Articles of Impeachment for Donald J. Trump- a first draft.

[dutch508]

Star Member babylonsister (153,624 posts) https://www.democraticunderground.com/10029073219

Articles of Impeachment for Donald J. Trump

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2017/05/here_is_a_draft_of_articles_of_impeachment_for_donald_j_trump.html

Articles of Impeachment for Donald J. Trump
A first draft of an impeachment bill for the president.
By Phillip Carter


snip//

The time has come for Congress to act, and for leaders on both sides of the aisle to put country before party and politics.

snip//

In his conduct while president of the United States, Donald J. Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has engaged in conduct that resulted in misuse and abuse of his high office:

Beyond this preamble, the Trump impeachment bill might include, but not be limited to, the following articles:

Article 1: Compromising the integrity of the presidency through continuing violation of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause. From his first day in office, Trump’s continuing stake in Trump Organization businesses has violated the clause of the Constitution proscribing federal officials from receiving foreign payments. The true and full extent of Trump’s conflicts of interest remains unknown. For his part, Trump has transferred day-to-day control over these interests to his adult children and the management of the Trump Organization. However, he remains the ultimate beneficiary for these businesses, so the fundamental conflict of interest remains. These foreign business ties violate both the letter and spirit of the Constitution’s Emoluments Clause, and arguably provide the clearest basis for impeachment based on the facts and law.

Article 2: Violation of his constitutional oath to faithfully execute the duties of his office by disregarding U.S. interests and pursuing the interests of a hostile foreign power, to wit, Russia. L’affaire Russia began during Trump’s campaign for the presidency, during which several top aides reportedly had contacts with Russia and its intelligence service. His campaign manager also had reportedly worked either directly or indirectly for the Kremlin. These contacts continued, famously, into the presidential transition, when the president’s chosen national security adviser, Michael Flynn, had his ill-fated contacts with Russia. Beyond these contacts, Trump has substantively acted in myriad ways that benefit Russia, including dangerous diplomacy that has reportedly frayed relationships with our allies and allegedly put allied intelligence assets at risk. By offering classified information to the Russians, it was reported that Trump risked the intelligence assets of a Middle Eastern ally that already warned American officials that it would stop sharing such information with America if that information was shared too widely. In risking that relationship, Trump has opened up the possibility for the loss of that information stream for combatting terrorism, and potentially put American lives at risk from the loss of intelligence that could inform officials about future attacks on Americans at home and abroad.

Article 3: Impairment and obstruction of inquiries by the Justice Department and Congress into the extent of the Trump administration’s conflicts of interests and Russia ties. The Trump administration has systematically impeded, avoided, or obstructed the machinery of justice to obscure its business relationships, its Russia ties, and the forces acting within the Trump White House to animate policy. The most egregious and visible examples have been Trump’s firings of Acting Attorney General Sally Yates and FBI Director James Comey. Each termination had what appeared to be a lawful pretext; subsequent statements or admissions have indicated each had more to do with obstructing justice than holding leaders accountable. Alongside these sackings, the Trump administration has also worked to starve Justice Department inquiries of resources and refocus investigators on suspected leaks instead of the White House’s own Russia intrigues. The Trump administration also interfered with congressional inquiries through attempting to block witnesses like Yates from appearing or selective leaking of classified information to House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes, compromising Nunes so badly he had to recuse himself from the matter.

Article 4: Undermining of the American judicial system through felonious intimidation of potential witnesses. In his desire to continue Comey’s public humiliation, and ensure Comey remained silent about Trump’s possible sins, the president threatened Comey on Twitter with disclosure of “tapes” of their conversations. This follows a pattern of Trump roughly treating witnesses and litigation adversaries that stretches back for decades before his presidency. Since taking office, Trump has also used the bully pulpit of his office to threaten intelligence officials for purported leaks and badger former Yates before her congressional testimony. In addition to falling beneath the dignity of the presidency, these verbal assaults also constitute obstruction of justice, prohibited by federal statutes on witness intimidation, retaliation against a witness, and obstruction of federal proceedings. These attacks don’t just harm the individuals who are targeted; they assault and undermine the rule of law. As such, they constitute further grounds for impeachment of Trump and his removal from the presidency.

Article 5: Undermining of his office and the Constitution through repeated assaults on the integrity of the federal judiciary and its officers. During the presidential campaign, Trump publicly attacked federal district Judge Gonzalo Curiel on the basis of his ethnicity, saying Curiel had been “extremely hostile to (Trump),” and that the judge had ruled against Trump because of his “Mexican heritage.” Since taking office, Trump has continued his unpresidential assaults on the federal judiciary, particularly after repeatedly losing court battles over his travel bans. At one point, he described a member of the bench as a “so-called judge,” undermining the premise of an independent judiciary. These statements also undermined both the dignity and power of the presidency, and threaten the rule of law by attacking the integrity of the federal judiciary.

Article 6: Demeaning the integrity of government and its public servants, particularly the military and intelligence agencies, in contravention of his constitutional duties to serve as chief executive and commander in chief of the armed forces. Trump swept into office with considerable disdain for the government and its military. Indeed, during his campaign, he insulted former prisoners of war, Purple Heart recipients, and Gold Star families; criticized the military for its performance in Iraq; and said today’s generals and admirals had been “reduced to rubble” during the Obama administration. Trump carried this disdain into the presidency, through his attacks on the “deep state” of military and intelligence officials that he believed to be obstructing his agenda. He also demeaned the military and its apolitical ethos through use of military fora and audiences as public spectacle—first to sign his immigration order in the Pentagon’s Hall of Heroes, and then to deliver rambling speeches at military and intelligence headquarters suggesting that pro-Trump elements in those agencies were grateful Trump had taken power. Trump has also continued to wage political war against his intelligence community, suggesting as recently as Tuesday morning that it was sabotaging his administration through leaking and other nefarious activities. In doing these things, Trump has undermined his constitutional office as president and commander in chief of the armed forces.

Article 7: Dereliction of his constitutional duty to faithfully execute the office of president by failing to timely appoint officers of the United States to administer the nation’s federal agencies. Shortly after taking office, Trump administration strategist Stephen Bannon articulated his plan for the “deconstruction of the administrative state.” During its first four months in office, the Trump administration’s neglect of governance illustrates how this strategy is to be executed: delay of political appointments, failure to reach budget agreements with Congress in a timely manner, and deliberate neglect of governance and government operations. These actions and failures risk the health, welfare, and security of the nation, and represent a dereliction of Trump’s constitutional duty to faithfully execute the office of the presidency.

Any one of the offenses above could constitute the basis for rigorous investigation of the Trump White House and its failures. Together, the totality of Trump’s malfeasance—once proven after a rigorous investigation—would likely make clear that he “warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States,” to quote from the bill of impeachment passed against President Clinton.

The time has come for Congress to act and for leaders on both sides of the aisle to put country before party and politics. Speaker Paul Ryan and Majority Leader Mitch McConnell ought to, in cooperation with Democratic leaders, begin the sequence of events that would likely lead to impeachment and removal proceedings for Trump. Given that this is unlikely, Democrats should make clear of their intentions to do what is necessary under our Constitution should they win back control of the House of Representatives in 2018. This process should be as full, fair, and transparent as our Constitution requires. Anything less would demean and harm the country even more than Trump has already done.

Saboburns (1,091 posts)
4. He will never be impeached by a Republican Congress.

Not ever.

Never.

Star Member N_E_1 for Tennis (1,651 posts)
6. Impeachment first...indictment next....

Not only for him but for the top of his crew.

[freedumb2003b]

Article 1:

Drumpf is a poopy-head and is orange.

Article 2:

WWWWAAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

/s/

maxine waters and the rest of the (d)s in congress.

[freedumb2003b]

Someone spent a LOT of his company's time writing something that NO ONE will read completely.

I mean NO ONE.

Not even his pals in the sandbox.

[I_B_Perky]

Someone spent a LOT of his company's time writing something that NO ONE will read completely.

I mean NO ONE.

Not even his pals in the sandbox.

I did not make it beyond the third line.  I had much better things to do with my time... like talking with telemarketers, watching paint dry and flies fornicate.   

[SVPete]

Basically, a high school freshman rooted through and summarized the D Party's talking points of the past 6 months. I think it's going to take a D as loony as Mad Maxine or She-Liar to find a D too dumb not to know it would be laughed off the floor of the House.

[BlueStateSaint]

Do they know what hardcore Trump supporters would do if this ever happened?

Civil War 2.0 . . .

[USA4ME]

Phillip Carter, who wrote this non-sense, is some law prof at Georgetown U., but he's not smart enough to get someone out of a jay-walking ticket. No wonder the primitives find him to be intelligent.

.

[thundley4]

Almost every single one of those are true...





About Obama. 

[USA4ME]

Do they know what hardcore Trump supporters would do if this ever happened?

Civil War 2.0 . . .

^5 for that thought.

Liberals can't reason, therefore they have no ability to foresee the consequences of their actions. Should Trump be removed, the damage that followed would last for decades on end. A large number of citizens already don't trust the gov't, the media, the Democrats, and the political left. They would have set themselves up where this overwhelming number would never trust any of these ever again. Ever. And they would pass that onto their kids, etc... What good would it be to "win" if all you won is a country full of an uncooperative citizenry who you can't get to participate with you in any way?

Liberals have some weird notion that if they hold the reins of power and can make the laws, that automatically means that everyone, or at least enough people, will obey, and that's just not the case. To make matters worse, a people who are used to freedom won't automatically kowtoe to a gov't that requires strict and unquestioned obedience, which modern day liberal ideology demands.

Basically libs have signed their own death warrant. They need large swaths of the population to cooperate for them to rule, and when that doesn't happen they'll have to get violent to try and make them, and that won't work, and then they're dead.

.

[BlueStateSaint]

^5 for that thought.

Liberals can't reason, therefore they have no ability to foresee the consequences of their actions. Should Trump be removed, the damage that followed would last for decades on end. A large number of citizens already don't trust the gov't, the media, the Democrats, and the political left. They would have set themselves up where this overwhelming number would never trust any of these ever again. Ever. And they would pass that onto their kids, etc... What good would it be to "win" if all you won is a country full of an uncooperative citizenry who you can't get to participate with you in any way?

Liberals have some weird notion that if they hold the reins of power and can make the laws, that automatically means that everyone, or at least enough people, will obey, and that's just not the case. To make matters worse, a people who are used to freedom won't automatically kowtoe to a gov't that requires strict and unquestioned obedience, which modern day liberal ideology demands.

Basically libs have signed their own death warrant. They need large swaths of the population to cooperate for them to rule, and when that doesn't happen they'll have to get violent to try and make them, and that won't work, and then they're dead.

.

Let's add one little fact to this--does the Left know where their food and water come from?  From lands owned by the very people they despise.  Many Leftist shitholes would become even shittier in days as the water supply was shut off.  Or, if there was an alternate (untreated, in the case of NYC) water source, all sorts of waterborne diseases would take hold rather quickly.  Picture two, maybe three million dysentery cases all at once.  They would absolutely overwhelm any city's hospitals.

And the list of 'unintended consequences' goes on . . .

[DumbAss Tanker]

Phillip Carter, who wrote this non-sense, is some law prof at Georgetown U., but he's not smart enough to get someone out of a jay-walking ticket. No wonder the primitives find him to be intelligent.

.

I would say that the thing is so poorly written, and with such bad style ("Trump" and "Comey?" Not even a full name to start without a parethetical "Hereinafter referred to as _____?") that it's hard to believe it was written by anyone with a legal education, let alone a professorship.  On top of that he apparently has a completely incorrect understanding of the Emoluments Clause and a rather poor grip on reality in general. 

[USA4ME]

Let's add one little fact to this--does the Left know where their food and water come from?  From lands owned by the very people they despise.  Many Leftist shitholes would become even shittier in days as the water supply was shut off.  Or, if there was an alternate (untreated, in the case of NYC) water source, all sorts of waterborne diseases would take hold rather quickly.  Picture two, maybe three million dysentery cases all at once.  They would absolutely overwhelm any city's hospitals.

And the list of 'unintended consequences' goes on . . .

Agreed.

Trump was sent to D.C. because he was the anti-establishment candidate. The establishment pols have demonstrated they don't care about the heartland, or about people's jobs, or about preserving traditional social norms. They do him in, they send a message to 100+ million citizens that the only acceptable people in office are those who are approved by them. That's anti-freedom. That doesn't play well on Main Street, USA. They think they can control it. They think wrong. It may be chiseled away a speck of dust at a time over years, but chiseled away it will be.

.

[98ZJUSMC]

Basically, a high school freshman rooted through and summarized the D Party's talking points of the past 6 months. I think it's going to take a D as loony as Mad Maxine or She-Liar to find a D too dumb not to know it would be laughed off the floor of the House.

You give them FAR too much credit.   

[crazycatlady]

This is what mental illness mixed with extreme political partisanship looks like.

[Adam Wood]

I would say that the thing is so poorly written, and with such bad style ("Trump" and "Comey?" Not even a full name to start without a parethetical "Hereinafter referred to as _____?") that it's hard to believe it was written by anyone with a legal education, let alone a professorship.  On top of that he apparently has a completely incorrect understanding of the Emoluments Clause and a rather poor grip on reality in general.

Yep.  That has been a hallmark of this crap since election day (before, really): these dolts actually believe that anyone engaging in any sort of business interest outside of the United States is somehow in violation of the Emoluments Clause.

I took great delight last week in pointing this out to some Leftist on facebook.  She insisted that because Trump's company leases an old Post Office building, that somehow is a violation of the Emoluments Clause.  When I said to her "that's not an emolument," she was absolutely flabbergasted and spent the next two hours flailing her arms in the air.

Then they REALLY freak out when it's pointed out to them that a violation of the Emoluments Clause is not grounds for impeachment, that the legal remedy there is to have the Supreme Court tell Trump that he can't do that any more.  'Splody heads all around.  Great fun! 

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Every pol and talking head signing on to this should be made to feel the need to flee the country under cover of darkness.

They feel entitled to abrogate the election to rule over us. They should fear the product of their arrogance.

[DumbAss Tanker]

Yep.  That has been a hallmark of this crap since election day (before, really): these dolts actually believe that anyone engaging in any sort of business interest outside of the United States is somehow in violation of the Emoluments Clause.

I took great delight last week in pointing this out to some Leftist on facebook.  She insisted that because Trump's company leases an old Post Office building, that somehow is a violation of the Emoluments Clause.  When I said to her "that's not an emolument," she was absolutely flabbergasted and spent the next two hours flailing her arms in the air.

Then they REALLY freak out when it's pointed out to them that a violation of the Emoluments Clause is not grounds for impeachment, that the legal remedy there is to have the Supreme Court tell Trump that he can't do that any more.  'Splody heads all around.  Great fun! 

I am appalled at how many supposed legal 'Experts' can't understand that emoluments are essentially gifts, and not commercial dealings with an exchange of value on both sides.  The Emoluments Clause is very clear on that in the several examples it lists (Titles of nobility, offices or titles in a foreign government, etc.).  Not sure if it is a matter of groupthink, or just inbreeding in the Northeast Lib crowd.

[SVPete]

I am appalled at how many supposed legal 'Experts' can't understand that emoluments are essentially gifts, and not commercial dealings with an exchange of value on both sides.  The Emoluments Clause is very clear on that in the several examples it lists (Titles of nobility, offices or titles in a foreign government, etc.).  Not sure if it is a matter of groupthink, or just inbreeding in the Northeast Lib crowd.

I'm not sure how many Libs are able and willing to see that contracts and such are mutually beneficial exchanges of something of value. On top of that, the contract between Trump and the US government for the use of that former post office predated Trump's run for the Presidency.

Both work for me, DAT.

[Ralph Wiggum]

Brevity would be more understandable.

Essentially, you can boil it down to:

#1 - Spite. We're bitter that Hillary lost.