It seems reasonable to me to bring up the Yemeni resolution veto in the context of this discussion.
But I don't think it's an argument against the legitimacy of the current ongoing investigations. It stands on it's own, and for some people is clearly a more obvious reason for impeachment.
Do any of those supporting the Ukraine-phone-call impeachment process support Col. Wilkerson's call (see prior post) for impeaching Trump for something really important -- waging war in defiance of Congress's demand that he stop, which violates the Constitution?
This thread is discussing the currently pending investigations in the Congress. To avoid the confusion that multiple topics on a thread can cause, your question sounds like a great topic for its own thread.
You didn't address Wilkerson's argument, which addresses the question of Presidential veto.
Correct. See my post which you quoted, for further explanation.
It seems reasonable to me to bring up the Yemeni resolution veto in the context of this discussion.
But I don't think it's an argument against the legitimacy of the current ongoing investigations. It stands on it's own, and for some people is clearly a more obvious reason for impeachment.
It brings up a whole range of completely different factual and legal issues. If its a reasonable topic for discussion, Paul (or anyone else) can start a thread on it. There's more than enough to discuss with respect to the actual investigation.
It brings up a whole range of completely different factual and legal issues. If its a reasonable topic for discussion, Paul (or anyone else) can start a thread on it. There's more than enough to discuss with respect to the actual investigation.
Point taken. And crushed beneath my heel.
Separate question: when do all y'all see the arc of this investigation touching down? I know McConnel was talking about wrapping up a Senate trial this calendar year. Do you think the House Democrats would rather drop the impeachment on his head next year?
It brings up a whole range of completely different factual and legal issues. If its a reasonable topic for discussion, Paul (or anyone else) can start a thread on it. There's more than enough to discuss with respect to the actual investigation.
I thought you are a lawyer. The Colonel says Lawyers have no business having an opinion on the matter.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson calls for impeaching Trump for violating the Constitution by vetoing the Congressional Act to end US involvement in the war in Yemen.
Absolutely.
You don’t have to be a lawyer to see the simple logic of this situation. In fact, lawyers are superfluous when it comes to the war power. They should not even get a vote, let alone parse the law to favor the Executive Branch of government, like they have been doing increasingly since 2000.
So "The Law", which includes The Constitution is irrelevant. How ironic that he should engage in such a Trumpian argument.
Impeachment, the Presidential veto, the right of Congress to override a veto and even the "phony" emoluments clause are in the Constitution and are "The Law of the Land". If Congress wants to end US involvement in Yemen or anyplace else they just have to not appropriate any money for it.
It seems reasonable to me to bring up the Yemeni resolution veto in the context of this discussion.
But I don't think it's an argument against the legitimacy of the current ongoing investigations. It stands on it's own, and for some people is clearly a more obvious reason for impeachment.
It brings up a whole range of completely different factual and legal issues. If its a reasonable topic for discussion, Paul (or anyone else) can start a thread on it. There's more than enough to discuss with respect to the actual investigation.
@nohero is being disingenuous. He knows that my call for impeachment of Trump for matters of War and Peace is already part of this thread. He wants to shut down discussion of Wilkerson's proposal because it's similar to mine and now it's not just a matter of "Paul" calling for impeachment on matters of War and Peace, it's a prominent, widely-respected opponent of Trump making the proposal.
Discussion of Wilkerson's proposal on this thread is fully appropriate.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson calls for impeaching Trump for violating the Constitution by vetoing the Congressional Act to end US involvement in the war in Yemen.
Absolutely.
You don’t have to be a lawyer to see the simple logic of this situation. In fact, lawyers are superfluous when it comes to the war power. They should not even get a vote, let alone parse the law to favor the Executive Branch of government, like they have been doing increasingly since 2000.
So "The Law", which includes The Constitution is irrelevant. How ironic that he should engage in such a Trumpian argument.
Impeachment, the Presidential veto, the right of Congress to override a veto and even the "phony" emoluments clause are in the Constitution and are "The Law of the Land". If Congress wants to end US involvement in Yemen or anyplace else they just have to not appropriate any money for it.
Congress, which has the sole power to declare war, has demanded that the President remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in or affecting the Republic of Yemen except in operations related to Al Qaeda.
Trump has no Constitutional authority to "veto" such a demand.
JOINT RESOLUTION
Directing the removal of United States Armed Forces from hostilities in the Republic of Yemen that have not been authorized by Congress.
Resolved by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. Findings.
Congress finds the following:
(1) Congress has the sole power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the United States Constitution.
(2) Congress has not declared war with respect to, or provided a specific statutory authorization for, the conflict between military forces led by Saudi Arabia, including forces from the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, Kuwait, Egypt, Jordan, Morocco, Senegal, and Sudan (the Saudi-led coalition), against the Houthis, also known as Ansar Allah, in the Republic of Yemen.
(3) Since March 2015, members of the United States Armed Forces have been introduced into hostilities between the Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis, including providing to the Saudi-led coalition aerial targeting assistance, intelligence sharing, and mid-flight aerial refueling.
(4) The United States has established a Joint Combined Planning Cell with Saudi Arabia, in which members of the United States Armed Forces assist in aerial targeting and help to coordinate military and intelligence activities.
(5) In December 2017, Secretary of Defense James N. Mattis stated, “We have gone in to be very—to be helpful where we can in identifying how you do target analysis and how you make certain you hit the right thing.”.
(6) The conflict between the Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis constitutes, within the meaning of section 4(a) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1543(a)), either hostilities or a situation where imminent involvement in hostilities is clearly indicated by the circumstances into which United States Armed Forces have been introduced.
(7) Section 5(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1544(c)) states that, “at any time that United States Armed Forces are engaged in hostilities outside the territory of the United States, its possessions and territories without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization, such forces shall be removed by the President if the Congress so directs”.
(8) Section 8(c) of the War Powers Resolution (50 U.S.C. 1547(c)) defines the introduction of United States Armed Forces to include “the assignment of members of such armed forces to command, coordinate, participate in the movement of, or accompany the regular or irregular military forces of any foreign country or government when such military forces are engaged, or there exists an imminent threat that such forces will become engaged, in hostilities”, and activities that the United States is conducting in support of the Saudi-led coalition, including aerial refueling and targeting assistance, fall within this definition.
(9) Section 1013 of the Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (50 U.S.C. 1546a) provides that any joint resolution or bill to require the removal of United States Armed Forces engaged in hostilities without a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization shall be considered in accordance with the expedited procedures of section 601(b) of the International Security and Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (Public Law 94–329; 90 Stat. 765).
(10) No specific statutory authorization for the use of United States Armed Forces with respect to the conflict between the Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis in Yemen has been enacted, and no provision of law explicitly authorizes the provision of targeting assistance or of midair refueling services to warplanes of Saudi Arabia or the United Arab Emirates that are engaged in such conflict. [ . . . ]
Pursuant to section 1013 of the Department of State Authorization Act, Fiscal Years 1984 and 1985 (50 U.S.C. 1546a) and in accordance with the provisions of section 601(b) of the International Security Assistance and Arms Export Control Act of 1976 (Public Law 94–329; 90 Stat. 765), Congress hereby directs the President to remove United States Armed Forces from hostilities in or affecting the Republic of Yemen, except United States Armed Forces engaged in operations directed at al-Qaeda or associated forces, by not later than the date that is 30 days after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution (unless the President requests and Congress authorizes a later date), and unless and until a declaration of war or specific authorization for such use of United States Armed Forces has been enacted. For purposes of this resolution, in this section, the term “hostilities” includes in-flight refueling of, non-United States aircraft conducting missions as part of the ongoing civil war in Yemen.
SEC. 3. Rule of construction regarding continued military operations and cooperation with Israel.
Nothing in this joint resolution may be construed to influence or disrupt any military operations and cooperation with Israel.
SEC. 4. Rule of construction regarding intelligence sharing.
Nothing in this joint resolution may be construed to influence or disrupt any intelligence, counterintelligence, or investigative activities conducted by, or in conjunction with, the United States Government involving—
(1) the collection of intelligence;
(2) the analysis of intelligence; or
(3) the sharing of intelligence between the United States and any foreign country if the President determines such sharing is appropriate and in the national security interests of the United States.
SEC. 5. Report on risks posed by ceasing Saudi Arabia support operations.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, the President shall submit to Congress a report assessing the risks posed to United States citizens and the civilian population of Saudi Arabia and the risk of regional humanitarian crises if the United States were to cease support operations with respect to the conflict between the Saudi-led coalition and the Houthis in Yemen.
SEC. 6. Report on increased risk of terrorist attacks to United States Armed Forces abroad, allies, and the continental United States if Saudi Arabia ceases Yemen-related intelligence sharing with the United States.
Not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of this joint resolution, the President shall submit to Congress a report assessing the increased risk of terrorist attacks on United States Armed Forces abroad, allies, and to the continental United States if the Government of Saudi Arabia were to cease Yemen-related intelligence sharing with the United States.
Passed the House of Representatives February 13, 2019.
I do not believe NoHero wants to shut down any discussion. In fact Wilkerson seems to oppose certain discussion.
I happen to think Wilkerson's proposal is far-fetched. Congress sent POTUS a Bill to sign or veto. He vetoed it. They did not override his veto.
Wilkerson seems to think that Congress should not have sent the Bill to the President in the first place.
So let's go further. If Congress can impeach the President for matters of War and Peace could they impeach him for pulling out of Syria?
The analogy would be if Congress passed a resolution calling for troops to remain in Syria (essentially a declaration of war) and Trump pulled them out, they would have a pretty good case for impeachment.
The House is legally engaged in an impeachment inquiry, a federal judge ruled on Friday, delivering a major legal victory to House Democrats and undercutting arguments by President Trump and Republicans that the investigation is a sham.
The House Judiciary Committee is lawfully entitled to view secret grand jury evidence gathered by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in a 75-page opinion. Attorney General William P. Barr had withheld the material from lawmakers.
Typically, Congress has no right to view secret evidence gathered by a grand jury. But in 1974, the courts permitted the committee weighing whether to impeach President Richard M. Nixon to see such materials — and, Judge Howell ruled, the House is now engaged in the same process focused on Mr. Trump.
Judge Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, wrote that law enforcement officials’ need to keep the information secret from Congress was “minimal” and easily outweighed by lawmakers’ need for it.
“Tipping the scale even further toward disclosure is the public’s interest in a diligent and thorough investigation into, and in a final determination about, potentially impeachable conduct by the president described in the Mueller report,” she wrote.
In reaching that decision, she rejected the contention by Mr. Trump and his allies that the investigation Democrats are pursuing, which has since expanded to encompass the Ukraine scandal, is not a legitimate impeachment inquiry.
In arguing that the impeachment inquiry is a sham, Republicans have noted that the full House has not voted for a resolution to authorize one, as it did in 1974 and 1998 at the start of impeachment proceedings targeting Nixon and Bill Clinton. Democrats have countered that no resolution is required under the Constitution or House rules, noting that impeachment efforts to remove other officials, like judges, started without one.
Judge Howell agreed, calling the Republican arguments to the contrary “cherry-picked and incomplete” and without support in the text of the Constitution, House rules, or court precedents. She also noted that the House Judiciary Committee began considering whether to impeach of President Andrew Johnson, after the Civil War, well before the full House approved a resolution blessing it.
“Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry,” she wrote.
The House is legally engaged in an impeachment inquiry, a federal judge ruled on Friday, delivering a major legal victory to House Democrats and undercutting arguments by President Trump and Republicans that the investigation is a sham.
The House Judiciary Committee is lawfully entitled to view secret grand jury evidence gathered by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in a 75-page opinion. Attorney General William P. Barr had withheld the material from lawmakers.
Typically, Congress has no right to view secret evidence gathered by a grand jury. But in 1974, the courts permitted the committee weighing whether to impeach President Richard M. Nixon to see such materials — and, Judge Howell ruled, the House is now engaged in the same process focused on Mr. Trump.
Judge Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, wrote that law enforcement officials’ need to keep the information secret from Congress was “minimal” and easily outweighed by lawmakers’ need for it.
“Tipping the scale even further toward disclosure is the public’s interest in a diligent and thorough investigation into, and in a final determination about, potentially impeachable conduct by the president described in the Mueller report,” she wrote.
In reaching that decision, she rejected the contention by Mr. Trump and his allies that the investigation Democrats are pursuing, which has since expanded to encompass the Ukraine scandal, is not a legitimate impeachment inquiry.
In arguing that the impeachment inquiry is a sham, Republicans have noted that the full House has not voted for a resolution to authorize one, as it did in 1974 and 1998 at the start of impeachment proceedings targeting Nixon and Bill Clinton. Democrats have countered that no resolution is required under the Constitution or House rules, noting that impeachment efforts to remove other officials, like judges, started without one.
Judge Howell agreed, calling the Republican arguments to the contrary “cherry-picked and incomplete” and without support in the text of the Constitution, House rules, or court precedents. She also noted that the House Judiciary Committee began considering whether to impeach of President Andrew Johnson, after the Civil War, well before the full House approved a resolution blessing it.
“Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry,” she wrote.
Click to Read More
The House is legally engaged in an impeachment inquiry, a federal judge ruled on Friday, delivering a major legal victory to House Democrats and undercutting arguments by President Trump and Republicans that the investigation is a sham.
The House Judiciary Committee is lawfully entitled to view secret grand jury evidence gathered by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, Judge Beryl A. Howell of the Federal District Court for the District of Columbia ruled in a 75-page opinion. Attorney General William P. Barr had withheld the material from lawmakers.
Typically, Congress has no right to view secret evidence gathered by a grand jury. But in 1974, the courts permitted the committee weighing whether to impeach President Richard M. Nixon to see such materials — and, Judge Howell ruled, the House is now engaged in the same process focused on Mr. Trump.
Judge Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, wrote that law enforcement officials’ need to keep the information secret from Congress was “minimal” and easily outweighed by lawmakers’ need for it.
“Tipping the scale even further toward disclosure is the public’s interest in a diligent and thorough investigation into, and in a final determination about, potentially impeachable conduct by the president described in the Mueller report,” she wrote.
In reaching that decision, she rejected the contention by Mr. Trump and his allies that the investigation Democrats are pursuing, which has since expanded to encompass the Ukraine scandal, is not a legitimate impeachment inquiry.
In arguing that the impeachment inquiry is a sham, Republicans have noted that the full House has not voted for a resolution to authorize one, as it did in 1974 and 1998 at the start of impeachment proceedings targeting Nixon and Bill Clinton. Democrats have countered that no resolution is required under the Constitution or House rules, noting that impeachment efforts to remove other officials, like judges, started without one.
Judge Howell agreed, calling the Republican arguments to the contrary “cherry-picked and incomplete” and without support in the text of the Constitution, House rules, or court precedents. She also noted that the House Judiciary Committee began considering whether to impeach of President Andrew Johnson, after the Civil War, well before the full House approved a resolution blessing it.
“Even in cases of presidential impeachment, a House resolution has never, in fact, been required to begin an impeachment inquiry,” she wrote.
The DOJ for was granted a stay of the District Court's ruling until it's appeal to the Appeals Court is handed down. One of the grounds of the DOJ's appeal will be that the impeachment is limited to Ukraine matters, and the grand jury testimony doesn't involve Ukraine. The head lawyer for the House had previously told Judge Howell that the Articles of Impeachment may include obstruction of justice and lying by Trump, and it is very doubtful that the Appeals Court will reverse the District Court's opinion.
The analogy would be if Congress passed a resolution calling for troops to remain in Syria (essentially a declaration of war) and Trump pulled them out, they would have a pretty good case for impeachment.
I actually disagree. The President is the Commander-In-Chief. In such a case I think he might have the right to ignore the resolution. A resolution is not binding.
Now if Congress actually voted to declare War and the President refused to send troops that would be impeachable. And if Congress appropriated money for a War or Military action and the President diverted the funds to pay for something else, that would be impeachable.
I actually disagree. The President is the Commander-In-Chief. In such a case I think he might have the right to ignore the resolution. A resolution is not binding.
Now if Congress actually voted to declare War and the President refused to send troops that would be impeachable. And if Congress appropriated money for a War or Military action and the President diverted the funds to pay for something else, that would be impeachable.
do you mean like a wall?
I've already written here that IMHO, Trump's declaration that he was diverting military funding to pay for a border wall was an impeachable offense. His stonewalling of Congressional investigations is also IMHO impeachable.
But I also recognize that most of the public probably wouldn't be supportive of impeachment in those instances the way they are with the overtly corrupt dealings with Ukraine. To paraphrase a former Secretary of Defense, you can't go forward with impeachment with the public support you want, you have to go forward with impeachment with the public support you have.
Not one cowardly republican voted for the resolution to have open impeachment hearings. Even after crying and storming committee hearings and complaining about the lack of transparency of the process.
LOL Republican party. Party of Grift, Party of Guilt.
Not one cowardly republican voted for the resolution to have open impeachment hearings. Even after crying and storming committee hearings and complaining about the lack of transparency of the process.
LOL Republican party. Party of Grift, Party of Guilt.
It's a strategy that's going to work with a lot of people. Refuse to vote in favor of an inquiry out of partisanship, and then call the process partisan.
Even people who don't necessarily think Trump should be impeached should at least admit these accusations should be investigated.
Even people who don't necessarily think Trump should be impeached should at least admit these accusations should be investigated.
I would hope that anyone not part of Trump's cult would agree. The members of his cult oppose any questioning whatsoever of his conduct. The Republican members of Congress are afraid of the wrath of the cult. That is why libertarian Congressperson Amash had to leave the Republican Party.
There are more than enough sane people in this country to vote Trump out of office next year. This assumes the sane people do not start infighting and show up at the polls.
Trump’s shift from “no quid pro quo” to “there was nothing wrong with my quid pro quo” is the kind of thing we’ve seen him get away with before. But, saying there was a quid pro quo is an admission there was attempted bribery. Bribery is a constitutional ground for impeachment. https://t.co/NBRQrFbld8
Lev Parnas, the indicted Ukranian-American businessman with ties to Giuliani, has agreed to comply with records requests from congressional impeachment investigators and will testify in the impeachment inquiry. His previous lawyer said that Parnas would not comply with the requests. Trump has said that he doesn't remember Parnas.
I'm hearing the word "extortion" more and more, instead of "quid quo pro". I hope the Dems get on board with this as the preferred way of talking about it. People understand extortion. "Quid pro quo" is how those fancy smartypants elitists talk.
Hopefully the public hearings refocus and re-energize impeachment because to me it seems like it's heading down the path that Pelosi did not want it to head down: a long, drawn-out shytshow that won't be easy for the electorate to buy into.
Hopefully the public hearings refocus and re-energize impeachment because to me it seems like it's heading down the path that Pelosi did not want it to head down: a long, drawn-out shytshow that won't be easy for the electorate to buy into.
It seems reasonable to me to bring up the Yemeni resolution veto in the context of this discussion.
But I don't think it's an argument against the legitimacy of the current ongoing investigations. It stands on it's own, and for some people is clearly a more obvious reason for impeachment.