Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Will a president of the United States ever be impeached? Was the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” clarified? Did one branch of government emerge stronger than others? What does the future hold for the FBI, FISA Court, and Special Counsels? John Yoo, a Hoover Institution fellow and UC-Berkeley law professor, discusses the legal fallout from the Trump impeachment saga.
Subscribe to Matters of Policy & Politics in Apple Podcasts (and leave a 5-star review, please!), or by RSS feed. For all our podcasts in one place, subscribe to the Ricochet Audio Network Superfeed in Apple Podcasts or by RSS feed.
The courts emerged stronger than the others. Not the president.
Let congress pass laws that can be evenly applied no matter who is in office. Not this amorphous abuse of power that can be hand waved away the next time a president does it.
It’s disappointing that Bill and John completely misrepresented what Dershowitz said. Nothing they said on the matter was relevant because they started with a straw man. Dershowitz did not say, as Bill falsely claimed, that a president can do anything he wants if he thinks it is in the national interest. This is simply false. Dershowitz said that if a president does something that is legal, that he has the power to do, that he believes is in the national interest, then that can not be impeachable just because it might also be electorally beneficial to him. Therefore John’s comparison to Watergate is absurd. That was an illegal action, a burglary. John’s statement therefore was an irrelevant straw man. Sad.
Emoluments clause..Hmmm. So, a person who has not spent his life as an elected official–basically sucking at the government teat as a career–gets elected to the office of president. As a result, the person doesn’t need the salary of the elected office, because this person has already worked in the business world successfully, and has no need for the government salary. Now, people who have not become independently wealthy through their work outside of elected government offices are complaining that this newly elected person is violating this emoluments clause because his existing business interests are still earning money for him??
@maxLedoux I do believe you’re correct.They owe you the courtesy of correcting them so politely.
High praise for Robert Mueller as the best federal prosecutor. Do not forget that he has sent a number of people to prison who did not deserve to be imprisoned. Read License to lie by Sidney Powell.
I have heard Harvey’s Silvergate and Howie Carr talk about this. It’s really bad.
Clinton’s perjury and obstruction of justice was not impeachable?
But Trump’s legitimate and legal act was “close to the line”?
On what planet, John?
So it’s now legitimate what the person’s alleged state of mind is? I did not realize that mind-reading was a particular Senatorial skill.
It’s not. They cannot know state of mind. The Democrats alleged that Trump’s motives were wrong. That is highly debatable, to say the least.
in watergate Nixon was impeached for covering up not the actual burglary?
I think John was referring to the tapes and executive privilege.
Remember Nixon was not impeached for burglary – it was the cover up not the burglary itself.
also deflate gate
John was very clear that whatever Trump did was not a high crime or misdemeanor.
Covering up a felony is, of course, a felony.