LogFAQs > #931390503

Late to this, but I'll note that I'm not the biggest fan of the draft articles as they currently are. "Obstruction of Congress" sounds goofy, not entirely sure why they didn't just go with contempt there.

All that said, small history sidebar here on some of the stuff that has been discussed, because in practice these articles clearly take a page out of Nixon.

Article II of Impeachment against Nixon was abuse of power though not explicitly stated in those three words. The theme is there throughout, but comes closest with "In disregard of the rule of law, he knowingly misused the executive power by interfering..."

As for the "Obstruction of Congress" article here it's almost quite literally Article III of Impeachment of Nixon which charges Nixon with failing to produce "papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives [on various dates] and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas." and today's draft uses the same wording and logic that article did in stating that such actions had Nixon substituting his judgment of what was necessary to the inquiry over the House and thus assuming the functions and judgments necessary to the sole power of impeachment vested to the House.

For the record, Article I of Impeachment against Nixon was basically focused on Obstruction of Justice and includes charges that could easily apply here too honestly such as

Article I of Impeachment adopted against Nixon

making or causing to be made false or misleading statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States into believing that a thorough and complete investigation had been conducted with respect to allegations of misconduct on the part of personnel of the executive branch of the United States and personnel of the Committee for the Re-election of the President, and that there was no involvement of such personnel in such misconduct: or

endeavoring to cause prospective defendants, and individuals duly tried and convicted, to expect favorable treatment and consideration in return for their silence or false testimony, or rewarding individuals for their silence or false testimony

The break there is because they were part of a numbered list but GameFAQs new post system refuses to let me use the actual numbers and hijacks it to start at 1. >_>

Basically, these articles hew pretty damn closely to the Nixon ones in all honesty. Though I do believe the Nixon ones were written better hopefully the draft articles here are improved because tbqh I was not very impressed with how they were written but that is 95% political nerding on my part.

And if you want to go back to Johnson's impeachment, you have articles of impeachments adopted there that could be applied here to truly comical levels. One article was over making three speeches with intent to "attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach the Congress of the United States" and a another article for "Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency"

As for concrete suggestions on my part. The House could easily tie, say, Trump violating the Impoundment Control Act of 1974 into this whole scheme. (said act was passed by Congress in response to their feelings that Nixon was abusing his power by withholding funding of programs he opposed. The act says the President my request Congress to rescind any appropriated funds, but if the House and Senate do not both approve such a rescission proposal by passing legislation within 45 days any funds being withheld must be made available for obligation. Congress is not required to vote on any such request and indeed has typically ignored such requests.) I want to say Schiff raised this point recently, perhaps in the Intel report or maybe just as a public comment.

tbqh have Schiff write them

---

xp1337: Don't you wish there was a spell-checker that told you when you a word out?