Did the Trump administration committed a high crime or misdemeanor

[acbytesla]

Did the Trump administration committed a high crime or misdemeanor?

I'm curious. Do you believe that President Trump committed a high crime?

If so, why or why not?

 

[phiwum]

Taking "high crime" to mean nothing more or less than "worthy of impeachment", yes. He withheld funds allocated by Congress for the military needs of a desperate ally in order to pressure the ally to announce investigations which would aid Trump politically and for no reason other than that selfish benefit.

In short, he put his interests ahead of the nation's, subverting a congressional act in the meanwhile. That is an act worthy of impeachment and removal, by gum.

 

[mumblethrax]

As Will Wilkinson recently pointed out, this kind of electoral corruption takes the more usual means of removal off the table, since he's trying to pervert that process.

Not only does it count as "high crimes and misdemeanors", he must be impeached, because he's left us with no other options.

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/01/opinion/trump-impeachment-2020.html

 

[theprestige]

I'm curious. Do you believe that President Trump commit a high crime?

There was a thread in Trials and Errors about the legal questions of crime as such. I'm assuming you're not interested in the legal questions as such. Instead, you're asking a political question.

If so, why or why not?

For the political question, there's a couple of answers. One answer is, "as a voting citizen, I believe that Trump [ should | should not ] be removed from office for what he's done."

Another answer is, "it's up to the Senate to vote on whether he's committed a high crime or misdemeanor. Until they vote, we won't know, just like we don't know if a law is constitutional until the Supreme Court votes on a decision."

Neither answer is very awesome.

 

[Upchurch]

There was a thread in Trials and Errors about the legal questions of crime as such.

Link? I'm not finding it.

 

[ahhell]

Shouldn't there be a poll?

Yes, he should be impeached for the reasons stated. Probably for obstructing the Russian investigation even if the underlying crime didn't happen, probably for his current attempts to obstruct the impeachment investigations too.

 

[theprestige]

Link? I'm not finding it.

It was moved out of T&E because the mods, like most of the participants, didn't believe an examination of the legal questions as such was possible.

 

[Upchurch]

It was moved out of T&E because the mods, like most of the participants, didn't believe an examination of the legal questions as such was possible.

Right. I was looking in T&E.

 

[alfaniner]

a high crime or misdemeanor

I've always been a little puzzled by this term. If the low bar is "a misdemeanor", it should be a simple matter to impeach. Obviously that is never even a consideration. (and I would not want it to be.)

Still, it seems like it's defining a spectrum from murder to swiping a pack of cigarettes.

 

[Minoosh]

If Trump is not impeachable than who would be? I really don’t think the Dems wanted to do this. But when he tries to strong-arm a foreign government into digging up (or manufacturing) dirt on an election rival surely some line has been crossed. Add to that the ongoing attempt to thwart inquiries into his actions, plus his public calls for assistance from foreign governments and there’s really no question he is abusing his presidential power.

The question I have is, should the articles of impeachment be a long list Or a short one? Do they throw the book at him or narrow it down to the big ones - abuse of power, obstruction of justice and ...?

 

[Minoosh]

Still, it seems like it's defining a spectrum from murder to swiping a pack of cigarettes.

It was left vague on purpose IMO.

 

[ahhell]

I've always been a little puzzled by this term. If the low bar is "a misdemeanor", it should be a simple matter to impeach. Obviously that is never even a consideration. (and I would not want it to be.)

Still, it seems like it's defining a spectrum from murder to swiping a pack of cigarettes.

My understanding high crimes and misdemeanors should be read as high crimes and high misdemeanors, misdemeanors being bad behavior.

If you are curious:
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/misdemeanor-word-history-not-always-a-crime
Apparently, the meaning of misdemeanor has become more specific to less serious crimes in the last 200 years.

 

[theprestige]

I figured it should be read as "anything Congress damn well pleases, as long as there's broad consensus among the legislators, and it's a decision they're willing to explain to their constituents at election time". And that, it seems to me, is as it should be.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Obstruction - from the start and ongoing.

 

[acbytesla]

There was a thread in Trials and Errors about the legal questions of crime as such. I'm assuming you're not interested in the legal questions as such. Instead, you're asking a political question.

A high crime is not necessarily "criminal". Certainly actual crimes may or may not qualify. I don't know if you have read the memo created by the staff lawyers during Nixon's impeachment. You should.

For the political question, there's a couple of answers. One answer is, "as a voting citizen, I believe that Trump [ should | should not ] be removed from office for what he's done."

That doesn't answer the question. Do you have an opinion about whether Trump committed a "high crime". In other words, at a minimum, does extorting a foreign country by witholding needed military aid authorized by Congress for help on his own personal reelection campaign? Or perhaps obstructing Congess by refusing to comply with subpoenas?

Another answer is, "it's up to the Senate to vote on whether he's committed a high crime or misdemeanor. Until they vote, we won't know, just like we don't know if a law is constitutional until the Supreme Court votes on a decision."

Neither answer is very awesome.

I don't care at this moment what they think, but what members of this forum believe is an impeachable offense and whether Trump and this administration has committed any.

 

[acbytesla]

I figured it should be read as "anything Congress damn well pleases, as long as there's broad consensus among the legislators, and it's a decision they're willing to explain to their constituents at election time". And that, it seems to me, is as it should be.

It absolutely isn't. Although it definitely has been used that way. It wasn't intended to be used for simply political policy reasoning. Which the Johnson impeachment really was. Or for political posturing which I'm convinced the Clinton impeachment was.

 

[Babbylonian]

I've always been a little puzzled by this term. If the low bar is "a misdemeanor", it should be a simple matter to impeach. Obviously that is never even a consideration. (and I would not want it to be.)

Still, it seems like it's defining a spectrum from murder to swiping a pack of cigarettes.

The term was intended to be ambiguous. The founders' intentions were pretty much, "If the Congress decides the President has to be removed, they can do so."

Trying to determine how high a crime needs to be to qualify is a fool's errand. The standard should be interpreted as the Supreme Court might interpret obscenity: We know it when we see it.

This presidency is an obscenity.

 

[GlennB]

I can't get past the horrible grammar of the o/p title. It's a crime in itself

 

[PhantomWolf]

The first thing to do is determine the meaning of "High Crimes and Misdemeanors", so what it meant to the writers of the US Constitution.

Form most sources I have located, these are not actual crimes and violations of specific statues as such, but rather term refers back to an English concept which was the mishandling, misuse, or abuse of the powers of a high office.

Under this, then the question becomes, did the President abuse the powers of his office?

So the next question is, what are the powers of his office?

So under the US Constitution the President is given the power of execution of the Laws created by the Legislature. These laws are to be executed for the public good, i.e. for the good of the country.

So is it a misuse or abuse of power to use those powers for self promotion and gain?

The writers of the Constitution answered this one quite emphatically, yes it is.

Thus the next questions are;

1) Is getting a foreign Government to investigate your political opponents an action that is for personal gain?
2) Did Trump use or attempt to use the powers of the Executive and the State Department to force the Ukraine to investigate Biden?
3) Is such use of Executive Power and the mechanisms of the State Department for self gain a misuse of power?

I think that most people would say that 1 and 3 are certainly true, so that leaves question 2.

From the evidence currently on hand, then it does appear that he did, so on the current evidence then yes he should be Impeach, and where the decision to be non-partisan, he should probably be removed as well. However, since there is a powerful partisan split right now, I suspect that while he will be impeached, currently he is unlikely to be removed. This may change is the GOP grows some balls.

 

[dudalb]

People keep forgetting a impeachable offense might not be a criminal offense;ie a President could be impeached and removed from office, quite rightly, for something that he could not be sent to jail for; a lot of things that would be an "abuse of power" are things you could not be indicted for in a court of law.