Trump Impeachment: What crimes to include

[dudalb]

This phrase is often misinterpreted to mean crimes and misdemeanors that go beyond the ordinary. A high crime must be worse than a regular one, right?


In fact, the phrase means crimes and misdemeanors committed while occupying a "high" office, e.g., the presidency or other high office.

As the saying goes, the definition of wrongdoing is so broad that the Congress could impeach the President for eating a cheese sandwich if it wanted to.

 

[dudalb]

Gotta give some credit to Pelosi for a latin quote and a Roman history reference:

Use any metaphor you want: crossing the Rubicon, alea iacta est+

The latin means "The Die Is Cast" what Julius Caesar supposedly said when he crossed the Rubicon and started the Roman Civil War.

 

[Meadmaker]

This phrase is often misinterpreted to mean crimes and misdemeanors that go beyond the ordinary. A high crime must be worse than a regular one, right?


In fact, the phrase means crimes and misdemeanors committed while occupying a "high" office, e.g., the presidency or other high office.

I assumed a "high crime" was a felony.

ETA: Fascinating stuff.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors

It does shed a rather different light on impeachment, although I'm not certain a sufficient number of the populace will change their view even if enlightened about the meaning of certain phrases as they were used in the 18th century.

However, it does suggest a possible way of getting to impeachment and conviction without an actual crime, in the sense of violation of statute, having been committed.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

If a President has no support in either Senate or House, it makes a lot of sense to be able to get rid of him, with or without him having committed anything rising to the level of a crime.

 

[smartcooky]

This phrase is often misinterpreted to mean crimes and misdemeanors that go beyond the ordinary. A high crime must be worse than a regular one, right?


In fact, the phrase means crimes and misdemeanors committed while occupying a "high" office, e.g., the presidency or other high office.

Correct; the "high" refers to both the crimes and the misdemeanours i.e. high crimes and high misdemeanours.

The use of the word "high" in this context is a similar to how it was once used to describe treason in the UK & Empire. Ordinary or "petty" treason was against a superior to whom you owed allegiance, but high treason was specifically treason against the monarch.

 

[PhantomWolf]

It's not pedantic argumentation. It's a fundamental principle of criminal justice. The state can't just go on vague fishing expeditions based on suspicion of wrongdoing. Even a search warrant requires a probable cause.

You are thinking Judicial Crime, Impeachment isn't based on a written law, but whatever the congress determines to be "High Crimes and Misdemeanors."

Even a murder investigation requires a dead body and some articulable indications of foul play.

This is just factually incorrect. Numerous people have been convicted for murder without a dead body.

Indeed, the whole point of grand juries is to make sure the state takes the time to actually nail down their justification of a specific crime and specific suspect, before going to town on that suspect's life.

And again, you are thinking of a criminal trial, which an Impeachment isn't.

So no, as a practical matter, and as a matter of rule of law, you can't do anything about wrongdoing without first defining the wrongdoing you're trying to do something about.

Again totally incorrect for an Impeachment. What you need to do is show that an action or actions by the President are able to meet the level of High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

So what are High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

The short version is "Anything Congress agrees on."

However it is worth going back to the Federalist Papers and other documents of the time and seeing what the Framers of the Constitution thought when they included it in the CotUS.

Impeachment would involve the abuse of violation of some public trust.

The Constitution aims to make it as difficult as possible for them to combine any interest opposite to that of the Public Good.

A President could be Impeached should he have procured His appointment by the corrupting of his electors.

Impeachment could be brought about by a President abusing his power through Military Force, or Public Money."

It is [The President's] duty to impart to the Senate every material intelligence he receives. If it should appear that he has not given them full information, but has concealed important intelligence which he ought to have communicated, then Impeachment is a remedy.

So the question now is, How does this president's actions compare?

Did he use his governmental powers to try and achieve a personal benefit that is against the Public Trust?

Did he try and gain Electors in a corrupt manner by getting a Foreign State to interfere in the 2020 Elections?

Did he abuse his power by using public money, set aside by Congress for the Ukraine, for the purpose of getting them to interfere by going after a political opponent?

Did he attempt to hold back or cover up any material information about the incident, or attempted to prevent the Senate being fully informed as to what occurred?

If you treat those questions honestly, and find yourself you having to say "Yes" to any one of them, then by the standards of the Founding Fathers, He should be Impeached, or the Constitution might as well be put in a shredder because it is no longer worth the paper it is written on.

Each and every member of the House and Senate swore an oath to uphold the Constitution. They didn't swear an oath to stand behind and support a criminal President.

And this is the thing I really don't get. It seems that the Republican members would rather ride this sinking ship down than to get rid of the cancer that is the current President and replace him with the VP. For me the scariest thing about this Impeachment process is not that some miracle will occur and voters who are fervently anti-Trump will suddenly switch back to supporting him because he gets impeached, but rather that the GOP will suddenly wake up and say "Hey we can get rid of this anchor" and suddenly it's Pence for 2020, because he might actually stand a chance of winning, and the thought of President Pence is way worse than Trump getting a second term if you ask me.

But hey...

 

[varwoche]

District Attorneys are careful to limit their indictments to one crime at a time. Throwing the kitchen sink in a case is never a good idea.

A few days ago, I thought the kitchen sink was appropriate. Now, seeing how clear the shakedown of Ukraine is, never mind the kitchen sink.

I think they should include emoluments though. That's the pathway to Trump's tax return.

 

[ponderingturtle]

District Attorneys are careful to limit their indictments to one crime at a time. Throwing the kitchen sink in a case is never a good idea.

Not when I was on grand jury. Sure all the crimes were typically related but certainly not individual.

 

[Craig4]

District Attorneys are careful to limit their indictments to one crime at a time. Throwing the kitchen sink in a case is never a good idea.

Not really. Stacking charges is a pretty common practice. At least it was when I was an immigration officer.

 

[JoeMorgue]

This is not court people, it's a public relations trial.

This is going to be won or lost on public perception, not any type of "technically correct" legalese.

 

[ponderingturtle]

I assumed a "high crime" was a felony.

Of course not, I mean we know lots of felonies Trump has committed and the days that being involved in a real estate scam could possible count as an impeachable offence are so 25 years ago. Now we would be saying "So what if he scammed poeple out of millions, that is no reason to impeach a president so why even bother investigating white water".

So yea the rule of law is dead and we shall all rejoice.

 

[Craig4]

This is not court people, it's a public relations trial.

This is going to be won or lost on public perception, not any type of "technically correct" legalese.

True and stacking charges is a great way to sway public opinion. I hope they throw in the false weather report.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Not really. Stacking charges is a pretty common practice. At least it was when I was an immigration officer.

It's also common to pile on charges, to have bargaining chips for a plea deal.

 

[TurkeysGhost]

True and stacking charges is a great way to sway public opinion. I hope they throw in the false weather report.

I disagree. I think only the most severe charges should be pursued. Trump apologists are going to be desperate to paint this as a politically motivated hit job, and they will focus on the least consequential accusations as evidence of this. They will do everything possible to talk about weather maps or porn star payoffs to avoid talking about more serious charges of corruption and self-dealing.

I think the kitchen sink approach is not wise.

 

[WilliamSeger]

I disagree. I think only the most severe charges should be pursued. Trump apologists are going to be desperate to paint this as a politically motivated hit job, and they will focus on the least consequential accusations as evidence of this.

I think the kitchen sink approach is not wise.

Not necessarily. If there's only the one charge, it would look like Dems kept hunting until they found one, like Ken Starr. If you put in all the impeachable offences, a very clear pattern exists: Trump is a self-serving grifter, devoid of integrity.

 

[JoeMorgue]

Okay look at it this way.

Don't think of it in terms of what "What can we legally prove Trump did?"

Think of it in terms of "What can we convince the most people Trump did and that it actually matters?"

The general public doesn't care all that much about political skullduggery or anything that can be sold or presented as such. "Well all politicians are dirty and do stuff like that, fiddle dee dee" will be invoked.

 

[WilliamSeger]

Okay look at it this way.

Don't think of it in terms of what "What can we legally prove Trump did?"

Think of it in terms of "What can we convince the most people Trump did and that it actually matters?"

The general public doesn't care all that much about political skullduggery or anything that can be sold or presented as such. "Well all politicians are dirty and do stuff like that, fiddle dee dee" will be invoked.

Yes, and if there's only the one charge, it'll be much easier to convince people that it isn't worthy of impeachment.

 

[Belz...]

On that note... everybody does now that Trump is probably going to do something really, really out there soon right?

YYyyyep.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

What is absolutely needed straight away is to lock down this extra-secret database in which the phone transcript was filed. And then the Top Secret equivalent of a Special Master needs to go through it and check for more scandals of Trump that have been covered up.

 

[JoeMorgue]

What is absolutely needed straight away is to lock down this extra-secret database in which the phone transcript was filed. And then the Top Secret equivalent of a Special Master needs to go through it and check for more scandals of Trump that have been covered up.

"Sorry but ah turns out Rose Mary Woods accidentally deleted them."
"Rose Mary Woods? Nixon's secretary? She's been dead for 15 years!"
"She is a very clumsy woman."