There’s certainly a treason statute, in addition to the definition laid out in Art III Sec 3.
So what? What specifically does that mean? Are you saying there is probable cause to believe that Trump is guilty of levying war against the United States, or in adhering to their enemies, or giving them aid and comfort?
Would you be interested in the kinds of acts the Supreme Court has held to NOT violate “aid and comfort?”
Would you like to lay out the specific case for probable cause you believe exists?
They might impeach or pressure him to resign (although I don’t know what they would use for leverage, since he doesn’t give a rat’s ass what anyone thinks), but if they do, it will be for their own reasons… something to do with the party and not (as Nixon said in his resignation speech) for “the good of the country.” Neither Trump nor Congressional Republican leaders care about the good of the country. There may be a Republican in Congress somewhere who does, but Mitch McConnell has probably had his tongue cut out.
What I said. Not every statement has to have a point or a subtle dig. There’s an edge case that, if a wide variety of things all happened to fall into place, could come into effect. I’m not seeing any realistic chance for that to occur, particularly not in the case of this new revelation. But it’s factually incorrect to state that the President is in all cases immune for sharing classified information. In a case of clear treason, he would not be.
So … did he tape this meeting, etc, etc.
Is it a car crash every week day or does it just seem that way … how the hell is Government supposed to operate.
But the proof required is staggering. “But to make treason the defendant not only must intend the act, but he must intend to betray his country by means of the act.” Quoting Cramer v. US, 325 US 1 (1945). “Treason — insidious and dangerous treason — is the work of the shrewd and crafty more often than of the simple and impulsive.” ibid.
I disagree with Bricker that evidence of a specific violation of (some sufficiently serious) criminal law is the standard that will be used.
I’m sure that such evidence will appear at the appropriate time if the political situation changes, but it won’t be the driver of impeachment. It will be coincidental.
Republican members of Congress have seen how Trump captivates the base and how much they have suffered when they stood up against him. They won’t move until his support among the base falls enough.
Trump is stupid and impulsive and terrible enough to have committed plenty of crimes while in office and before. As soon as the Republicans believe its in their interest to start looking for them, the evidence will flow.
I also don’t think this is a good way to handle impeachment, but I think it’s the most likely predictor of the future.
Not only has there work not been impeded, no effort to do so has occurred to date. With that on the record it would seem to be highly improbable to expect an impeachment to be successful on grounds of impeding an investigation.
Just because it hasn’t stopped doesn’t mean Trump didn’t try and get it to stop. Maybe he just sucks at that too. The attempt itself is possibly an attempt to obstruct justice. The obstruction doesn’t have to be successful for the attempt to have been made.
There are plenty of state criminal statutes that are not federal crimes. I could imagine a few of those to be serious enough that a hypothetical Congress would be inclined to impeach a hypothetical president should there be sufficiently compelling evidence, even absent a federal crime nexus.
Live boy, dead girl and such.
</nitpick>
As to what I think does meet the test for being the minimal activity sufficiently serious to warrant impeachment I would look at the current circumstances and, ever so slighly modifying Justice Potter Stewart’s words, “I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description; and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the [material]* involved in this case is not that.”…"
Stewart was, in the case of Jacobellis v. Ohio, famously writing about obscenity, something quite in the eye of the beholder. The minimal standard for impeachment is similarly so.
Potter wrote “motion picture”, where I would substitute simply “material”.
This. It doesn’t matter if Trumps attempt to halt the investigation is successful or not.
IMHO It was either -
a. An attempt by Trump to shut down the investigation not knowing that that is not the way things work.
b. An attempt by Trump to intimidate others by firing Comey.
c. Just another half assed move by Trump in a pique of anger.
No way to really prove a. or b. But sheese, how many excuses are to be made for him? Both should be impeachable IMHO. But as has been said, it’s up to congress to decide what is an impeachable offence. If it’s concluded that it’s c., then article 25.
Regarding “whether the report is true” or not, H.R. McMaster said “The story that came out tonight, as reported, is false.” I’m sure everyone will take that to mean different things.