Impeachment is taking up … the airwaves and taking up the oxygen in the room. As I have publicly stated, and I’ll state here again, I do not support the impeachment process. I do not support the inquiry.–Rep. Tom Reed
Tom doesn’t favor investigation because he already knows there is no wrongdoing to find. He explains:
High crime, when you look at the constitution, are crimes that are generally subject to things like penalty of death (and) bribery in regards to selling out state secrets for personal financial gain. Those are the types of impeachable offenses that are envisioned in the constitution.
Tom’s argument is this:
- Only certain crimes justify impeachment.
- Those crimes can’t be proved.
These points are weak. There is nothing in The Constitution to justify the first; The Constitution pointedly leaves the question of what justifies impeachment open. Tom does list bribery, but then must ignore the fact that bribery (making military aid dependent on a favor) did occur. This second point is also weak because Tom would not look for evidence even of the crimes he says would justify impeachment.
David Graham, writing for The Atlantic, gives three arguments Republicans use:
- The president did nothing wrong.
- The president did something wrong, but it’s not an impeachable offense.
- The president did nothing wrong, but his advisers did.
Tom Reed has taken the second position. About this Graham writes:
This is perhaps the simplest position to argue, since it allows members to concede that something is rotten without having to actually take the drastic step of backing impeachment.
Tom does leave himself wiggle room–he allows that bribery might justify impeachment and might some day choose to see that bribery did occur.
DAVID A. GRAHAM
is a staff writer at The Atlantic
, where he covers U.S. politics and global news.
If Caesar’s wife ought to be above suspicion, so should our President.
The idea that impeachment is like an ordinary trial is wrong. Impeachment is governed by a few clauses of The Constitution and rules adopted by House and Senate. In brief, the House votes to bring charges, the case is presented to the Senate, the Senate votes on removal.
To my knowledge, these are false:
- There are limited, specific grounds for impeachment.
- The President must be read his Miranda rights.
- The President has a right to a speedy trial.
- The President has a right to representation by counsel.
- There is a right to an impartial jury.
- There is a right to confront witnesses.
- Minority members of Congress have right outside the rules to intervene in the process in House and Senate.
- There is a penalty on conviction other than removal from office.
I have heard the claim that the President has a right to a “fair trial.” I know of no basis for this claim.
I have heard the claim that the President can’t be impeached for “abuse of power;” this and any similar claim is false.
I have heard the claim that if President Trump is removed, any future President can be removed on frivolous charges. The premise, that charges against Trump are frivolous, is false.
Posted in Trump
What is our ancestry in NY-23?
|French (except Basque)
|West Indian (excluding Hispanic origin groups)
How many of us would be here today, if our ancestors had been required to have health insurance before they could immigrate?
“Morning Joe” claims DJT and his minions are “tarnishing the Republican brand.”
What was the Republican brand?
- Good government
- Fiscal conservative
- Law and order
- Free trade
- Family values
- Bipartisan foreign policy
- Defend The Constitution
- Protect the environment
- Free enterprise
- Local control of schools
- States’ rights
What did I miss? What happened?
An article by Rick Miller in the “Olean Times Herald” reports Tom Reed’s views on the “Ukraine situation.” Miller reports:
- Rep. Tom Reed took aim Thursday at “extreme-left” Democrats he said were eager to overthrow the election and impeach President Donald Trump.
- Reed said extremists represented by the “AOC (Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez) Squad” have taken over the Democratic Party in the House and are responsible for the push toward an impeachment inquiry.
- The Corning Republican said he did “not see a smoking gun in the evidence that has been put forward.”
- He said he read the transcript of the July 25 telephone conversation between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy.
- Reed was asked whether it bothered him that Trump, according to the claims of his critics, appeared to be seeking re-election help from the Ukraine president with a Democratic opponent.“I did not see those words in the transcript,” Reed replied. Instead, Reed said he saw a request by Trump asking the Ukrainian president about corruption involving former Vice President Joe Biden when he was in public office.
Tom says he would follow the evidence, but the only evidence he sees is stories made up by Democrats. His view would be more plausible if he would admit that something untoward happened and find excuses for it. As it is, the evidence shows he is corrupt.
Note: The “transcript” was notes and recollections laundered by the Trump Administration. The transcript remains hidden in a top secret vault.