Not so sure. Trump has been throwing accusations of “treason” very loosely, and all us right-thinking Trump-haters likewise have been throwing “treason” accusations loosely. But this feels different.
There’s an arguable case that Trump has been giving “aid and comfort” to an “enemy” here, and that is literally treason as defined in the Constitution. If these allegations pan out, then there’s a case to be made against Trump there.
Yeah no need to do that, just dont answer their questions during Press conferences, same thing with OAN or whatever it is.
What wall?
Assuming the Dems win the Senate-Get together a good case vs Kavanaugh. Show him it. Ask him to nicely resign, with full pension and his old seat back.
What has Kavanaugh done that would get him indicted? I’m aware of the rape allegations from before his confirmation, but those were decades old, unspecific and disputed by people in his and Ford’s social group. Likewise, I remember the claims on this board that he was committing perjury in his confirmation hearing, but that was at best wishful thinking. There’s a big difference between not being wholly truthful, and outright perjury. Here’s a Vox article from last year detailing allegations made in the media:
At worst, he wasn’t forthright about some of his high school and college bad behaviour. That’s not remotely bad enough to get him indicted. It would be a hugely partisan act for the Biden administration to try to pursue such an unlikely indictment, and frankly, if Biden’s elected, he should have much higher priorities.
Since the majority of posters in this thread believe that Trump has committed criminal corruption that should see him sent to prison, I’m wondering if anyone can identify a specific act they believe to be a criminal violation, and also the law that’s being violated?
From many debate here on the SDMB my understanding is that “enemy” (for purposes of convicting someone of treason) means someone we are at war with. We are not in a declared war with Russia so no treason.
Please do not mistake what I just wrote as a defense of president Trump. He is a vile human being and his actions are reprehensible. I look forward to the day he is out of office and I dearly hope he finds himself in prison. I just don’t think it will be for this.
Using campaign funds to pay off hookers?
Conspiring with a hostile foreign government to get him elected?
Some ~ 8 counts of obstruction of justice?
Extorting an ally for his, and said hostile foreign governments gain?
The precedent we don’t want to set is that open criminality like the Trump administration has engaged in will simply be swept under the rug by the next administration. That would be the end of our nation. I rather every outgoing administration be scrutinized under a heavy microscope than the alternative.
If the FF’s had meant someone we were at war with, then they would have said someone we were at war with. They said enemy.
If we have to be at war to have a traitor, then no one could be a traitor, as we are not at war with anyone.
If a US citizen helps the Taliban attack targets in the US, would you say that they are a traitor, or would you say that they are not, since the Taliban is not our enemy?
Not to mention the smaller stuff, Hatch act, Emoluments, stuff like that. It’s not as severe, as people aren’t generally dying over it, but it is still using the power of the office for personal gain.
That, in and of itself, should earn at least a rebuke from other branches of government.
Define what constitutes an “enemy” of the US then (as a legal matter)? While you consider that…
…enemies are defined very precisely under American treason law. An enemy is a nation or an organization with which the United States is in a declared or open war . Nations with whom we are formally at peace, such as Russia, are not enemies.
SOURCE: Five myths about treason
I believe there is plenty to get Trump on (not Emoluments since I don’t think there is a penalty associated with it). This is not one though.
No, it wasn’t just about the assault allegations. I’m pretty sure he lied about that, but I’m even surer that we could never prove so.
But, before the sexual assault allegations were disclosed, he had still lied to and misled congress.
Republicans didn’t much care about those lies either. I don’t know if they are enough to be successfully impeachable, but I do think that a SCOTUS should have some amount of honesty and credibility, and he has shown that he has none. It certainly should have been enough to keep him off the highest court in the land. Is it enough to take him off the highest court in the land? That’s a higher bar to clear.
Someone who is willing to use violence and military force against our interests.
Do you consider the Taliban to be an enemy? If Trump were the one paying the Taliban to kill our soldiers, rather than just knowing about it without taking any action, would you say that that isn’t actually impeachable? That that isn’t treason?
If you assist the Taliban in carrying out a terrorist attack against the United States, would you not be a traitor, as we are not in a declared war against the Taliban?
And, once again, I do not think that you have to break a law to be impeached. The president is given great powers, and if he is able to use his judgement in how to use those powers. He doesn’t have to break a law to abuse the powers that he is supposed to use responsibly. Impeachment is the remedy against those who abuse their powers.
The amendments also do not have penalties associated with them. You don’t go to jail or pay a fine if you pass a law that abridges the right to peaceful assembly, or infringes on the right to bear arms, or puts soldiers in people’s homes during peacetime. You just aren’t allowed to do it. The remedy for a law that violates the Constitution is the removal of that law by the methods suggested in the Constitution.
Same as emoluments, it is something that you are just not allowed to do. The only remedy for someone who violates the Constitution using the power vested in them is to remove that person from power through the constitutional power of impeachment.
Do I think that he’s going to be impeached over emoluments? Probably not(absolutely certainly not). Do I think that he should have been? Yeah, he’s violating the Constitution, and that is the only remedy the FF’s left to us for that.
But then there is no abuse of power that is too far for republicans. He really could get away with shooting a person on 5th avenue and face no consequence.
I think the best chance for a criminal prosecution is the Stormy Daniels payment from campaign funds which was a violation of campaign finance laws. However, that took place before Trump became president. And while that incident is arguably morally corrupt, I don’t think it’s criminally corrupt in the sense of illegally exchanging money for a service. My understanding is the payment wasn’t for prostitution (negating “hooker”) and would have been legal if it had been made directly from Trump even if it was channelled through an intermediary, so long as it did not represent a campaign activity. I’m not sure if the questions of whether the payment was made from campaign funds, or whether it required FEC disclosure have been settled.
As for conspiring with a foreign government, again that took place before the election, it’s unclear what Trump’s part in the alleged conspiracy was, and the findings of the Mueller investigation report summarise:
“Volume I of the report concludes that the investigation did not find sufficient evidence that the campaign “coordinated or conspired with the Russian government in its election-interference activities”.
The report concluded that there were links between the Trump campaign and Russian agents, but did not find clear criminal evidence sufficient for a prosecution.
I presume the Mueller report is also the source for your claims of obstruction of justice (there were ten allegations for events that occurred during the Trump presidency). None of the events raised are flagrant criminal obstruction of justice, and many would fall within the scope of executive power.
https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/439517-here-are-the-10-episodes-mueller-probed-for-potential-obstruction-by
“Extorting an ally for his, and said hostile foreign governments gain?” That’s too vague for me to guess what you’re referring too.
TLDR; you didn’t answer the question very well, you’ve got factual inaccuracies in your answers, and the answers you did provide don’t represent clear cases of criminal corruption.
The only way I’d get behind prosecuting Trump is if it’s a slam-dunk obvious crime with no need for protracted public investigations which can be easily politicized. Otherwise I think it sets a bad precedent, and also wastes a lot of time that would be better spent healing and moving the country in a better direction.
Of course I’m all for the states going after him.
The Washington Post is paywalled for me, and I don’t choose to evade paywalls. I cited a Vox article earlier. Going from that article, there were three allegations of false statements, none of which look like criminal perjury to me.
From that article:
"That wasn’t a call for a formal investigation into perjury. For one, the standard for perjury is high. It’s not a question of credibility or even contradictory statements, but rather proving that someone “willfully lied under oath.” To claim perjury, the prosecutor would also have to prove that the lies had direct relevance to the testimony.
Many of Kavanaugh’s comments were seen as too fuzzy to actually pursue any perjury prosecution. For example, in the case with Pryor’s nomination, Miriam Baer, a law professor with Brooklyn Law School, told Matthews that “the fact that Kavanaugh apparently was invited to a meeting (and it is unclear from the email how many other people were invited) doesn’t necessarily demonstrate that Kavanaugh’s statement was untrue, much less that he intentionally lied or misled.”
I think we can do better than that.
How about bribery and honest services fraud? The House Judiciary Committee report shows us that Trump solicited a bribe from Ukraine and Trump “knowingly and willfully orchestrated a scheme to defraud the American people of his honest services as President of the United States.”
Seems a good place to start.
Regarding Extortion: The hostile foreign government to gain would be Russia. I thought that was obvious. Russia was invading Ukraine and Trump withheld monies from them to buy defensive weapons. And, also, of course to get ‘dirt’ on Biden. Though they didn’t have to provide evidence, they just needed to say they where investigating Biden.
Sorry, I actually got a WP subscription as I got tired of being paywalled.
But, anyway your VOX article talks about the sexual assault allegations, which are pretty much impossible to prove.
What I shared was about other lies that he told in this, and in previous confirmation hearings.
And like I said, they should have been easily enough to question his appointment to the highest court on the land. He manages to tell enough half truths and implications that you can’t prove a specific lie was told with intent. It truly is one of the greatest honors and privileges to be on that court you can bestow upon a person, so it is not a punishment to deny someone for even just the appearance of impropriety.
Even outside of confirmation hearings, perjury is very rarely prosecuted as it is so hard to prove both knowledge and intent of the person who spoke falsely. But, speaking falsely, even with cover to prevent perjury from being proven, is still a pretty poor character trait. Certainly not a character trait I would want on the SCOTUS.
If he were acting as a defense attorney, I could respect the type of evasive answers that were given, and the benefit of the doubt given. But this was not a criminal interrogation, this was a job interview, where you should be open and honest with your potential future employers.
Impeachment, however, as I already stated is a much higher bar, one that I don’t think will be met.
At the same time, if more comes out that does show clear evidence that he intentionally misled congresspersons, then I do think that impeachment should still be on the table.