Chris Vance (Repub) "Impeach President Trump" - Seattle Times 4/9/2019

[pat_k]

Editorial in the Seattle Times from Chris Vance (former chair of the Washington State Republican Party, former state legislator, and former King County council member).

Seattle Times
End Constitutional Catch-22 and impeach President Trump
April 9, 2019
By Chris Vance

So far Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the leadership of the U.S. House Democratic majority have approached the issue of impeachment cautiously; with politics on their minds. This is understandable, but also inconsistent with their constitutional duty.

The Constitution is being violated in plain sight. To protect the Constitution from this president, and future rogue presidencies, the House Judiciary Committee should wrap all the various investigations of Trump into a formal consideration of possible articles of impeachment. Now.

Americans have long debated what constitutes an impeachable offense, but it is clear that the standard for unacceptable presidential conduct is very different from the standard for prosecutable criminal conduct.

Writing in Federalist 65, Alexander Hamilton said impeachable acts were:

Those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

During the Nixon impeachment proceedings, the Judiciary Committee declined to vote an article of impeachment against Nixon for tax evasion, because they did not view this personal criminal act as an impeachable offense, but did impeach for obstruction of justice. The committee based its conclusion on a staff report, “Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment,” which traced the history, precedents and grounds for impeachment. The report concluded:

Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the president.

President Donald Trump may or may not have broken the law, but is there any doubt that he has abused his public trust? Any doubt that he has engaged in “conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the president?”

...

[LonePirate]

1. Of course, it's another Republican not in a currently elected office. That's the problem.

Currently elected Republicans need to call for impeachment but so far they cannot overlook their own cowardice as they value loyalty to the party more than loyalty to the Constitution.

[samnsara]

2. ...and hes red in a blue city in a purple-blue state.. BUT his words...

...still carry a lot of weight. He can influence a lot of people just by connections. He doesnt have to be re elected to anything. Just VOCAL!

[lagomorph777]

3. We may be forced to.

We're running out of options to save the Republic. A real Republican would know that.

[Grasswire2]

4. The "math" and the "bipartisanship" will never come.

Filing Articles of Impeachment would allow the House to immediately access all evidence and release most of it to the American people pronto.

The national conversation would then change.

Yes, Trump will do nearly anything to retain power.

But that fight will come either sooner, or later. It is inevitable.

And every day he operates behind the shield of secrecy to consolidate power does more harm to America.

We may never recover if the evidence isn't released now.

[FailureToCommunicate]

7. This !

[Ponietz]

8. Yes, I agree with you wholeheartedly

I have rallied here for weeks that confrontation is inevitable and best ASAP!

[Pobeka]

9. AND it will show Dem's are willing to be demonstrably strong, something our citizenry needs to see.

n/t

[Ponietz]

11. The Resistance gave us the House in 2018 for the very purpose of stopping these criminals

[pat_k]

13. The blanket executive privilege declared today could...

... finally wake a few of the cowardly Repubs up.

And it could wake some of the "impeachment is the third rail" Dems up too. A line must be drawn. A meaningful objection made. And, as you say, it will transform the conversation.

Impeachment or no -- I think things could start moving very, very, fast. When Nixon made his executive privilege claims, I think it was just a matter of weeks before it hit SCOTUS. The courts don't muck around with questions this momentous. (And Nixon's appointees voted against his claims). I think Trump believes he can "run out the clock." Perhaps that will be the case on his wall, but the courts won't dily daly with his blanket claim of execuitive priv.

He has crossed so many lines with impunity, perhaps this is just another one he will "get away with." But I have a feeling he may have finally gone "too far." I have a hard time seeing his minions on SCOTUS -- deranged tho they may be -- sticking with him on his dictatorial claim of executive power.

[zentrum]

5. Why didn't Mueller

....investigate obstruction? Why? Why?

Isn't that part of investigating the Russian thing?

Is this why T is "not exonerated"? Just because Mueller didn't investigate obstruction anyway?

It's all an impossible tangle now.

[Lock individual1 up]

6. I think he might have investigated obstruction...

(We have not seen the full report.)

If he did, he also said "does not exonerate him" according to Barr's 3 pages…

And perhaps he was counting on the House to conclude on that, but they have not seen his report, nor all the GJ materials. To get the Grand Jury materials in full, the House has to set an impeachment-hearings committee (thus becoming a judical body to receive it according to the LAW).

[zentrum]

10. It's my understanding

...that Mueller did not investigate obstruction.

Learned that today on NPR public radio---which at least reports real news.

Howver maybe what's happening now is that in reporting, the idea of "didn't investigate" and "had no finding", are being collapsed into the same thing.

But thanks for the prompt to just wait this out.

[CDerekGo]

12. NPR or not

Unless National Public Radio has read the actual Mueller Report (highly doubt that) I'll wait for the full report to come out, instead of listening to anyone's opinion on Radio, Television or Newspaper. No one knows for certain that Mueller did not investigate Obstruction. No one knows for certain anything that's in that report, unless they've read that report. And until that report is make public, redactions or not, I'm not listening to anyone about their opinion, simply because that's all there is at this point.