be sure Congress has no powers.

This is the essential step.

[SayItLoud]

11. Never forget: " I could shoot someone on 5th Ave and not lose a vote". DJT

This mindset also goes deeper to indicate that tRUMP considers losing or not losing vote above being arrested. Criminality doesn't even factor into the mindset or statement. Only winning or losing via a vote.

[SWBTATTReg]

17. I will never forget when he said this. What nut says this, that he could shoot and kill someone?

Especially someone who is (a great misfortune for this country) our current president. This is a criminal act. Fortunately the police in NYC said that they would arrest him. Sure there are acts that may be warranted, such as war, but not assassination (outlawed too) which is why the attack on the Iranian general was so reviled (and they (rump cronies) had to race around to come up w/ legitimate reasons to take this guy out).

[Scarsdale]

12. John Roberts need to demand

the transcript from that "perfect phone call" be read verbatim before the trial even begins. To HELL with taking tRump's word for it, we need to read the transcript. That is the only evidence we have, apart from the testimony of witnesses.

[aggiesal]

41. I agree! If Nixon had to turn over 17 minutes of tapes ...

then Pendejo45 should have to turn over the transcript of the call to Ukraine,
that was placed on a server with limited access, not the call memorandum,
which is just someone's notes, that they're trying to pass off as the transcript.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

15. So why didn't we add articles where he broke law?

[EndlessWire]

42. We don't have to

do that. The House isn't the trial.

Best of all, we can go back and do it again. He has done so much crap that we seem to have an inexhaustible supply of ugliness to impeach.

This man is destroying our country. We fought a terrible war to free ourselves of the tyranny of a king, and we don't want to live under a king, or a dictator. Well, at least I don't. I don't need no "daddy" to tell me how to think.

If Trump ignores the Constitution, then he is impeachable. He's done that. It's not like "he ran a red light" and we have to prove that. They've got his balls in a vice because he sought help to beat his opponent, the one he perceived to be his biggest election threat. He asked not one but two foreign countries to provide him with help to win against an election opponent. This is not permitted. He's fucking with our Constitution so that he can hold power.

He's not at the point where he can just do it. So, he's been impeached. At the very least, he should be kicked out because of the Emoluments Clause.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

46. I know we don't have to, but it would help diffuse

Dershowitz argument that nothing is a crime. Heard him say it all out on TV already. Hope our side heard every word.

Now really, what is the likelihood of another impeachment? One in a million?

[StarfishSaver]

16. It's very simple

Link to tweet

The Founding Fathers didn't put unnecessary words in the Constitution. If they'd intended to limit impeachment to only statutory crimes, they'd have put a period after "crimes" and not mentioned "misdemeanors."

I can't believe I have to explain this to a Harvard law professor.

[Pepsidog]

20. What a perverted, asshole child molester he is.

[LiberalFighter]

22. It calls into question the decision making for Harvard Law.

[justgamma]

29. Tell that to President Clinton.

The Cons were singing a different tune back then. Still think they should read into the record the Cons comments they made back then.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

47. Bill Clinton was impeached for perjury and obstruction of justice

both actual crimes, right? Granted, about hiding sexual encounter.

[Pepsidog]

18. Excellent reasoning and argument. The headline lived up to the post.

[True Blue American]

36. Heard Constitutional Lawyer

Say, “ He was glad Dershowitz did not teach him Constitutional Law.”

Congressman Rooney was just on said the House should have waited, fought for John Bolton. With the evidence coming out now he may have voted differently.” Thinks it is awful many care more about themselves than doing what is right.

[LiberalFighter]

21. I contend that it is improper for the DOJ to create a policy that protects the President.

It is a conflict of interest.

The DOJ needs to have some independence.

[Captain Zero]

23. And that 'policy' is nothing more than a historical MEMO as well.

nt

[Ford_Prefect]

24. The entire GOP membership in Both houses is complicit in the attack on Rule of Law.

They do not want to be bound by laws they might be subject to. They do not care that this undermines not only the US Justice system but any legal relationships we have with the rest of the world. That would include trade agreements, Treaties of all classes and conditions, mutual defense and legal cooperation arrangements, food quality and medical regulation, insurance and monetary regulations and ever so much more.

If any President can ignore, rewrite or abrogate existing law then there is no basis for negotiation with any other country.

[lastlib]

25. "The King can do no wrong" is a doctrine we threw out two and a half centuries ago.

It is absurd that this phuquer is trying to resurrect it now. We'll do the same thing to this one we did to the last one!

[EndlessWire]

43. "Phuquer."

I love that. It should appear in the dictionary with Donald J. Trump as the definition.

"to phuque"
"phuquerish"
"phuqueroo"...etc.

Phuque Trump.

[lastlib]

45. Happy to lend it to the cause!

I created it because it tends to get past censorship software. I agree that tRump is the definition of the word. He is totally PHUQUED in the head!

[coti]

26. It's getting awfully circular. The President can't be indicted because impeachment is the proper

remedy for a criminal President, according to the DOJ memo, but impeachment is improper without criminality. Seems an awful lot like trying to have it "both ways."

[coti]

27. By the way, how did we start arguing about LACK of criminal acts?

Trump broke the law all over the place with the crap he pulled.

[FirstLight]

31. + a MILLION!

[NewJeffCT]

33. agreed - one of the legal scholars on Twitter

had an entire list of all the crimes committed by Donny Dollhands & Company related to Ukraine and it's a lengthy Twitter threads. They had cited all the relevant federal statutes that were broken as well.

[Capperdan]

38. And what about witness intimidation?

In real time ala Yvonnevitch

[GETPLANING]

28. And that "one lawyer" once said,

on Larry King Live, 8/24/98
DERSHOWITZ: “It certainly doesn't have to be a crime if you have somebody who completely corrupts the office of president and who abuses trust and who poses great danger to our liberty.”

[bob4460]

30. I have been wondering.....

When someone would say this.About F"N' time, fight for us dems quit folding!!!

[garybeck]

32. But he did commit a crime.

Gao confirmed it

[Grins]

34. I'd change just a couple of word...

"....and if that is true, no president can be held accountable, that the president is truly above the law, and that we would have a King."

[NewJeffCT]

35. Good arguments

but, if Republican senators have to choose between:

(A) Trump and a dictatorship or
(B) Losing power, but supporting democracy, the Constitution and the Rule of Law

they're all going to choose (A)

[Kid Berwyn]

37. Senate doesn't remove him, We the People will remove the Senators.

Otherwise, Putin wins.

[ihaveaquestion]

40. It won't make any difference...

All the so-called "on the fence" repuke Senators will hang their hat on any and all remotely plausible excuses to acquit the orangeman.

[moondust]

44. Even worse

is when one party keeps trying to give the (Republican, never Democratic) President even more power through their "unitary executive" bullshit. If anything, more Presidential power needs to be accompanied by more oversight power.