Yep. That’s exactly an example of what I was getting at.
At this point, I think the answer is none at all. Firing Comey, who was investigating the Russian collusion, was obstruction of justice by the president. Even if he was 100% innocent of collusion with Russia, this should be an impeachable offense.
Missing poll option: Would impeach even if zero collusion with Russia.
I once argued against that proposition on a jury ;). Given that I went with option #4. But as others noted that could change depending on the exact circumstances.
I picked option 4.
Here is a related question: what if (as I am sure will happen) neither of these is ever proven to be true? Are you (yes, I am looking at you) going to cling to the “collusion” conspiracy theory regardless?
I’m not at all sold on collusion (or sold against it). But if it’s never investigated, I can see some people thinking that’s a problem. No matter how it turns out, I expect somebody to write a book about it. But hey, create a poll for your question.
Correct. Though I agree with your reasoning about having a higher standard given the politics.
I don’t think it will be proven. He didn’t need to collude. Russia made itself obvious enough, publicly. And, perhaps as a result or perhaps not, Trump made a bunch of positive gestures toward Russia, from the Ukraine issue in the platform to praise for Putin. That’s all the quid pro quo they needed, if they needed any. And they probably didn’t need any. They had the knowledge that Trump’s victory or even competitive race would badly wound the US.
So I don’t actually expect there to be a smoking gun. But I still think there’s a lot to learn, so I strongly favor a continued investigation. If Trump were to be impeached after a Democratic takeover in 2018, it would probably be for emoluments or obstruction of justice, IMO.
Question:
Should a person be impeached from office for things he did prior to being sworn into the office?
I think that’s got to be answered first before one gets all worried about the poll options. We have sufficient examples of impeachment proceedings that either were successful (impeached and convicted), partially successful (impeached but not convicted) or would have been successful (Nixon) to formulate a rule about what our country has historically considered sufficient grounds for impeachment. I’m not a historian on this, so I don’t know. Have there been other judges/officers/presidents who have been impeached on the basis of things they did before gaining office? Were there any failed impeachments where that was the defense raised?
Assuming the answer is yes, I personally believe that if the Candidate Trump knew that there was an active effort by the Russians to influence the election on his behalf, and he didn’t alert anyone to that fact, that meets the definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” in my book.
As far as I understand it, there doesn’t need to be any official crime declared for impeachment. He could be impeached for having stupid hair and if everyone in the Senate voted to convict, then he would be tossed on his ass and the Supreme Court wouldn’t be able to do a thing about it.
I don’t like him being President, not just in the usual sense of having a strong dislike for his politics and not just in the sense of having a strong dislike for the person that he apparently is, but in the frightening sense of considering him to be lethally poisonous to our entire form of government and destructive to the office he holds.
For the latter reason my gut-level reaction is to support impeachment on the grounds that he is breathing our air. Anything, if it works: get him out of there.
If I’m supposed to step back from that and simply assess his hypothetical crimes for their impeachment-worthiness, I guess I’ll go with collusion with the Russians, that he worked with them or bade his staff do so or knew that they were doing so.
I’ll cite the Hillary precedent here: if there is no crime, there is no scandal, much less impeachment.
Now if there is a crime, then remove him from office and lock him up. Otherwise, just let the media and the opposition do what they do.
How about Trump himself admitting he tapes people in the White House without their knowledge?
“James Comey better hope that there are no “tapes” of our conversations before he starts leaking to the press!”
Generally, no. But if the “things” involve trying to illegally affect the election itself, then yes. Posting “fake news” is not a crime, but hacking certainly is. If Trump was involved in some way in the hacking incident… impeach away!
In the original list: Number 1 isn’t enough in my opinion. Campaigns are large organizations and it isn’t reasonable for him to be aware of everything that goes on.
Number 2 was enough for me. Withholding information from the FBI intentionally should be impeachable, though if he consulted his attorney he could transfer that liability to him if he followed the attorney’s advice and kept his mouth shut.
Numbers 3 and 5 I don’t know. Again, that would be grounds to prosecute his deputies, not him.
Number 4 is definite, no gray area at all.
Number 6 gets him rent free accommodations in a federal facility for life.
My choice is notably absent. I’d support impeachment if Trump had Russian dressing on his salad.
Legally I don’t know which of those, if any, really rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” I’m inclined to say that voters who voted based on hacked/leaked/made-up information about Clinton were still exercising their free will, and that’s really all that matters. That said, I picked #4, because at that point we would have proof that Trump is a giant lying liar who has been lying for months about something pretty important, much more important than a BJ, and I’d support any flimsy justification from congress to impeach him over that big lie alone.
Ok, so I’ll put you down for #4. Pretty sure that assisting with a violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act is also a crime.
That may be Russian, but it ain’t no salad dressing.
I voted for #4, but I wish I could vote for more than one option. I take it that these were supposed to indicate increasing levels of severity but #5 does not seem worse than #4 to me.
Yes, that was the intent. But yeah, I could see how if you think direct personal involvement is key that you might put #4 over #5.