The seriousness of Donald Trump's lawyers is hard to take seriously. Memorandum of Trial on Monday was presented in response to House leaders short establishing grounds and arguments for condemning the President and dismissing the President. That's a lot, but in short, it's not. It is 109 pages, with four appendices written by no less than 12 lawyers. However, this is unlike any legal brief and impeachment case I have ever seen. This has forced constitutional commentators to scramble for the right words. Laurent Tribe, a Harvard law professor suggests it is a means of "alternative facts" and "false legal arguments". Frank Bowman, one of the leading imaging scientists, calls it is "constitutional nonsense" and I have avoided calling it a "false law" because its legal arguments are meticulous at best or "constitutional prediction" because all levels of the House actually describe the President's own behavior better.
To be honest, there was little expectation that the memorandum would be any different than the protection we saw from the President almost every day when he was credibly accused of some serious criminal conduct, from self-confinement to freezing of funds. For Ukrainian national security. There is denial, anger at the fact that Democrats are the real culprits and responsible for much worse, the further anger that Democrats are trying to undo in the 2016 presidential election, and finally, the less important is that What he did was "perfect." The memorandum follows this same example until the word "perfect" is used.
More than 109 pages are required to correct any defects in the document and false statements of law and facts. Instead, I will outline the four shortcomings of the memorandum that make it a political discourse rather than a legal document that deserves the respect and serious consideration of senators, the public, historians, and constitutionalists.
First, the memorandum is being completed blonde. There is an explosion on almost every page, just as it happened on October 8 in the White House. letter: Condemning and Condemning the Inquiry into the House of Representatives Impeachment against the President of the United States. The House of Representatives' impeachment articles are "resistance to the Constitution," falsified "," useless political act "," demolish the impeachment's heavy power "," violate every precedent and principle of justice "followed by previous impeachers," dangerous "and others. They are a political tool to thwart the outcome of the 2016 presidential election and interfere with the 2020 election. ” That's a lot of talk, and we're not even halfway through the first page of the document. It is better not to read, proving the old saying that: “If you have facts then shake the facts. If you have the law, then set the law. If you don't have one next to you, set the table. " We've seen this kind of behavior in the past, thrown in by Republican House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees (I am accurate and literal in that choice of words). The only thing that seems to come up with such rhetoric is the energy boost in the President's base.
The table-like corrosion is very familiar. Here we are again at the President's table, rejecting all accusations, declaring that the Democrats have done much worse, and saying, as the memo says: "The President did absolutely nothing," and that his actions were "perfectly legal, completely appropriate. If the White House's lawyers say enough times, they probably believe, people just accept that as a fact. Here's how disinformation can really work.
Second:, the memorandum is being completed false statements and false statements of fact. For example, it reiterated hemp that the whistleblower's report was a "false account". There was nothing wrong with that. It was confirmed by nearly all the witnesses who testified before the House Intelligence Committee, and so bad for the President that the people testifying against him were not the Democrats but the people he had appointed. Not only does this harden the credibility, but it also destroys the assertion that all who swear by these hearings are somehow lying, while only the President is telling the truth.
Sometimes we have to believe what we see and hear and do not fall into the line of old Chico Marx when his fiancé discovers a woman in her bed. "Who am I, believe me or your own eyes?" But the memorandum. has repeatedly insisted that the President's call was "appropriate" as his concern was the issue of corruption in Ukraine. If the President had such fears, there was no mention in his speeches, or in particular of impeachment, of any President's call with the President of Ukraine (although his team had given him talking points with President Zelensky). Indeed, the word "corruption" does not appear in the transcript of the call, nor in the corresponding text messages between Ambassador Gordon Sundland and Kurt Volker, or between Lev Parnassus and Rudy Ulian. The president and his subordinates involved had no general fears about corruption in that country, but instead, as many witnesses were confirmed and new documents produced after receiving the impeachment, his concern was always with Biden. President's statement on July 25 with the President of Ukraine on the occasion of the President's announcement five times to Bidens. He did not mention corruption in any other way. When combined with evidence from the House Intelligence Committee's evidence that there was systematic effort to create a shadow operation to get rid of the exemplary US ambassador to Ukraine, all were made to pressure Ukraine by agreeing to a mere Bidens inquiry. In fact, there was no fear of a real investigation, just that statement and the reason that is obvious: In the next presidential election, throw dirt on the leading opponent.
Third, the memorandum is being completed Misrepresentations and false claims about law and impeachment practices and procedures also: For example, the Memorandum has repeatedly complained that the chamber did not allow the president "due process." During the House impeachment proceedings, the Republicans declared a "due process". However, those very same Republicans who have been protesting have been invited to, or are participating in, the doors that the President is currently complaining about. Moreover, the "due process" does not apply to this proceeding, as the "due process" refers to the government when it deprives anyone of "life, liberty or property." In the case of impeachment, none of them is endangered. Even if the constitutional provision has been applied, the main trial requires notification to the court and the unbiased decision maker. The President had those guarantees and more throughout the House. He was given a fair amount of due process (including being invited to attend testimonies by constitutional law scholars and even questioning his advice), but he declined the opportunity. The important thing is that he was also given an open opportunity coded land rules is presenting his advice at the hearings and objecting to the testimony and evidence when that information was submitted to the House of Representatives by a House Intelligence Committee witness.
The memorandum gets a lot of impeachment wrong. On legal facts, it argues that no witness has a "direct knowledge" of the call or the role of the President, and that the evidence is nothing more than "speculation and listening." From the beginning, these are just superficial talking points. Many persecutions and impeachments have turned into indirect or circumstantial evidence. The Constitution does not prohibit it, nor the rules of the House or Senate. Second, remember again that key witnesses with the "immediate" knowledge of the call are ordered by the President not to testify. The President's lawyers uphold the President's refusal to uphold legitimate claims on the grounds that he had the right to file defense claims in response to them, but this was not and could not be the case when he ordered that the entire executive body not to cooperate. by investigation. It is not protection. It is a hindrance. Moreover, the President's orders that these witnesses should not be present should rely on the President as he or she would like during the criminal proceedings, as the former FBI Board Chief Andrew Weisman convincingly is written.
The strongest competitors in the memorandum are the strongest contenders in the document. This, for example, implies that the two articles of impeachment are "inadmissibly double" and that groundless crimes must be "in violation of established law." The abuse of authority alleged in Article 1 is not "ambiguous" at all. One simply has to read the debates of the Constitutional Convention, and the federalist newspapers know that the constitution's impeachments are contained in the Constitution as a check on abuse of power. The memorandum never ceases to take account of the abuse of power, but it is the exercise of power in violation of the Constitution. Thus, the alleged conduct of the President violates the law, in this case the supreme law of the country.
The president has clearly insisted that he should be treated differently than any other impeachment official, so his lawyers have argued that no president has ever been impeached, much less condemned and dismissed for abuse of power since the first article " does not imply any crime. , at least "high crimes and offenses," they say in the constitution. No wonder this statement is wrong. The second impeachment article, approved by the House Judiciary Committee against Richard Nixon in 1974, alleges that Nixon ordered the IRS, FBI, and CIA leaders to assault his political enemies. The ordinances have not violated any criminal law, but they are absolutely inaccessible abuse.
People who have studied the impeachment process agree that impeachment crimes are not limited to crimes. The basic principle of impeachment, which is recognized in every case study in this country, is that statutory crime is not a requirement to appoint a president. Abuse of power was a top priority for the circles. Even Jon Jonathan Turley, a Republican expert at a December 4 House hearing, said so, and there is one of President Trump's defense attorneys, Alan Derstovitz, when he opposed President Clinton's impeachment. At the moment they are both right, though the president's lawyers disagree with them.
The memorandum asserts that the fact that the President is different is precisely the reason why he cannot be impeached, condemned, and dismissed for abuse of power. The president has powers that none of them have, but he does not always violate criminal law when he abuses his powers. However, he is still unavailable for such abuse as there is often no cure by law. He can avoid liability for abuse if the President's lawyers are correct. This is exactly what they want. They want the president above the law, they want him to abuse his powers without being held accountable, and they want him to have freedoms to ignore criminal law because he is the head of the nation. a compulsory enforcement officer, using the powers of his office to expel the Congress (refusing to provide Ukraine with appropriate means for his own personal reasons, not for any policy), and to benefit himself. They argue that the removal of Trump on the basis of the abuses contained in the two impeachment articles of the House of Representatives "permanently weakens the Presidency and permanently alters the balance of government branches in a manner that offends the constitutional formulation set forth by the Frameworks." It's a solid language, but advocates want Trump as president just what they want to ban in Congress from removing the institution from the constitutional scrutiny and remnants system. If the impeachment is not lawful and the President is not subject to civil or criminal liability during his term of office, he shall be free to attempt to falsify the election or abuse his authority in any manner whatsoever. The ballot box is obviously no way to prevent such abuse during the first term of the president or his second term.
Fourth:, the last issue with the memorandum is the lawyers who wrote them should be brought on ethics charges from any bar where they are licensed to practice law. Rule 3.3 of the Code of Professional Responsibility requires that lawyers be truthful and honest in their arguments before the court. The regulation considers the legislative processes to be tribunals. However, the President's lawyers dismiss the law and the facts as a whole, for example, for Ukraine, the President's support is "out of contempt." This assertion may be problematic given the lawyer's responsibility not to distort statements or engage in deceptive practices such as pretending to be the president did not freeze Ukraine's aid. Misrepresentations and misunderstandings of the law are not justified because the President has the right to a fierce defense. They cause problems for the president's lawyers, as nothing justifies them deliberately misleading the Congress and refuting clear truths.
But don't just say that the memorandum is bad. Just read.
Photo by Getty Images /acmelucky777:
- Director Roman Gupill denies historian Emmanuel Todd for richard marx now and forever
- Capitalism brings "greater harm than good" to 56% of workers worldwide for richard marx ocala
- Death of Robert Conrad (mysteries of the West) at the age of 84 for richard marx right here waiting
- Saint-Pierre-e-Miquelon and Morocco at "l & # 39; Echo de la timbrologie" for richard marx falling
- Interview with Daniel Bachet about the company's goals for richard marx r
- Harmony was celebrated by St. Cecil for richard marx stories to tell
- Daox on the back for richard marx zyciorys