On 09/10/2019 22:26, jim bell wrote:
>
>
> On Wednesday, October 9, 2019, 01:52:57 PM PDT, Peter Fairbrother
> <
peter@tsto.co.uk> wrote:
[snip
>Trump was not performing the lawful investigative act of a Government
> official - whether or not his motive was purely the administration of
> justice, his act is clearly and specifically illegal under US election
> law - therefore obstructing that unlawful act cannot be obstruction of
> justice.
>> Could you cite which specific part of US election law" that Trump's
>> action was "clearly and specifically illegal"?
>Nope, no idea. I just read that in the UK papers. It was widely reported.
I don't doubt it was "widely reported" !!! The British press can spew nonsense as well as the American press, And I doubt that the people of the British press know American law any better than the average American does: "Almost none at all".
Was Trump REQURED to do what he did? No.
Was Trump PROHIBITED to do what he did? I don't think so, either.
Instead, I think that this was simply a matter which Trump was ALLOWED to do. Now, if it had been utterly clear that there was no justification to investigate Hunter Biden, and Joe Biden as well, for a kind of influence-peddling bribery, then I might think that Trump did something wrong, But so far, it sure looks like these Bidens were indeed engaging in influence-peddling.
I'm not suggesting that a Biden-supporter cannot, with a straight face, defend what Hunter Biden did. YET. But I think he was paid vastly more money than a person in his position could reasonably expect.
>But if it wasn't illegal, how could Trump be potentially impeached for a
"high crime"? What crime?
The impeachment requirements of the US Constitution are remarkably vague. "High crimes and misdemeanors". (remember, while the term "misdemeanor" has come to mean a relatively non-serious offense, in 1791 it meant any offense NOT punishable by death. Life in prison for a misdemeanor was a strong possibility.)
I think it's generally understood today that the House, in passing an article of impeachment, and the Senate, having a trial and voting on the impeachment, can pretty much do anything they please. I am reminded of an old maxim that 'a good prosecutor can indict a ham sandwich', not least at all because as I type this, I happen to be eating a ham sandwich. Not that it's necessarily "right", but the only remedy anyone else has is a vote in the next election: Even the Supreme Court cannot "undo" an convicted impeachment.
>How could Biden complain about Trump's doings unless they were illegal?
I'm not saying that Biden cannot "complain" about them. Sure he can! But threatening impeachment isn't merely "complaining", It is an attempt to obstruct an action that could result in criminal investigation in an American court. Also, "impeachment" is by no means limited to actions which are explicitly "illegal".
>Well of course he could complain, but why would people take any notice?
I invite Biden to complain, but he structured his "complaints" in a form which were clearly intended to deter an investigation of his and his son's arguable misdeeds.
"What Donald Trump has done—in this case, according to the summary of a single phone call, lean on a foreign president to launch two spurious investigations in order to hurt political rivals, offering the services of the U.S. Department of Justice for the purpose—is shockingly corrupt, a danger to American democracy, and worthy of impeachment."
Sorry, but I have to laugh at that assertion. "Spurious investigations"? Is it OBVIOUS that Hunter Biden didn't do anything even arguably wrong? I don't think so! Quite obviously, it looks POSSIBLE that Hunter Biden was doing something wrong. Can I state the specific US Statute prohibiting that? No, but that doesn't mean that some investigation cannot uncover evidence showing that this payment was illegal,
>Only makes sense to me if it really was illegal.
If the American public had heard that Hunter Biden was being paid $166K PER MONTH (that's today's story) when that practice was going on, when Joe Biden was VP, I'd say that a large fraction of the American people could have viewed that as improper. It would have had to stop, even if Biden said it hadn't been wrong, The fact that it didn't become public during Biden's time in office is why Hunter Biden was not forced to quit his job years ago.
"Suppose a cop was following you for months, was parked outside your
house every day, was all-the-time-asking your family and neighbours
about you. Could you go to a Judge and get a restraining order?"
In America, probably yes, unless the cop could show good-cause for his actions, But in that case, you have described an action which occurs over many months is arguably disruptive and borderline-threatening, and presumably they would argue that there was no arguable reason for the cop's actions. And the cop would have an opportunity to make his own case that he had justification to do what he did,. It's certainly not clear that Hunter Biden didn't engage in actions which could have been improper.
"Whether he was doing it because your and his kids had a fight, because
you slept with his wife, or because he thinks (without sufficient
evidence to justify it) that you are a serial killer, the Judge should
grant it."
"That would not be attempted or actual obstruction of justice, even if
you were a serial killer. Because the cop's actions were illegal.
Biden and his son have engaged in an action which is "colorably" suspicious. Presumably they deny doing something clearly illegal, but that's a matter that reasonable people can dispute,
Jim Bell