« How Do We Read and What Do We Understand of Digital Consumer Contracts? | Main | Why Is the First Set of Amendments Unequal? »

Thursday, January 17, 2019

Impeachment as process

Yoni Applebaum's piece in The Atlantic arguing for impeachment is getting much attention. At its core is the argument that impeachment is an investigatory and inquisitorial process and the only means for the legislature to keep the executive in check between quadrennial elections. It is not about whether the Senate convicts or even whether articles of impeachment pass the House; it is about the inquiry process. And, he argues, atomized committee investigations do not get the whole picture the way a full impeachment inquiry would.

Posted by Howard Wasserman on January 17, 2019 at 10:28 AM in Constitutional thoughts, Howard Wasserman | Permalink


And as we speak or write,here,with the court document attached or fixed inside:



Posted by: El roam | Jan 17, 2019 2:23:55 PM

Interesting indeed.Too many complicated issues here.Just worth to note:

The respectable author of the related article,moves forward and backward in the tunnel of time. Yet, ignoring simply, the character of Trump.Trump has built a Chinese or Mexican wall, around him. Dismissing what surrounds him,as pure fake news. His supporters, let's say right groups, Evangelists,don't give much on those fake liberals elites according to them.I don't know,if the process itself of impeachment, would even start to influence them or him, even somehow not.

Even publicly : The author ignores simply the Internet era. Not too much can be revealed to such degree reaching shocking and shaking effect. For example, the American public, or scholars at least, are aware to indictment against some Russians in that affair of interfering with the election in 2016, here to the indictment :


Let's take the public, laymen. Here in Wikipedia, the Stormy Daniels scandal, here I quote from there,what his attorney at the time, Daniel Cohen has admitted :

In August 2018, Cohen pleaded guilty to eight charges, including one related to the scandal, and he stated under oath that he paid Daniels "in coordination with and at the direction of a candidate for federal office," meaning Trump.

here :


So, it is hard to see, what benefit such process can yield in this regard of shedding light on new shocking evidences or findings,all in public opinion terms,let alone administrative terms.

However, the author of the article, may find great support for his idea(by emphasizing the process over the outcome ) in that article of Professor Vikram David Amar,I quote for example :

But nothing in the Constitution says that a Congress that starts down the impeachment path cannot explore other avenues as well. The power to impeach implies, at the very least, the power to make known the conditions under which impeachment is more or less likely. Thus, Congress could legitimately decide the president has committed certain reprehensible acts for which he must be accountable and then inform the president—either formally or informally—that an apology and demonstration of remorse would be necessary (and sufficient) to restore public faith in the administration such that he would remain fit for office and thus not subject to impeachment. The president could then determine for himself whether the conditional grant of impeachment immunity is acceptable. If so, impeachment proceedings could end; if not, they could continue. Such a deal, while not judicially enforceable, would not to my mind be unconstitutional.

End of quotation :

And more, he may find in that article, very useful and coherent definitions for the term " high crimes " indeed. Very recommended, here :



Posted by: El roam | Jan 17, 2019 1:47:19 PM

Post a comment