Resolution for Trump Impeachment

If the argument is that an attorney who went through law school and ultimately decided to go into tax law isnt sufficient enough in immigration law to form an informed opinion on this subject, then why the hell are we trying to pass this resolution? This resolution states that law was broken, according to who? Has the Supreme court ruled on all issues involved in this resolution and if not, do we have an immigration lawyer on slec that can answer questions on this? The fact is, not a single person on slec is informed enough about this topic to comment or condemn anyone for breaking the law. We are claiming the law was broken, but the truth is, you can like it, not like it, have no opinion about it but this body doesn't have the knowledge to comment on lawfulness of this action.
 
Also, yesterday this same exact motion was brought up in Harris county and a candidate asked that Harris county not adopt this motion because it would hurt their candidacy and it was voted down. Why then are we voting at a state level to pass this ammendment when more than one present/former candidate has said this would kill their chances of being elected?
 
Jacob Bradley said:
If the argument is that an attorney who went through law school and ultimately decided to go into tax law isnt sufficient enough in immigration law to form an informed opinion on this subject, then why the hell are we trying to pass this resolution?
Click to expand...
I’ll answer this- like most of the resolutions I see it’s mainly for show to say “look what we did!” Sort of thing.
And let’s make it clear for everyone reading this- just because we may not support this resolution doesn’t mean we support what Trump is doing in the slightest.
But like what Jacob is trying to portray is about optics and strategy. We already have a tough battle as a candidate. Why make it that much harder for a resolution that won’t gain any real positive traction?
If Travis county wants to do it then so be it but I’m not a fan of making a huge blanket statement for all of LPTexas.
 
Also I can’t believe some are dismissing an attorney’s dissent because of their field lol using the medical analogy isn’t accurate both by Jacob and Kenneth.
One that works and shows that his opinion should be considered and valid is I don’t care what “field” you become an accountant for. If I have question about numbers I’m going to trust their judgment more than a random person on the street.
 
Jacob Bradley said:
If the argument is that an attorney who went through law school and ultimately decided to go into tax law isnt sufficient enough in immigration law to form an informed opinion on this subject, then why the hell are we trying to pass this resolution? This resolution states that law was broken, according to who? Has the Supreme court ruled on all issues involved in this resolution and if not, do we have an immigration lawyer on slec that can answer questions on this? The fact is, not a single person on slec is informed enough about this topic to comment or condemn anyone for breaking the law. We are claiming the law was broken, but the truth is, you can like it, not like it, have no opinion about it but this body doesn't have the knowledge to comment on lawfulness of this action.
Click to expand...
I appreciate your continued civil discourse here, and I’d like to clarify a few points—not to argue, but to ensure we’re not talking past each other.

First, since the legal opinion in question has been introduced as a key counterpoint, I think it’s entirely fair to ask what credentials support it. When someone offers an opinion that is being treated as legally authoritative, examining the credibility and background behind it isn’t adversarial—it’s just standard due diligence.

Second, this resolution doesn’t carry the force of law. It’s a political statement—a reflection of this body’s values and platform. We’re not issuing a legal verdict; we’re highlighting where we believe core principles like due process and limited government have been violated. By that logic, if we needed a tax attorney’s certification everytime before declaring “taxation is theft,” most of our platform wouldn’t pass muster. Besides, "Taxation is legal" lacks engagement.

Third, the Libertarian Party has never required subject-matter certification to take principled stands. When we passed the Gitmo Resolution, we didn’t require national security experts or military law specialists. We recognized state abuse and spoke clearly against it. That’s what resolutions are for. That is why we are in this fight.

In the end, we’re not issuing indictments—we’re deciding what we are willing to tolerate or challenge when constitutional boundaries are crossed.

Edit due trying to respond on mobile.
 
Last edited:
RJ Pase said:
Also I can’t believe some are dismissing an attorney’s dissent because of their field lol using the medical analogy isn’t accurate both by Jacob and Kenneth.
One that works and shows that his opinion should be considered and valid is I don’t care what “field” you become an accountant for. If I have question about numbers I’m going to trust their judgment more than a random person on the street.
Click to expand...
Please see my above comment. Due diligence is not dismissal. I wouldn't trust the ENT to diagnose a brain tumor... but if they told me something didn't look right, I would most definitely get a specialist opinion.
The only reason I didn't pay much attention previously when it was posted on Discord, was that the general tone was off-putting. However, since it has been tendered here and others are leaning on it, I am now giving it a deeper view.
 
Hypothetically let’s say Mr. Ash also dissents. Would you dismiss his argument too? (This is a general “you” not anyone in specific)
 
Last edited:
Anastasia Wilford said:
I'm currently working with several members on alt language. I'll throw it to you and anyone else here who as expressed specific issues with the resolution as written.

Now or later (this issue will certainly still exist by the time of the meeting), as long as we take a position.
Click to expand...
While I agree this issue will likely exist in the future, I strongly believe that we need to say something now, as we have a man, a lawful resident of the US, tossed into a van and subjected to rendition to another country with no rights, and likely subject to torture every single day. We have done far more for others unjustly imprisoned here in the US. The freeing of those unjustly imprisoned in the US continues to be touted as “the greatest policy achievement of the LP”. We have clear evidence of sending someone without due process to a place known for human rights violations. No access to counsel, nothing. I support deportation for clear violations of our laws, unlike most in the LP. I strenuously protest the expansion of executive power in contradiction of separation of duties. This guy could not be expelled to El Salvador. To do so is a gross violation of human rights. Which is, in the end, what I care about.
 
Kenneth Feagins said:
Thanks, Andrew. I saw Dave’s comments shortly after he posted them. While I welcome differing legal viewpoints, I was concerned by the tone and some of the characterizations used. As we’re discussing serious constitutional concerns, I believe it’s important that we stay focused on the substance—not the individuals raising issues. I initially set his comments aside, but since they’re being actively referenced in this conversation, I’ll take another look with that in mind.

Just for context, do we know what Dave’s legal specialty is, and whether his comments are being offered in a personal or professional capacity? That might help in understanding the framework he’s applying. I noticed several titles listed, including “attorney at law,” but nothing that clearly reflects a focus on constitutional or immigration law.

@Jacob Bradley since you referenced his document as well.
Click to expand...
He clearly meant to speak for LPTexas and LPTravis (see his signature). This issue is messy enough among the people who can post here. Now we are encouraging/supporting volunteers posting as authoritative?
 
@Ted Brown I want to thank you for bringing this forward. I think this serves as an important catalyst—an ice breaker if you will. I will however vote no—not that I feel this resolution is flawed, but I realize there is no way, Trump will be impeached, barring some massive disaster that finally breaks the trance his base is in.
When Massie spoke out against Trump on the CR several weeks back, and Trump called for Massie to be primaried, I saw something concerning. Massie resorted to a defense not of how American he is, not of how solid his fiscal responsibility is, but that no one is more MAGA than him. That still resonates with me.

That said, I did have the pleasure of reviewing and contributing to the motion @Anastasia Wilford has compiled, and feel it touches on many of the key points you brought forward, while providing something much more actionable to help mitigate this issue.

Do I feel Trump has violated his oath? Absolutely. Will anyone actually do anything about it? I fear we are powerless in that regard.
 
Mark Ash, who is a criminal defense attorney and 2022 LP candidate for TX AG, gives the following opinion about the Abrego Garcia case: "Abrego Garcia has not been charged with a crime in the US or El Salvador. Abrego must be released from the prison in El Salvador. The US should not send persons to El Salvador to be imprisoned without assurances that the persons will have basic due process rights respected. Many of the persons sent to El Salvador are citizens of other countries such as Venezuela and are being held as gang members with little or no proof of gang membership. The Abrego case is most egregious because he was stripped of his legal US status with minimal due process and as citizen of El Salvador, he is now being incarcerated in El Salvador without having been charged or convicted of a crime.

"Mass incarceration is out of control in the USA. The Trump administration seems to want to expand mass incarceration beyond our borders with very questionable processes. As both a criminal defense attorney and a strong advocate for Libertarian party principles, we must seek to end mass incarceration and not expand it."
 
Kenneth Feagins said:
Last I checked, that is one of many ways of handling a case in favor of a client.
Are you suggesting this as a professional, character or philosophical flaw? I do not know him personally, so welcome insight.
Click to expand...
Some of us just listened to a debate with Dave Smith vs Douglas Murray on Joe Rogan's podcast. Douglas Murray had no arguments and resorted to the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority, then Murray contradicted himself embarrassingly. The appeal to authority isn't a good way to go about this.
 
Scott Peterson said:
Some of us just listened to a debate with Dave Smith vs Douglas Murray on Joe Rogan's podcast. Douglas Murray had no arguments and resorted to the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority, then Murray contradicted himself embarrassingly. The appeal to authority isn't a good way to go about this.
Click to expand...
I wholeheartedly agree. Which is why due diligence is important. That is why I am asking for more information on the statement you made. It is no different than when I asked about Mr Roberson.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top