Does being a political opponent of an administration make you immune from investigation?
The allegation at the heart of the impeachment inquiry is that Trump used the power of the presidency in an attempt to force an investigation into a political opponent. Let's be clear - it is not arguable that presidential power includes demanding investigations or using American influence to pressure other countries to do them. Can we all agree on that?
One other point to get out of the way at the outset - the last 3 years establish that it is 100% ok for an administration to conduct an investigation of its political opponent. The Obama administration did exactly that in its investigation of Trump as a co-conspirator in the Russian interference with the 2016 election. So, presiding over an investigation into a political opponent is totally legit and beyond question. The only distinction that can be drawn is that it's ok to preside over it, you just cannot request it.
All of that out of the way, the only remaining issue is whether using presidential power to demand an investigation, a totally legitimate exercise of power, does not extend to ordering investigations into political opponents - immunity.
How far would this immunity extend? Is it just to people running against you? Would it extend to someone who posts everyday about how horrible of a president you are? Could a president order an investigation into that political opponent? If he did would it be impeachable?
How about Michael Avenatti? He was a personal and litigious opponent of the president and even floated the idea of running against him. He is being investigated and prosecuted. If Trump had ordered it, could he be impeached?
Is the distinction that Avenatti did it while Hunter Biden didn't?
None of this follows logically. If everything about the facts alleged was precisely the same except instead of Burisma and Hunter, it was Bill Gates and Microsoft, would impeachment be on the table?
Lots of questions and no answers. Do you have any?
1 . . . 2 . . . 3 . . . GO!
One other point to get out of the way at the outset - the last 3 years establish that it is 100% ok for an administration to conduct an investigation of its political opponent. The Obama administration did exactly that in its investigation of Trump as a co-conspirator in the Russian interference with the 2016 election. So, presiding over an investigation into a political opponent is totally legit and beyond question. The only distinction that can be drawn is that it's ok to preside over it, you just cannot request it.
All of that out of the way, the only remaining issue is whether using presidential power to demand an investigation, a totally legitimate exercise of power, does not extend to ordering investigations into political opponents - immunity.
How far would this immunity extend? Is it just to people running against you? Would it extend to someone who posts everyday about how horrible of a president you are? Could a president order an investigation into that political opponent? If he did would it be impeachable?
How about Michael Avenatti? He was a personal and litigious opponent of the president and even floated the idea of running against him. He is being investigated and prosecuted. If Trump had ordered it, could he be impeached?
Is the distinction that Avenatti did it while Hunter Biden didn't?
None of this follows logically. If everything about the facts alleged was precisely the same except instead of Burisma and Hunter, it was Bill Gates and Microsoft, would impeachment be on the table?
Lots of questions and no answers. Do you have any?
1 . . . 2 . . . 3 . . . GO!
Post a Comment