Impeachment trump

04 November 2019, 22:16 | Peace
photo ТСН.ua
Text Size:

On October 31, the House of Representatives in the US Congress passed a resolution that formalizes the impeachment process.. Therefore, I want to talk about two regularly occurring in American news of recent days and things that are difficult to translate into our language.

It’s so difficult that they usually omit them in news releases: it’s impossible to explain how it works (and not miss out on all the news of the day) in the two or three minutes that you have on the plot of impeachment as a whole.

So, the first thing is the United States Constitution, which Trump regularly refers to, declaring that he can do anything. And which was previously referred to by special prosecutor Robert Muller, who counted ten cases when the forty-fifth president of the United States tried to interfere with the investigation, but refused to blame Trump for anything.

The fact is that the US Constitution was written in those distant times (immediately after the War of Independence), when the word " Therefore, it was necessary to write down the rules of life for the new republic (because no one wanted the new monarchy) so that only worthy (in the sense of well-to-do) people enjoyed the right to vote. And they, the president, by the electoral college (we’ll talk about what it is some other time) should choose the most worthy.

To which it will be possible, surprise, not all. But a lot. Because according to the second article, the incumbent president cannot be arrested or tried. You can only be removed from office for "

It turns out that whenever the US president is tried to hold accountable, senators have to interpret this muddy place. Every time - anew. Indeed, according to the design of the US constitution, the most fresh cream of society should have been collected in the Senate. Unlike the House of Representatives, in which elections are held in districts divided proportionally by the state’s population (for example, California has fifty-three districts, and Kansas has four), strictly two people from each state go to the Senate. This was supposed to equalize the rights of large states with small.

In fact, it turns out that the only mechanism for removing the president from power is almost the same mechanism that brought him to power: not a vote of most people, but a vote of most states. It is not surprising that the Republicans could not remove Clinton, and even many Democrats have little faith in Trump’s removal. The entire impeachment that we will be observing in the coming months is a desperate attempt to prevent Trump from winning the second round, shaking confidence in those states where about the same number of people vote for Republicans and Democrats (which means the disappointment of some and the activity of the second. And of course, the hope of suddenly taking and receiving such evidence that even Republicans will find it difficult to close their eyes.

And also, according to the second article of the Constitution, the president is vested with executive power. " For example, to demand from foreign governments investigations of the hypothetical abuse of power by Trump rivals in the elections - he also spoke about this almost verbatim and repeatedly and, obviously, is still confident that everything is so. It is quite possible, by the way, that the story will be on his side: traditionally, everything is allowed that cannot be effectively prohibited. Even if the attitude to the word "

Now the second thing, which is waved in recent days even more often than the constitution: the privilege of the relationship of lawyer and client. Each time you read the “privilege”, you mean the client’s right to non-disclosure of the content of the client’s confidential communication with the lawyer. In a broader sense, the White House interprets the privilege, massively prohibiting officials from attending congressional hearings: they also work (or worked) for the Trump administration, dealt with information inaccessible to the public, so let them remain silent.

Employees who still want to make speeches use official Congress agendas to clear their conscience. This question even reached the Washington federal court: what is more important, the summons from Congress or the ban of the White House, the case on the summons to the former White House legal adviser Don McGan are being considered right now..

Returning to the privilege of relations between a lawyer and a client (the reason it is useless to call Giuliani to Congress now, he will even refuse the summons) - there is one caveat. If a lawyer does not act as a lawyer, but as a business adviser, a member of the Board of Directors, and so on, that is, not as a person who gives advice on judicial matters, they do not apply the privilege. In addition, the privilege does not work if the client and the lawyer discussed the commission of a crime.

But here again we rest on the point " A snake bites its tail.



But some Democrats received such boxes after they voted for the impeachment procedure from grateful Republicans. They were smashed by friendly people from the official National Republican Committee of Congress, an organization that supports Republicans in elections. They did not hesitate to joke about it on Twitter, noting that the Democrats called the police to eliminate the boxes.

Because, I remind you: everything is allowed that could not be effectively banned. And not only in Ukraine.

Original.




Add a comment
:D :lol: :-) ;-) 8) :-| :-* :oops: :sad: :cry: :o :-? :-x :eek: :zzz :P :roll: :sigh:
 Enter the correct answer