Trump Impeachment: What crimes to include

[smartcooky]

Could you go into a little more detail on these? There's been so many accusations of wrong-doing by Trump I've lost track of what he's done.

The Great Zaganza has added some detail on all except two

8. Violations of the campaign finance laws
... payments to Karen McDougal and Stormy Daniels to keep them quiet in the run up the 2016 election.

9. Real estate fraud - multiple counts
... https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/11/nyregion/deutsche-bank-trump.html

 

[Beelzebuddy]

So Trump comes out with his own, new and improved, election scandal. Straight-forward and easily digestible corruption. A political scandal that even the dimmest American can easily get their mind around.

Which is why I'm back to 50/50 about whether the Senate will cooperate with impeachment. This is clear, present, plainly illegal, and only involves Trump. If they wanted to cut him out, there will never be a better opportunity to be shocked, shocked at the crimes Mr. Trump committed with minimal accusatory fallout. They can throw him under the bus, write off the next election and go back to pretending to be about moral integrity until the next proto-fascist goosesteps his way into power.

That also means if they don't do it now they're in it till the end, come what may.

 

[jeremyp]

After three years of desperate searching for The One Thing, it'll be interesting to see what the Dems actually settle on for their big play.

My impression is that they don't have to desperately search: things just seem to be falling into their laps at the moment.

 

[Dumb All Over]

Goodbye, Joe. It's been nice knowing you.

 

[ponderingturtle]

Bill Clinton was lucky he was president in the 90's and not now, because I think the culture has shifted on whether what he did was impeachable or not. Sure, he lied about a blowjob, but that's not really it. He used his considerable power in an attempt to derail a credible accusation of sexual harassment. Hiding his relationship with Lewinsky was not just to avoid personal embarrassment for a one-time affair, but to hide his longtime habit of engaging in inappropriate relationships with his subordinates, which was extremely relevant to civil suit.

Except of course it wasn't. Such information is rarely legally relevant to cases as they should be decided on their own facts not other facts. If he wasn't president they would have objected to the question and it wouldn't have been allowed. But politics cuts in more than one way in such cases.

And remember the final result of the case was being thrown out as the judge found that even given all of jones's claims it did not rise to the level of sexual harassment.

This scandal has not aged well in the me too era. Clinton was a gross creep that used his power to shield himself from the consequences of his actions.

Sure, though I am not sure the law has changed enough to make it subject to sexual harassment settlements.

 

[Meadmaker]

Speaking of reality... It's a fact that Trump's purported high crimes and misdemeanors are in an entirely different league than those of Clinton. You know that of course. Drawing parallels concerning the underlying facts would be starkly anti-reality. I hope and assume that's not what you're doing.

Maybe your inferences about the electoral outcome are right. Maybe not. It's premature to declare future reality, oozing confidence no less. It's concerning though, that's for sure.

That's a very interesting observation, and one I don't have time to address fully right now. You are correct that there are huge differences between what Trump did and what Clinton did.

I think the differences are so large that the differences ar blocking out the similarities for many people. More later.

 

[Upchurch]

I think the differences are so large that the differences ar blocking out the similarities for many people. More later.

That might suggest that any such similarities are insignificant compared to the differences.

But, let's see. Similarities:

• Both are white
• Both are men
• Both are President at the time of their impending impeachments
• Both's parties control the Senate but not the house at the time.

Damn, you may have a point. Clearly, this is just two sides of the same coin, amirite?

 

[Segnosaur]

7. Russian interference in the 2016 election
Trump Tower Meeting, telling Flynn to go after HRC emails, coordination of release of Podesta Emails via Roger Stone

That might be a tricky one...

If I remember, the Mueller report concluded that the Russians did interfere in the campaign to the benefit of Trump, and that there were multiple contacts between Trump associates and the Russians, but thought that many of the principles were too dumb to understand it was a crime, and that they found no evidence that Trump was actually informed of what was going on. (I think its likely he did know... just that they don't have any transcripts or eye witnesses to say "Yeah, I told Trump about meeting the Ruskies".

That doesn't mean that it can't be part of the impeachment proceedings, just that it would need more work than other avenues of corruption in order to justify it.

 

[Segnosaur]

Oh, here's another crime that they could add... destruction of documents, in violation of the Presidential Records Act.

From: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/10/trump-papers-filing-system-635164
Under the Presidential Records Act, the White House must preserve all memos, letters, emails and papers that the president touches... But White House aides realized early on that they were unable to stop Trump from ripping up paper after he was done with it and throwing it in the trash or on the floor...

 

[Segnosaur]

Time is running out for Flynn if he thinks he'll get that Pardon.
Maybe he should tell his stories to the Impeachment Inquiry instead...

Flynn is now saying he won't cooperate; he'll take the 5th.

"only GUILTY people, plead the 5th"
- Donald Trump

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Oh, here's another crime that they could add... destruction of documents, in violation of the Presidential Records Act.

From: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/06/10/trump-papers-filing-system-635164
Under the Presidential Records Act, the White House must preserve all memos, letters, emails and papers that the president touches... But White House aides realized early on that they were unable to stop Trump from ripping up paper after he was done with it and throwing it in the trash or on the floor...

or eating it, according to Omorosa

 

[ponderingturtle]

"only GUILTY people, plead the 5th"
- Donald Trump

The fifth in civil cases and presumably then in impeachment is kind of complex, as you have to either refuse to talk about an issue entirely or you can not use it.

 

[Segnosaur]

Oh, here's another crime that they could add... destruction of documents, in violation of the Presidential Records Act.

From: https://www.politico.com/story/2018/...-system-635164
Under the Presidential Records Act, the White House must preserve all memos, letters, emails and papers that the president touches... But White House aides realized early on that they were unable to stop Trump from ripping up paper after he was done with it and throwing it in the trash or on the floor...

or eating it, according to Omorosa

You know, with any other president, the suggestion they would eat official documents would seem like a joke. And lets face it Omorosa doesn't exactly have a strong reputation.

But since there are reports of Trump turning documents into confetti and leaving them on the floor, her story becomes somehow believable.

I hadn't heard that accusation before, but googled it..... here's a reference:

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-ate-...cohen-meeting-former-white-house-aide-1069399
Former White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman has said she walked in on President Donald Trump eating paper after a meeting with lawyer Michael Cohen, in what she believed was an effort to destroy sensitive information.

Since Omarosa is not the only person to claim Trump destroys documents, it would be a fairly easy case to prove. (Although admittedly it is fairly minor, compared to Trump's other crimes.)

 

[Donal]

You know, with any other president, the suggestion they would eat official documents would seem like a joke. And lets face it Omorosa doesn't exactly have a strong reputation.

But since there are reports of Trump turning documents into confetti and leaving them on the floor, her story becomes somehow believable.

I hadn't heard that accusation before, but googled it..... here's a reference:

https://www.newsweek.com/trump-ate-...cohen-meeting-former-white-house-aide-1069399
Former White House aide Omarosa Manigault Newman has said she walked in on President Donald Trump eating paper after a meeting with lawyer Michael Cohen, in what she believed was an effort to destroy sensitive information.

Since Omarosa is not the only person to claim Trump destroys documents, it would be a fairly easy case to prove. (Although admittedly it is fairly minor, compared to Trump's other crimes.)

Its such a TV mob boss thing to do. He so desperately wants to be seen as a big shot and a tough guy, he becomes a cartoon.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

The Ukraine phone call issue needs to have a proven crime established if anyone expects this impeachment effort to not blow up in everyone's face. Just saying I find it about as likely to be successful as the odds that anyone is going to pay attention to Joe Bidens' openly bragging about interfering with an foreign investigation into his son over that shell company he had....

 

[The Great Zaganza]

The Ukraine phone call issue needs to have a proven crime established if anyone expects this impeachment effort to not blow up in everyone's face. Just saying I find it about as likely to be successful as the odds that anyone is going to pay attention to Joe Bidens' openly bragging about interfering with an foreign investigation into his son over that shell company he had....

Well, for starters, Rudy broke the Logan Act and is part of a criminal conspiracy (run by Trump) to extort the government of Ukraine.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

Going after a political opponent directly is exactly what Nixon did - but he had the sense not to talk to others directly, letting his henchmen do the work.

The Ukraine Affair is definitely worse than Watergate.

 

[smartcooky]

That might be a tricky one...
If I remember, the Mueller report concluded that the Russians did interfere in the campaign to the benefit of Trump, and that there were multiple contacts between Trump associates and the Russians, but thought that many of the principles were too dumb to understand it was a crime, and that they found no evidence that Trump was actually informed of what was going on. (I think its likely he did know... just that they don't have any transcripts or eye witnesses to say "Yeah, I told Trump about meeting the Ruskies".

That doesn't mean that it can't be part of the impeachment proceedings, just that it would need more work than other avenues of corruption in order to justify it.

Firstly, the list was about the "investigations" not about what some of us think he is guilty of........

Donald Trump is being investigated for a raft of serious crimes and law breaches, including

Secondly, the principals might well have been too dumb to realise they were committing a crime, but as it says in legal principles... "ignorantia legis neminem excusat"

https://definitions.uslegal.com/i/ignorantia-legis-neminem-excusat/

 

[dudalb]

Apparenlty the Dems are going to concentrate on the Ukraine accusations..IMHO a wise move.

 

[dudalb]

The Ukraine phone call issue needs to have a proven crime established if anyone expects this impeachment effort to not blow up in everyone's face. Just saying I find it about as likely to be successful as the odds that anyone is going to pay attention to Joe Bidens' openly bragging about interfering with an foreign investigation into his son over that shell company he had....

I disagree. I think politically today's revelation is devastating to Trump.
I still think the Dems would be wise to have the hearings,but avoid actual indictment until after the elections.