Impeaching cabinet officials.

[PLizzy]

While I disagree that we're not in a constitutional crisis, I find this articles proposals on how to punish the administrations 'above the law' behavior.

It's a way of impeaching Trump without impeaching him directly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...titutional-crisis-yet/?utm_term=.ccea0c24a3d0

Congress has other options beyond running to court or moving on to impeaching Trump. The Above the Law blog’s Elie Mystal suggests: “Steven Mnuchin is the Treasury Secretary and therefore the head of the IRS. ... He will be in violation of a Congressional order to remit six years of Donald Trump’s tax returns for Congressional review. The law is clearly on Congress’s side, and Mnuchin is violating that law in order to appease his master.” The solution, if Mnuchin continues to refuse, is simple: “Congress should hold him in contempt tomorrow. The contempt can be a precursor to formal impeachment proceedings against Mnuchin for refusing to perform his duties as Treasury Secretary.”

The same tactic is available should the Justice Department refuse to go to court to enforce a valid criminal contempt finding. In that case, impeachment against Attorney General William P. Barr, under whose direction the U.S. attorney would refuse to pursue a contempt finding in court, could proceed. (The House can throw into the mix his egregious politicization of the Justice Department and his attempt to mislead the public as to the contents of the Mueller report.)

While the Senate is no more likely to convict and remove Mnuchin and Barr than it is to convict and remove Trump, raising the personal price these officials will pay for enabling Trump’s lawlessness will be key to disabling Trump’s obstruction. Barr and Mnuchin can quit or go down as the first Cabinet officials to be impeached since William Belknap, President Ulysses Grant’s former secretary of war, in 1876. The impeachment proceedings and trials of these officials will serve to educate the country as to the administration’s lawlessness, even if these officials ultimately retain their jobs.

Democrats seriously have to consider putting these actions on the table, or this entire administration is going to only get worse in its lawlessness and politicization of our institutions.

Republicans didn't think twice about holding Holder in contempt, or putting impeachment of Rosenstein on the table.

Otherwise, this administration has truly called the Democrats bluff in being able to be a check on this WH.

 

[Xelor]

While I disagree that we're not in a constitutional crisis, I find this articles proposals on how to punish the administrations 'above the law' behavior.

It's a way of impeaching Trump without impeaching him directly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...titutional-crisis-yet/?utm_term=.ccea0c24a3d0

Democrats seriously have to consider putting these actions on the table, or this entire administration is going to only get worse in its lawlessness and politicization of our institutions.

Republicans didn't think twice about holding Holder in contempt, or putting impeachment of Rosenstein on the table.

Otherwise, this administration has truly called the Democrats bluff in being able to be a check on this WH.

I think Mystal's idea is ridiculous.

 

[Rexedgar]

There was another figure in not so distant history that kept testing the envelope waiting for some pushback each time there was none, he pushed a little more...

 

[apdst]

Oh man! I wish they would do this stupid ****.

 

[SoCal]

While I disagree that we're not in a constitutional crisis...

...Otherwise, this administration has truly called the Democrats bluff in being able to be a check on this WH.

I agree with your disagreement. Demanding his political rival, Hillary, be prosecuted just like the dictators he admires would do?!?

Did you hear him at the NRA? When he ranted about the "coup", the NRA extremists were cheering him on. They believe our unhinged paranoid racist president, heart and soul and they have guns...

I think Mystal's idea is ridiculous.

I wasn't able to read the article, they want me to pay them a dollar! :lol:

This idea seems at least feasible to me, why is it ridiculous? I believe congress needs to do something asap. The longer they wait, the worst Don's dictatorial impulses and rants are becoming. Given his unhinged behavior since 16'. I don't understand why people (not you), believe Don won't act irrationally when he's finally confronted by congress's right of oversight...

 

[Captain Adverse]

I have one simple question...

What is the purpose of Congress (or anyone other than the IRS for that matter) looking at Mr. Trump's tax records?

He has been audited several times past by the IRS, and if there were any issues found he would have been fined or otherwise dealt with.

So, aside from simply wanting to do so, I fail to understand why either Congress (or any citizen) would NEED, much less WANT to do so.

I personally have nothing to hide in my tax history; but I certainly consider it protected from a general desire to snoop into my financial history.

Please explain this "requirement," which has always been voluntary prior to date.

 

[Xelor]

This idea seems at least feasible to me, why is it ridiculous?

I believe congress needs to do something asap. The longer they wait, the worst Don's dictatorial impulses and rants are becoming. Given his unhinged behavior since 16'. I don't understand why people (not you), believe Don won't act irrationally when he's finally confronted by congress's right of oversight...

Red:
I find the idea ridiculous because:

• Trump is the problem, not the cabinet secretaries, though, sure, some (maybe all) of the secretaries are reprobate too. Should a secretary do something
• Impeaching cabinet secretaries directs resources toward a symbolic end that's even less impactful than is the symbolic end of impeaching Trump.
• Impeaching Trump creates a rhetorical "spin" vehicle, one they currently lack, for Trump and his Congressional defenders.
• There is a far more impactful option: invoking Congress' inherent contempt powers. That approach would effectively remove the person from their position and it would prohibit Trump from appointing someone new, unless he fires the person so held. If, however, he fires the person, that person's status changes from government official to private citizen and their options become even more limited. For at least one of them, Barr, his non-governmental career as an attorney would almost certainly end. (He's almost 70, so that may not matter to him.)

Blue:
Left to his own devices, Trump would act and speak irrationally; however, the one group of individuals whom Trump tends to heed are his attorneys, and they tend to keep him from doing most of the irrational things he'd otherwise do. That said, they're not nearly as effective at abrogating his predilection for making irrational utterances.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I have one simple question...

What is the purpose of Congress (or anyone other than the IRS for that matter) looking at Mr. Trump's tax records?

He has been audited several times past by the IRS, and if there were any issues found he would have been fined or otherwise dealt with.

So, aside from simply wanting to do so, I fail to understand why either Congress (or any citizen) would NEED, much less WANT to do so.

I personally have nothing to hide in my tax history; but I certainly consider it protected from a general desire to snoop into my financial history.

Please explain this "requirement," which has always been voluntary prior to date.

Forgetting the taxes for a moment, do you think it's okay for the Trump WH to refuse to comply with any and all subpoenas?

On the tax issues, there is some justification in Cohen's testimony. The public has no right to see them, but Congress has the right.

Edit: Mystal's idea appeals to me more at the moment than outright attempts to impeach Trump or move in the impeachment direction. But I've changed views on that 2 times already, so...

 

[Bullseye]

While I disagree that we're not in a constitutional crisis, I find this articles proposals on how to punish the administrations 'above the law' behavior.

It's a way of impeaching Trump without impeaching him directly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...titutional-crisis-yet/?utm_term=.ccea0c24a3d0

Democrats seriously have to consider putting these actions on the table, or this entire administration is going to only get worse in its lawlessness and politicization of our institutions.

Republicans didn't think twice about holding Holder in contempt, or putting impeachment of Rosenstein on the table.

Otherwise, this administration has truly called the Democrats bluff in being able to be a check on this WH.

LOL, so a loony left lawyer gets a bee up her bonnet. IF Congress attempted to impeach him. Mnunich's first defense is was the order to produce the records lawful which would likely lead to SCOTUS reviewing the law and given the conservative majority likely find it in violation of the Four Amendment. So, got ahead make our day.

 

[apdst]

Forgetting the taxes for a moment, do you think it's okay for the Trump WH to refuse to comply with any and all subpoenas?

On the tax issues, there is some justification in Cohen's testimony. The public has no right to see them, but Congress has the right.

It is, unless Congress can present a legitimate legislative purpose to issue those subpoenas. Congress isn't above the law.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

It is, unless Congress can present a legitimate legislative purpose to issue those subpoenas. Congress isn't above the law.

The only legislative purpose I know of is to find and fix loopholes, but I'm not in Congress.

 

[apdst]

I agree with your disagreement. Demanding his political rival, Hillary, be prosecuted just like the dictators he admires would do?!?

Did you hear him at the NRA? When he ranted about the "coup", the NRA extremists were cheering him on. They believe our unhinged paranoid racist president, heart and soul and they have guns...



I wasn't able to read the article, they want me to pay them a dollar! :lol:

This idea seems at least feasible to me, why is it ridiculous? I believe congress needs to do something asap. The longer they wait, the worst Don's dictatorial impulses and rants are becoming. Given his unhinged behavior since 16'. I don't understand why people (not you), believe Don won't act irrationally when he's finally confronted by congress's right of oversight...

If I were a Leftist, I would be worried as hell that it would let the geanie out of the bottle and allow a Republican Congress to do the same thing to a Democrat (communist) president.

Would you be ok with it, then?

 

[apdst]

The only legislative purpose I know of is to find and fix loopholes, but I'm not in Congress.

Yeah, but we already know that getting ahold of President Trump's taxes don't have jack **** to do with changing the tax code.

 

[Bullseye]

Forgetting the taxes for a moment, do you think it's okay for the Trump WH to refuse to comply with any and all subpoenas?

On the tax issues, there is some justification in Cohen's testimony. The public has no right to see them, but Congress has the right.

Edit: Mystal's idea appeals to me more at the moment than outright attempts to impeach Trump or move in the impeachment direction. But I've changed views on that 2 times already, so...

By what reasoning does Congress have the right to demand tax records absent any proof of crime or malfeasance?

 

[<alt>doxygen]

By what reasoning does Congress have the right to demand tax records absent any proof of crime or malfeasance?

Answered already. If they don't have a legit reason, they can't have them. But Trump supporters on DP don't define "legit".

 

[Captain Adverse]

On the tax issues, there is some justification in Cohen's testimony. The public has no right to see them, but Congress has the right.

I am not going to deflect by responding to a question on a topic I have no interest in, so I will only respond to the above.

Under 26 U.S. Code § 6103 (f) Congressional Ways & Means Committee has the right to request tax information for review in closed session unless otherwise agreed to by the taxpayer. This allows this Committee to review such tax privately, as such tax information is protected as confidential under the tax codes.

The problem is that such information will either not be reviewed without "leaking," or it will be "discussed generally" for news reporting in the most negative way. This either to prompt Trump to reveal it publicly himself, or to generate public outrage much like Adam Schiff already did (falsely) regarding alleged evidence of criminal collusion.

This is the issue that I believe Trump is trying to take to SCOTUS, or if not he should be...that the sole purpose is to harass him.

Meanwhile, your response did not answer my question. WHY should Congress request his tax information? There is no law requiring any Presidential candidate to release them, nor for any President to do so while in office or after leaving office. It was just something done by recent past President's to IMO "showboat."

Trump on the other hand has been in the business sphere for 50 plus years. His business dealings are diverse and very complicated. People want to see them to FIND something they can use against him. It is just more "witch-hunting" to replace the lost "collusion/conspiracy" hoax.

 

[Mycroft]

While I disagree that we're not in a constitutional crisis, I find this articles proposals on how to punish the administrations 'above the law' behavior.

It's a way of impeaching Trump without impeaching him directly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...titutional-crisis-yet/?utm_term=.ccea0c24a3d0

Democrats seriously have to consider putting these actions on the table, or this entire administration is going to only get worse in its lawlessness and politicization of our institutions.

Republicans didn't think twice about holding Holder in contempt, or putting impeachment of Rosenstein on the table.

Otherwise, this administration has truly called the Democrats bluff in being able to be a check on this WH.

You really want the Dems to lose in 2020, don't you?

That's what would happen if they stupidly followed your suggestions.

btw, that talking potato head at WaPo is not correct: The law is NOT clearly on Congress's side. The courts will decide if that's where the Trump administration takes this.

 

[Lutherf]

If I were a Leftist, I would be worried as hell that it would let the geanie out of the bottle and allow a Republican Congress to do the same thing to a Democrat (communist) president.

Would you be ok with it, then?

They don't care about that. The idea is to get rid of political opposition. These people really believe that everyone who isn't them is evil and needs to be gotten rid of. They're talking about "getting rid of" in political terms right now but it will only be political terms for just so long.

 

[marke]

While I disagree that we're not in a constitutional crisis, I find this articles proposals on how to punish the administrations 'above the law' behavior.

It's a way of impeaching Trump without impeaching him directly.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opin...titutional-crisis-yet/?utm_term=.ccea0c24a3d0

Democrats seriously have to consider putting these actions on the table, or this entire administration is going to only get worse in its lawlessness and politicization of our institutions.

Republicans didn't think twice about holding Holder in contempt, or putting impeachment of Rosenstein on the table.

Otherwise, this administration has truly called the Democrats bluff in being able to be a check on this WH.

Trump is fighting back against unethical, illogical, immoral and even illegal perversion of judgment and justice by flaming leftist opposition to the elected government of the US.

 

[Rogue Valley]

The problem is that such information will either not be reviewed without "leaking," or it will be "discussed generally" for news reporting in the most negative way.

This is strictly a partisan assumption on your part.

Congress, with Democrat chairpersons, hears/reads classified testimony/documents virtually every week Congress is in session.

 

[<alt>doxygen]

I am not going to deflect by responding to a question on a topic I have no interest in, so I will only respond to the above.

Under 26 U.S. Code § 6103 (f) Congressional Ways & Means Committee has the right to request tax information for review in closed session unless otherwise agreed to by the taxpayer. This allows this Committee to review such tax privately, as such tax information is protected as confidential under the tax codes.

The problem is that such information will either not be reviewed without "leaking," or it will be "discussed generally" for news reporting in the most negative way. This either to prompt Trump to reveal it publicly himself, or to generate public outrage much like Adam Schiff already did (falsely) regarding alleged evidence of criminal collusion.

This is the issue that I believe Trump is trying to take to SCOTUS, or if not he should be...that the sole purpose is to harass him.

Meanwhile, your response did not answer my question. WHY should Congress request his tax information? There is no law requiring any Presidential candidate to release them, nor for any President to do so while in office or after leaving office. It was just something done by recent past President's to IMO "showboat."

Trump on the other hand has been in the business sphere for 50 plus years. His business dealings are diverse and very complicated. People want to see them to FIND something they can use against him. It is just more "witch-hunting" to replace the lost "collusion/conspiracy" hoax.

Your apologetics are interesting but predictable. I get that you like what he's doing, but you guys should have pick someone a little more competent and a little less corrupt. Just a LITTLE.

I did answer your question, to the extent I care about this sideshow. Cohen gave reason during testimony. I'm more interested in the larger issue, which the linked piece by Rubin was exploring. The one you refuse (understandably) address.

 

[SoCal]

Red:
I find the idea ridiculous because:

• Trump is the problem, not the cabinet secretaries, though, sure, some (maybe all) of the secretaries are reprobate too. Should a secretary do something
• Impeaching cabinet secretaries directs resources toward a symbolic end that's even less impactful than is the symbolic end of impeaching Trump.
• Impeaching Trump creates a rhetorical "spin" vehicle, one they currently lack, for Trump and his Congressional defenders.
• There is a far more impactful option: invoking Congress' inherent contempt powers. That approach would effectively remove the person from their position and it would prohibit Trump from appointing someone new, unless he fires the person so held. If, however, he fires the person, that person's status changes from government official to private citizen and their options become even more limited. For at least one of them, Barr, his non-governmental career as an attorney would almost certainly end. (He's almost 70, so that may not matter to him.)...

• 
  
  Yes, Don is the source of the problem, like a spark on tinder, but his secretaries and department heads are acting like the oxygen that keeps the blaze going. At this point they're as responsible for his actions as Don's hate filled, "very big brain".
  
  Cut off the fuel by going after them or a formal impeachment? The latter would probably dish out more well deserved justice to Don, but the former might result in a better outcome for America. Whatever method they use, they need to use it asap.
  
  

  ...Blue:
  Left to his own devices, Trump would act and speak irrationally; however, the one group of individuals whom Trump tends to heed are his attorneys, and they tend to keep him from doing most of the irrational things he'd otherwise do. That said, they're not nearly as effective at abrogating his predilection for making irrational utterances.

  
  If Don was rational he would heed his own attorney's advice, but Don and rational are like oil and water. If you Google, "trump ignores attorney's advice", you'll find many cases of his ignoring it. Making impulsive paranoid charges caused by his anger getting the best of him over bad segments on Fox, is a great example...

 

[PLizzy]

Your apologetics are interesting but predictable. I get that you like what he's doing, but you guys should have pick someone a little more competent and a little less corrupt. Just a LITTLE.

I did answer your question, to the extent I care about this sideshow. Cohen gave reason during testimony. I'm more interested in the larger issue, which the linked piece by Rubin was exploring. The one you refuse (understandably) address.

Remember when Nunes subpoenaed the banking records of Fusion GPS, and they argued that because he'd likely leak them, the committe shouldn't get the records? Yeah, a judge argued that the possibility of leaking is not a defense against a Congressional subpoena.
Judge: House panel entitled to Fusion GPS bank records - POLITICO

“Although the records sought by the Subpoena are sensitive in nature — and merit the use of appropriate precautions by the Committee to ensure they are not publicly disclosed — the nature of the records themselves, and the Committee’s procedures designed to ensure their confidentiality, more than adequately protect the sensitivity of that information,” the judge added.

Judges are known to side with the Congress on these kind of issues, so the prospect of this working out for Trump aren't great.

 

[SoCal]

If I were a Leftist, I would be worried as hell that it would let the geanie out of the bottle and allow a Republican Congress to do the same thing to a Democrat (communist) president.

Would you be ok with it, then?

If I were a fascist, I'd be regretting letting the genie out of the barrel months ago. What goes around, comes around and when it does, I know you won't be ok with it...

 

[Xelor]

Yes, Don is the source of the problem, like a spark on tinder, but his secretaries and department heads are acting like the oxygen that keeps the blaze going. At this point they're as responsible for his actions as Don's hate filled, "very big brain".

Cut off the fuel by going after them or a formal impeachment? The latter would probably dish out more well deserved justice to Don, but the former might result in a better outcome for America. Whatever method they use, they need to use it asap.



If Don was rational he would heed his own attorney's advice, but Don and rational are like oil and water. If you Google, "trump ignores attorney's advice", you'll find many cases of his ignoring it. Making impulsive paranoid charges caused by his anger getting the best of him over bad segments on Fox, is a great example...

Red:
I'd assert and argue that the "oxygen" is some quantity of the GOP-er in the US Senate, not cabinet secretaries.


Blue:
Yes....I wrote:

Left to his own devices, Trump would act and speak irrationally; however, the one group of individuals whom Trump tends to heed are his attorneys, and they tend to keep him from doing most of the irrational things he'd otherwise do. That said, they're not nearly as effective at abrogating his predilection for making irrational utterances.​