No defense is needed. It is on you to prove there is a problem. We have the proof of the benefits in our Economy.
Pretty sure I asked Tibs to cite the statute defining "abuse of power" as a crime. Funny, he seems to have whistled past that (D)im graveyard.
Second, a President may be impeached ONLY - repeat, O-N-L-Y - for "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." So again, for the second or third time, Tibs, WHAT IS THE CRIME?!?!?
Third, the obstruction claim ... Tibs, did you know that the United States has three branches of government, one dedicated to resolving disputes between the other two? That branch is called the judiciary.
Trump did NOT refuse to comply with a court order, Tibs. He objected to the carpet-bombing subpoenas from Congress on the grounds of executive privilege. You know, the same privilege that Obama asserted nine times, including relative to the gun-running scheme known as "Fast and Furious."
https://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/jun/20/obama-asserts-executive-privilege-over-ff-docs/
So the obstruction claim is a lie, a blatant violation of separation of powers since ******* Congress is not the judicial branch and cannot assume the judicial branch's authority on these issues.
Finally, as to the fact that Congress is NOT the arbiter of claims of privilege, I cite the very recent case - one that Tibs may have missed during his time in law school since it is so new - of
Marbury v. Madison (1803) 5 U.S. 137. Hmm, not quite as new as I thought, I guess. Any way,
Marbury held in relevant part:
The Government of the United States has been emphatically termed a government of laws, and not of men. It will certainly cease to deserve this high appellation if the laws furnish no remedy for the violation of a vested legal right. ... By the Constitution of the United States, the President is invested with certain important political powers, in the exercise of which he is to use his own discretion, and is accountable only to his country in his political character and to his own conscience. To aid him in the performance of these duties, he is authorized to appoint certain officers, who act by his authority and in conformity with his orders.
In such cases, their acts are his acts; and whatever opinion may be entertained of the manner in which executive discretion may be used, still there exists, and can exist, no power to control that discretion. The subjects are political. They respect the nation, not individual rights, and, being entrusted to the Executive, the decision of the Executive is conclusive. The application of this remark will be perceived by adverting to the act of Congress for establishing the Department of Foreign Affairs. This officer, as his duties were prescribed by that act, is to conform precisely to the will of the President. He is the mere organ by whom that will is communicated. The acts of such an officer, as an officer, can never be examinable by the Courts.
But when the Legislature proceeds to impose on that officer other duties; when he is directed peremptorily to perform certain acts; when the rights of individuals are dependent on the performance of those acts; he is so far the officer of the law, is amenable to the laws for his conduct, and cannot at his discretion, sport away the vested rights of others.
The conclusion from this reasoning is that, where the heads of departments are the political or confidential agents of the Executive, merely to execute the will of the President, or rather to act in cases in which the Executive possesses a constitutional or legal discretion, nothing can be more perfectly clear than that their acts are only politically examinable. But where a specific duty is assigned by law, and individual rights depend upon the performance of that duty, it seems equally clear that the individual who considers himself injured has a right to resort to the laws of his country for a remedy.
In other words, Tibs, the Executive branch has plenary power in executing all aspects of the Executive branch, and if Congress seeks in any fashion to change, alter, limit or challenge Executive decisions, the people affected - most notably the Executive branch -
have remedy in the courts.
Class concluded.
P.S. I paid a lot of ******* time and money for law school, including Constitutional Law in 1985. I did very well in the class, at least in part because I read and understood
Marbury v. Madison. It is patently apparent to me that Tibs has done neither.
