Attorney General Jason Ravnsborg has a message for the members of the US Senate when it comes to impeachment – “It cannot be a legitimate basis to impeach a President for acting in a legal manner.”
State AG letter to Senate o… by Fox News on Scribd
According to FOX News:
“If not expressly repudiated by the Senate, the theories animating both Articles will set a precedent that is entirely contrary to the Framers’ design and ruinous to the most important governmental structure protections contained in our Constitution: the separation of powers,” they wrote.
The letter accuses House Democrats of impeaching Trump as a politically motivated response to the 2016 election and warned that it poses a threat to the 2020 election as well.
What do you think?
Good
Dave, I agree. The obstruction charge is a joke. One need not be Felix Frankfurter or Robert Jackson to grasp that merely asserting an evidentiary privilege is NOT obstruction. I mean, that’s first-year law! When a defendant (or witness) asserts a privilege, zip over to court and get a ruling. That’s how it works. You can’t just cry & pout & throw tantrums. Dershowitz will annihilate that charge Friday, if we even get that far. I agree with James Madison and Gouverneur Morris that quadrennial elections are the proper remedy for maladministration. Election, not impeachment, is the constitutional way to remove an executive who has “abused power.” To me, that’s democracy’s distilled essence. Vote the bums out. These dems’ disastrous theory would foist upon us long acrimonious congressional impeachments whenever a President exercises power in ways that offend the opposition, which (obviously) is predisposed to take offense. In effect, the dems’ theory means non-stop impeachment hearings forevermore. No thanks.
If you don’t like Trump, vote him out! It’s less than 10 months.
These 20 or 21 AGs offer good, persuasive legal arguments. Good brief. But, I must add that, stylistically, I was amused by their… abundant italics.
I do agree that the offenses charged are not impeachable (although I do think what he did was highly inappropriate), but consider the argument:
1. There are two ways of removing a President from office: impeachment or votes.
2. Trump actively attempts to undermine the voting process by demanding Ukraine announce an investigation into the person who seems likely to run against him; and
3. He undermines the impeachment by actively preventing witnesses from testifying.
I don’t think the impeachment should have even started, but Trump certainly does not have clean hands here.
“actively preventing witnesses from testifying”
What witness? Biden? Bolton? Christopher Steele? Vince Foster?
Schiff & Pelosi prevented Kevin McCarthy’s witnesses from testifying. Did the House obstruct itself?
I am not sure if you are being serious. You know the White House instructed multiple witnesses not to testify in regards to the Ukraine matter, right? Pompeo, Bolton, budget officials, etc. You can acknowledge at least that much, right?
I’m going to assume you’re asking a legitimate question. You don’t seem like a 100% closed-minded jackass.
These facts are from the New York Times
Bolton said he’d testify “if subpoenaed.” That was HIS condition.
Trump said he was ok with that and that he was “open to witnesses” because “people deserve to hear all the evidence and both sides.”
The House leadership opted NOT to subpoena testimony from former NSA Bolton.
Bolton said he wouldn’t fight a subpoena. Perhaps Bolton was lying, but we’ll never know because Schiff did not press for Bolton’s testimony.
The House did not subpoena Bolton.
The house issued AND THEN RETRACTED a subpoena for Bolton’s aide.
Because the House did not issue him a subpoena, Bolton did not testify.
Will the Senate fire off a subpoena for Bolton? I don’t know. Maybe.
But, on the basis of these facts, it’s illogical to claim TRUMP prevented Bolton from testifying.
You may believe that secretly, behind the scenes, the President is pulling strings to keep Bolton from testifying. You seem to believe that unnamed White House officials are directing traffic whilst hiding behind a screen of deceit.
Maybe. I can’t disprove your conspiracy theory.
But neither the Times nor any other reputable news service has put forward such evidence. God knows what BS CNN is selling. Probably it’s Russians all the way down. But that pundit chatter is just speculation. Like ex jocks guessing who’ll win the super bowl.
Unless you’re Professor X and you can read minds, you’re stating a hunch, not a fact.
That doesn’t mean your hunch is wrong. Maybe you’re dead right. But it’s a hunch. A feeling. A guess.
Like people who say: “Obama is a Muslim.”
I say, “Wait, he SAYS he’s Christian.”
They answer: “Oh, you are so gullible! I can tell. He’s obviously lying, etc., etc.”
Idk. Maybe so. But even if they’re correct, it’s still a hunch, not a fact.
You are talking about what happened later in the process. The White House initially instructed these people not to testify and, now that the Senate has it, has backpedaled since the Senate may not allow any testimony whatsoever.
https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/01/Answer-of-President-Donald-J.-Trump.pdf
The White House admits as much here in the President’s answer.
That’s not what it says. Not at all. You claim President Trump “actively prevented” someone from testifying. Maybe. That might be true. I wasn’t in the room. I don’t know what went down. Perhaps someone desperately wanted to testify & Trump nixed it. But, according to the NY Times, there’s no evidence any of these folks wanted to testify, and zero evidence Trump nixed it. When Bolton said he was willing to testify under subpoena, Trump said he was “ok with it.” Now, it’s possible Trump’s assertion was a falsehood, but since Schiff didn’t issue the subpoena, we’ll never know. If my daughter wants to skip soccer practice and I call the coach to say we’re skipping, I haven’t “actively prevented” her attendance. Do you really think they wanted to testify? Have you been cross examined under oath? It’s not much fun.
Italics is for emphasis!
Good work Mr AG! Thank you!!
Cue audible eyeroll!
Good to know there will be a record of who forgot their morals – causing the destruction of the GOP… because while everybody knew better, nobody did anything.
I don’t even know what point you are trying to make.
I think I’m 36 and I think that all 6 Presidents this country’s had in my lifetime did things for which he should have been shoud have been removed from office. Finally setting the precedent that the President can and will be replaced from office for any misbehavior, any toe over the line of his powers, any failure to control his subordinates, or any screwup is a good thing in my opinion. There’s millions of people eligible to be President, we should demand flawlessness before one gets to serve a full 4 years instead of being thrown out and replaced.
Thanks, Jason. This is worthy of being onboard with.
Look back at FDR, JFK, and LBJ and see how they used their positions as president against their political opponents and then if you can say you honestly believe they shouldn’t have been impeached I will listen to what you say (I will think you are insane, but I’ll listen).
The basket of deplorables on the left have no honesty or love of country, only a hatred for Trump. They are all traitors to the Constitution and their oaths of office, and they are all habitual liars as well. Not very many with any honor.
Good job AG
I am liking this guy more and more each day
Thank you, Mr. Attorney General Ravnsborg. Carry on!!!