President Trump in Great Shape When it Comes to the Law

Politics
1

In the clip on the Hannity show at :48 seconds, starts out by making the case that a President cannot be impeached based on a prior case.

Levin said "I don’t know if people are aware of this, but the Vice President Collier case of 1873 set the precedent… Presidents and Vice Presidents are different (and cannot be impeached on events that occurred prior to their service as Presidents or Vice Presidents). Levin: Trump is in great shape when it comes to the law | On Air Videos | Fox News

The problem is there never existed a “Vice President Collier”. In 1873 there was however a Vice President Colfax. In September 1872, during the presidential campaign, Colfax’s reputation was marred by an article which indicated that he was involved in the Crédit Mobilier scandal, a big deal at the time. Colfax was one of several Representatives and Senators (mostly Republicans), who were offered (and possibly took) bribes of cash and discounted shares in the [Union Pacific Railroad, Crédit Mobilier subsidiary] in 1868 from Congressman Oakes Ames. Henry Wilson was among those accused, but after initially denying a connection, he provided a complicated explanation to a Senate investigating committee, which involved his wife having purchased shares with her own money, and then later canceling the transaction over concerns about its propriety. Wilson’s reputation for integrity was somewhat dampened, but not enough to prevent him from becoming vice president.

Colfax also initially denied involvement to the press, but a Congressional investigation in January 1873 revealed that in 1868 Colfax had taken a $1,200 gift check for 20 shares of Crédit Mobilier stock from Ames. Colfax had deposited $1,200 in his bank account at the same time Ames recorded that he had paid Colfax $1,200. Throughout the investigation and after leaving office Colfax denied having taken Ames’s $1,200 check. At the end of the investigation in February 1873, Colfax was not censured or forced to resign, mainly because the incident took place during his tenure as Congressman, and because he was scheduled to leave office the following month.

In addition to Colfax’s involvement in the Crédit Mobilier scandal, the investigation revealed the more damaging accusation that Colfax had received a $4,000 gift also in 1868 from a contractor who supplied envelopes to the federal government while Colfax was chairman of the Committee on Post Offices and Post Roads, and so had influence in the awarding of such contracts.

His political career ruined, Colfax left office under a cloud at the end of his term in March, and never ran for office again. I think Mr. Levin must keep in mind the following…it wasn’t just because he took bribes at a time when he wasn’t in the office of the Vice President that he wasn’t impeached, it was that fact PLUS the fact he was ending his career the following month. And since impeachment is NOT a legal process but rather a political one, precedents are not really set by things like this. Having said that, I believe Trump is a good man and will survive the accusations against him because they aren’t true. But without a doubt, Mr. Levin should do his homework, at least enough to get the man’s name correct.

2

This, folks, is a prime reason why Levin is absolutely not an expert legal scholar. It has no constitutional basis and is completely made up opinion.

3 Likes
3

Certainly more expert than yourself no doubt. :grinning:

4

Isn’t that what you would expect from someone who is a lawyer by trade vs a layman? However, even I know that Nixon v US affirmed that it’s purely a political process and not a legal one (and his not reviewable by the courts).

5

You are pretty much a self acclaimed expert on everything.:sunglasses:

6

Levin. An angry rude man. He was vehemently opposed to trump in the campaign… like Glenn Beck was. They took alot of voters away from Trump.

I listen rarely. He’s rude too.

7

Several years ago I had occasion to listen to Levin on his radio talk show. I once listened to Beck when he had the 5 pm slot on Fox. One time was all I could take. I never listened to either of them again.

And I know I was tooting Levin’s horn, in another thread, because of a sound bite I ran across. I’ve since listened to many other sound bites from both sides and still believe the Campaign Finance narrative will end up being a big nothing burger.

8

Holy ■■■■■ I agree with you on something!

9

Levin was not referring to a legal case. The conclusion of Congress with Colfax was that because the bad acts occurred before he became vice president, he could not be impeached for them. It is of course not binding precedent but is an occasion in which Congress considered what constitutes impeachable acts.

10

It’s irrelevant. An “impeachable act” is literally anything a simple majority of Congress deems it to be. It could be as petty as his ugly ass orange face. The bigger hurdle is getting a senate conviction with a two-thirds majority.

1 Like
11

Unlike the courts, Congress isn’t beholden to precedent.

The views of a Congress 150 years ago have little to nothing to do with the views of Congress today.

12

Yes, you did go on for about 50 or so posts using Levin as your appeal to authority, even when his lack of qualifications were repeatedly pointed out to you.

Now you say you’ve heard other soundbites that you agree with.

Do you base all of your opinions on soundbites?

13

And there are many examples from his shows and interviews that corroborate your claim. Every time I have seen him talk, he has been wrong about numerous things, in addition to his habit of presenting his opinion as fact.

14

I already debunked the “appeal to authority” nonsense in an earlier thread. In regards to Levin, no one pointed anything out to me. I find him still to be credible, I just don’t listen to his shows.

If you look closely you will see that I clearly stated “both sides” of the argument. In that regard, the term sound bite is misleading. What I meant was video segments from both sides.

As to forming my opinions, I likely do so in a fashion that is similar to most forum members. Just because my opinion might be at odds with yours doesn’t meant that the means I used to arrive at that opinion is flawed.

15

To be fair, other people than Levin have mentioned the Colfax Precedent, but more in the terms of speculating about what would happen if he was impeached, convicted, but refused to step down citing the Colfax Precedent.

The courts could not be brought in to rule on the matter, because it’s been established since Nixon the courts have no juridstiction over the impeachment process.

Congress controls it completely, and as has been pointed out, is not biund by precedent.

Hell, the articles of impeachment against Andrew Johnson were a rambling diatribe against how Johnson belittled and didn’t respect Congress, and a vague conspiracy plot between Johnson and Lorenzo Thomas against Edwin Stanton.

The one actual particular charge they had against him…that he violated the Tenure of Office Act by firing Stanton…he actually hadn’t violated! Because Statnton had already served a year and a day past the term of the man (Lincoln) who had originally appointed him when Stanton was fired.

So yeah- Congress can pretty much do what it wants.

1 Like
16

NOt that congress is going to impeach based on something from the past, but an 1873 Congress cannot determine the rules for the present congress.

17

Against him during the campaign because he was not expected to win. For him now for $$. Rinse and repeat with several of the others.