Did the Trump administration committed a high crime or misdemeanor

[PhantomWolf]

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.

yeah, no. This is so wrong it just about doesn't qualify as wrong.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors had a specific meaning to the Founding Fathers, one that had come about via English Law, it didn't mean "Whatever Congress decides."

Also it doesn't mean that a crime is "high" but rather, that it is a crime of a high office, in other words, the person that committed the act was in high office and used that office to do the disputed action.

The Founders also spoke and wrote a lot about what they considered to be High Crimes, these can be found in the contemporary documents of the time including the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Debates.

here a good article on it

 

[acbytesla]

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

You're absolutely right. It is. I blew that big time. Iin fact I never even knew I had posted it. I wanted to include a poll and was stumbling around on that.

 

[Venom]

calling the press the enemy of the people.
calling the press "fake news"
ordering his cabinet to carry out a number of undisclosed illegal orders.

 

[PhantomWolf]

calling the press the enemy of the people.
calling the press "fake news"
ordering his cabinet to carry out a number of undisclosed illegal orders.

Only the last of those would count to being a misuse of high office.

 

[Babbylonian]

yeah, no. This is so wrong it just about doesn't qualify as wrong.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors had a specific meaning to the Founding Fathers, one that had come about via English Law, it didn't mean "Whatever Congress decides."

Also it doesn't mean that a crime is "high" but rather, that it is a crime of a high office, in other words, the person that committed the act was in high office and used that office to do the disputed action.

The Founders also spoke and wrote a lot about what they considered to be High Crimes, these can be found in the contemporary documents of the time including the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Debates.

here a good article on it

Great article. Especially insofar as it confirms what I said. Determining what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" is entirely in the hands of the Congress, both in the House where it will be decided whether specific acts qualify as such when deciding to impeach and in the Senate where they will decide whether or not the President is guilty and what punishment should be meted out if he is found to be so.

In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton made the larger point that impeachment is directed at “political” offenses that “proceed from … the abuse or violation of some public trust.” He was echoed by the foremost of the first generation of commentators on the Constitution, Justice Joseph Story, who observed in his 1833 treatise Commentaries on the Constitution that impeachable conduct is often “purely political,” and that “no previous statute is necessary to authorize an impeachment for any official misconduct.”

Thanks, guys, yeah. In other words, "high crimes and misdemeanors" - for the purpose of impeachment under the Constitution - means whatever the Congress decide it means.


You can look at the examples provided in the article which demonstrates that the phrase is intended to be plastic, to be molded by those empowered to impeach.


I get what you're saying, PW, in that the phrase has a historical meaning and that meaning can be elicited from historical examples. But, at the end of the day, in this context, its real world meaning is entirely in the hands of the current Congress making the decisions only they are empowered to make. It's why impeachment should only be used in dire situations (which I would argue has been the case since the day Trump took office): History doesn't define what constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. Congress does.

 

[acbytesla]

Great article. Especially insofar as it confirms what I said. Determining what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" is entirely in the hands of the Congress, both in the House where it will be decided whether specific acts qualify as such when deciding to impeach and in the Senate where they will decide whether or not the President is guilty and what punishment should be meted out if he is found to be so.

Thanks, guys, yeah. In other words, "high crimes and misdemeanors" - for the purpose of impeachment under the Constitution - means whatever the Congress decide it means.


You can look at the examples provided in the article which demonstrates that the phrase is intended to be plastic, to be molded by those empowered to impeach.


I get what you're saying, PW, in that the phrase has a historical meaning and that meaning can be elicited from historical examples. But, at the end of the day, in this context, its real world meaning is entirely in the hands of the current Congress making the decisions only they are empowered to make. It's why impeachment should only be used in dire situations (which I would argue has been the case since the day Trump took office): History doesn't define what constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. Congress does.

I highly recommend reading the 58 page 1974 Congressional report titled "Constitutional grounds for Impeachment". It includes a lot of historical perspective as well as a 2 page conclusion on what is an impeachable offense. It was written by Democrats and Republican staff lawyers. You can Google the title and find it easily.

 

[mgidm86]

Trump or the administration? Title says Trump Admin...

As I said in the other thread, if he/they did he did. My belief changes nothing. All we read about here is what people "believe" these days.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Great article. Especially insofar as it confirms what I said. Determining what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors" is entirely in the hands of the Congress, both in the House where it will be decided whether specific acts qualify as such when deciding to impeach and in the Senate where they will decide whether or not the President is guilty and what punishment should be meted out if he is found to be so.

Thanks, guys, yeah. In other words, "high crimes and misdemeanors" - for the purpose of impeachment under the Constitution - means whatever the Congress decide it means.


You can look at the examples provided in the article which demonstrates that the phrase is intended to be plastic, to be molded by those empowered to impeach.


I get what you're saying, PW, in that the phrase has a historical meaning and that meaning can be elicited from historical examples. But, at the end of the day, in this context, its real world meaning is entirely in the hands of the current Congress making the decisions only they are empowered to make. It's why impeachment should only be used in dire situations (which I would argue has been the case since the day Trump took office): History doesn't define what constitute high crimes and misdemeanors. Congress does.

Okay I get what you're saying, though I think that the better term is that Congress gets to decide if something is an Abuse of Power and thus Impeachable, rather than saying that they can decide what the phase "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" means. The term means an abuse of the powers of the high office, but Congress gets to say if some action does or does not fall into that.

For instance wearing a tan suit is generally not considered an abuse of power, and trying to impeach over it would most likely be a violation of the separation of powers clause, so Congress couldn't try and impeach the President for doing so. However where there seems to have been an action where the President appears to have abused the powers of his office, then it is up to Congress to determine if this is the case or not, and thus whether the action is impeachable or not.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Trump or the administration? Title says Trump Admin...

As I said in the other thread, if he/they did he did. My belief changes nothing. All we read about here is what people "believe" these days.

Well that's not entirely true, if people look at the evidence and come to a conclusion that Trump did misuse or abuse the powers of his office, then there will be more support for his impeachment. The greater that support, the greater the likelihood of the Senate to vote based on the evidence rather than based on partisanship.

 

[acbytesla]

Trump or the administration? Title says Trump Admin...

As I said in the other thread, if he/they did he did. My belief changes nothing. All we read about here is what people "believe" these days.

I think what people believe is more important. At the moment. I don't hear almost anyone saying that Trump did not attempt to use the authorized military aid as leverage to get Ukraine to publicly investigate Joe Biden.

This may not be a criminal. Although I do believe it violates election law. But the founders were clear that abuse of power, security of our government and corruption falls under what constitutes a high crime. But they deliberately did not spell it out. The Senate will make the final decision but as we all know, political calculation might corrupt their decision.

I would like to know regardless of whether you like Trump or not if you believe he has committed acts that qualify as a high crime.

It really is a simple question.

 

[PhantomWolf]

But the founders were clear that abuse of power, security of our government and corruption falls under what constitutes a high crime.

Well, no, they did spell it out because that is what the term meant to them. It's just that it's an Archaic term and so we're "forgotten" what it means.

This is the way with a lot of language, for instance "being hoist upon one's own Petard"* or "there will be the devil to pay."** Some of this archaic language we have an idea of meaning overall, but the true means have been lost to the majority of us and we have to do study to find them out.


*A Petard was a small explosive used to breach walls, and "Hoist" at the time meant to be thrown or lifted, so this was to literally be blown up by one's own bomb.

** The devil was the longest seam on a wooden sailing ship, and paying the seam was to make it watertight by filling it with a combination of straw and pitch. To do this at sea, a sailor would be hang over the edge and lowered to the seam, which was where the hull started to curve back under the ship to the keel. Hanging there precariously, they would then have to be moved along the entire length of the ship repairing or "paying" the seam, one of the worst jobs on a ship. It also brought to rise the saying "Between the devil and the deep (blue sea)" which was the often dangerous position any sailor who was paying the devil would have to be in to do the job.

 

[acbytesla]

Well, no, they did spell it out because that is what the term meant to them. It's just that it's an Archaic term and so we're "forgotten" what it means.

This is the way with a lot of language, for instance "being hoist upon one's own Petard"* or "there will be the devil to pay."** Some of this archaic language we have an idea of meaning overall, but the true means have been lost to the majority of us and we have to do study to find them out.


*A Petard was a small explosive used to breach walls, and "Hoist" at the time meant to be thrown or lifted, so this was to literally be blown up by one's own bomb.

** The devil was the longest seam on a wooden sailing ship, and paying the seam was to make it watertight by filling it with a combination of straw and pitch. To do this at sea, a sailor would be hang over the edge and lowered to the seam, which was where the hull started to curve back under the ship to the keel. Hanging there precariously, they would then have to be moved along the entire length of the ship repairing or "paying" the seam, one of the worst jobs on a ship. It also brought to rise the saying "Between the devil and the deep (blue sea)" which was the often dangerous position any sailor who was paying the devil would have to be in to do the job.

If you read the debate and discussion of the founders, you will see what I'm talking about. They deliberately used the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" for a specific reason. The term was stolen from the Brits where a high official was being impeached for a high crime.
So the term had a meaning.

 

[Craig4]

Obviously he did. He obstructed justice. He conspired with Russians and Wikileaks to unlawfully use stolen e-mails to interfere in our 2016 election. He has taken money from foreign powers in violation of the Emoluments Clause. The stupid bitch admitted to attempting to get Ukraine to influence our election again and admitted to it. Sadly there are too many Magascum, Trumptrash in the Senate and not enough real Americans to remove him. Then of course there's one senator on whom Trump has Kompromat.

In a way I'm okay if he isn't convicted. The world needs to see the American Electorate redeem the sin of making Trump president.

A vote for Trump is a vote for treason.

 

[ahhell]

Nit picking that may be ignored but its the internet so I can't help myself.

Well, no, they did spell it out because that is what the term meant to them. It's just that it's an Archaic term and so we're "forgotten" what it means.

This is the way with a lot of language, for instance "being hoist upon one's own Petard"* or "there will be the devil to pay."** Some of this archaic language we have an idea of meaning overall, but the true means have been lost to the majority of us and we have to do study to find them out.


*A Petard was a small explosive used to breach walls, and "Hoist" at the time meant to be thrown or lifted, so this was to literally be blown up by one's own bomb.

** The devil was the longest seam on a wooden sailing ship, and paying the seam was to make it watertight by filling it with a combination of straw and pitch. To do this at sea, a sailor would be hang over the edge and lowered to the seam, which was where the hull started to curve back under the ship to the keel. Hanging there precariously, they would then have to be moved along the entire length of the ship repairing or "paying" the seam, one of the worst jobs on a ship. It also brought to rise the saying "Between the devil and the deep (blue sea)" which was the often dangerous position any sailor who was paying the devil would have to be in to do the job.

Your point is largely correct but it has a nit to pick, paying the devil has a much more mundane etymology. It just comes from the notion that if you do bad things, you'll owe the devil your soul.
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/devil-to-pay.html

Side note, Craig4's post is why Trump probably won't get convicted in the senate. Trump obstructed justice, basically undeniable. Trump didn't actually conspire with the Russians, but to borrow a phrase, he was collusion curious. The insistence of the anti-trumpists of including everything Trump has been accused of as something he clearly did in every conversation will give Trump and the GOP senators to call it a a witch hunt.

Its much like the Kavanaugh hearings. The original accusation probably happened, but Avenetti's BS and basically insane accusation and likely didn't actually happen public exposure at a frat party, made it look like a smear campaign that galvanized Kavanaugh supporters.

 

[phiwum]

Nit picking that may be ignored but its the internet so I can't help myself.

Your point is largely correct but it has a nit to pick, paying the devil has a much more mundane etymology. It just comes from the notion that if you do bad things, you'll owe the devil your soul.
https://www.phrases.org.uk/meanings/devil-to-pay.html

Unlike the rest of your post, the spoiler-tagged bit above is obviously off-topic. It's also the most interesting bit. Thanks! I'm poring over phrases.org.uk now.

 

[Upchurch]

Trump didn't actually conspire with the Russians, but to borrow a phrase, he was collusion curious.

To pick my own nit, we don't know that he didn't conspire with the Russians, we merely lack the evidence necessary to support the charge in a court of law. It's, arguably, still an open question.

Further, we do have evidence of Trump conspiring with the Ukrainians and multiple, bafflingly public, attempts to conspire with other nations, some hostile to the US. At this point, he's collusion experienced.

The insistence of the anti-trumpists of including everything Trump has been accused of as something he clearly did in every conversation will give Trump and the GOP senators to call it a a witch hunt.

Its much like the Kavanaugh hearings. The original accusation probably happened, but Avenetti's BS and basically insane accusation and likely didn't actually happen public exposure at a frat party, made it look like a smear campaign that galvanized Kavanaugh supporters.

I keep coming back to this Simpsons moment where Homer keeps insisting his whole pig roast is still good despite the fact that it keeps getting into worse situations. The only difference between Homer and Trump supporters is that Homer, in the end, admits that his pig is too far gone and that he has to let it go.

 

[ahhell]

Unlike the rest of your post, the spoiler-tagged bit above is obviously off-topic. It's also the most interesting bit. Thanks! I'm poring over phrases.org.uk now.

I'm only ever accidentally interesting.

To pick my own nit, we don't know that he didn't conspire with the Russians, we merely lack the evidence necessary to support the charge in a court of law. It's, arguably, still an open question.

That is a fair point, still I'd argue, we can and should move on to the stuff that is impeachable that there is evidence for rather the stuff we really think is true despite Mueller not finding any evidence for it.

Further, we do have evidence of Trump conspiring with the Ukrainians and multiple, bafflingly public, attempts to conspire with other nations, some hostile to the US. At this point, he's collusion experienced.

I suppose it is experience even if he keeps screwing it up. I on the other hand, I wouldn't call baffling and stupid public comments by a guy mostly known for his baffling and stupid public persona as "attempts to conspire." I do not think saying dumb things is an impeachable offense but I could see how others might if the comments are stupid enough.

Anyrate, my point is, keep the charges to the most clear and most evidenced crimes. Ignore the stuff that lacks evidence, even after a lengthy investigation. Bang on about collusion all you want, you'll be preaching to the choir, which seem to be all anyone wants to do anymore.

 

[ponderingturtle]

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.

Absolutely, just think of all the things as Commander in Chief someone could do that there are not statutes against, but would be nearly universally considered against america's interest. How about mass surrender of our troops in Afghanistan to the Taliban as a start?

Limiting it to things there is some criminal statute against is foolish, though of course with Trump we have plenty of felonies to choose from.

 

[ponderingturtle]

yeah, no. This is so wrong it just about doesn't qualify as wrong.

High Crimes and Misdemeanors had a specific meaning to the Founding Fathers, one that had come about via English Law, it didn't mean "Whatever Congress decides."

Also it doesn't mean that a crime is "high" but rather, that it is a crime of a high office, in other words, the person that committed the act was in high office and used that office to do the disputed action.

The Founders also spoke and wrote a lot about what they considered to be High Crimes, these can be found in the contemporary documents of the time including the Federalist Papers and the Constitutional Debates.

here a good article on it

So simple crimes like murder are ones the president is protected from like his lawyers are claiming?

 

[theprestige]

For instance wearing a tan suit is generally not considered an abuse of power, and trying to impeach over it would most likely be a violation of the separation of powers clause, so Congress couldn't try and impeach the President for doing so.

How would this be enforced, though? If the House votes to bring articles of impeachment for wearing a tan suit, who could stop them? The President? If the Senate votes to remove, after hearing the House's arguments, who could stop them? The President? By what authority? Through what mechanism?

Does the President just get to say, "nope, sorry, that's not a valid use of Congress's impeachment authority"? If the House tries to subpoena his tailor's records, can the president tell Congress to stuff it, and tell his tailor to ignore the subpoena?