|
|
Andy Biggs on Principles & Values |
Summary of lawsuit, Dec. 7:: The 2020 election suffered from significant and unconstitutional irregularities including:
Supreme Court Order, Dec. 11: The State of Texas`s motion is denied for lack of standing under Article III of the Constitution. Texas has not demonstrated a judicially cognizable interest in the manner in which another State conducts its elections. All other pending motions are dismissed as moot.
Texas Tribune analysis, Dec. 11:: Trump--and Republicans across the country--had pinned their hopes on the Texas suit. In a series of tweets, Trump called it `the big one` and later added, `it is very strong, ALL CRITERIA MET.` If the court had heard the case, Sen. Ted Cruz said he would have argued it, at the request of Trump.
Justices Samuel Alito and Clarence Thomas indicated they would have allowed Texas to bring the case but said they would `not grant other relief.` In a series of tweets after the ruling, Trump raged against the decision, which he called `a disgraceful miscarriage of justice.`
Explanation of 1/6/21 Electoral Certification, by Emily Brooks, Washington Examiner:Sen. Ted Cruz and Rep. Paul Gosar led an objection to counting Electoral College votes from the state of Arizona, the first formal objection to state results in a series of moves that will delay the certification of Joe Biden as the winner of the 2020 presidential election over President Trump. Cruz is advocating for an `emergency 10-day audit` of election returns in disputed states. The usually ceremonial joint session of Congress that convenes to count and accept Electoral College votes will be put on hold as the House and Senate separately debate the objection.
Bill summary:The select committee must (1) conduct an investigation of the relevant facts and circumstances relating to the attack on the Capitol; (2) identify, review, and evaluate the causes of and the lessons learned from this attack; and (3) submit a report containing findings, conclusions, and recommendations to prevent future acts of violence, domestic terrorism, and domestic violent extremism, and to improve the security of the U.S. Capitol Complex and other American democratic institutions.
CBS News summary, by Grace Segers on June 30, 2021:H.R. 3233 would have created a bipartisan, independent commission to investigate the root causes of the breach of the U.S. Capitol, modeled after the 9/11 Commission.
On May 28, the House passed the bill by a vote of 222 to 190, including 35 Republican votes. It then failed in the Senate, where it received an insufficient number of Republican votes to advance.
In response, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced on June 24 that the House would establish a select committee [appointed by House Democrats, instead of a bipartisan independent commission] to investigate the Jan. 6 insurrection and general security issues related to the incident. Pelosi said its leadership and members would be announced later. The House passed the resolution to form the committee on June 29, 2021, by a vote of 222-190.
OnTheIssues note: The Senate voting record refers to the earlier rejected bill H.R. 3233, and the House voting record refers to the later bill H.Res.503. The later bill had no Senate vote (but the two House votes were almost identical).
Impeachment of American president demands the accuser prioritize legitimacy and thoroughness over expediency. In the impeachment inquiries for Presidents Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton the facts had been established and agreed upon by the time Articles of Impeachment were considered. Due to years-long investigations into the allegations against Nixon and Clinton, the only question to answer was what Congress would do to confront the findings.
The evidence uncovered in this impeachment, by contrast, shows the case is not only weak, but dangerously lowers the bar for future impeachment. The record put forth by the Majority is based on inferences built upon presumptions and hearsay. In short, the Majority has failed to make a credible, factually-based allegation against this president that merits impeachment.
By deciding to pursue impeachment first and build a case second, the Majority has created a challenge for itself. In the face of new information that exculpates or exonerates the President, the Majority must choose: either accept that the impeachment inquiry’s findings do not merit impeachment and face the political consequences or, alternatively, ignore those facts. Regrettably, the Majority has chosen the latter.
The Majority [in the Congressional Report of the Judiciary Committee on Impeachment] has not only ignored exculpatory evidence but proclaims the facts are `uncontested.` The facts are contested, and, in many areas, the Majority`s claims are directly contradicted by the evidence. That assertion is further contradicted by the Articles of Impeachment themselves. Not one of the criminal accusations level of the President over the past year--including bribery, extortion, collusion/conspiracy with foreign enemies, or obstruction of justice--has found a place in the Articles. The Majority has not made the case for impeachment in part due to his decision to impeach being rooted less in a concern for the nation that the debasement of the President
History will record the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump as a signal that even the gravest constitutional remedy is not beyond political exploitation. The Articles of Impeachment alone, drafted by the Majority in haste to meet a self-imposed December deadline, underscore the Majority`s anemic impeachment case. The Majority`s actions are unprecedented, unjustifiable, and will only dilute the significance of the dire recourse that is impeachment. The ramifications for future president so not difficult to surmise. If partisan passions or not restrained, the House of Representatives will be thrown into an endless cycle of impeachment, forgoing its duty to legislate, and usurping the place of the American people in electing their president.
