Spiro Agnew’s actions for which he was accused occurred before he became Vice President. Was there talk of impeachment for him then? I don’t remember.
Agnew requested that the House start impeachment proceedings (hoping to clear his name) but was denied by the Speaker.
Pressure may be brought to bear on Trump’s sister Maryanne, an inactive federal judge:
…So it’s possible that the first Trump to be impeached won’t be Donald.
Do you have a cite about the erstwhile or current definition of “high crime?”
Back in seventh grade (in a USAian school, to be sure, but it WAS a private school), when I was introduced to the term, I was told that it was an alternative term for “felony.” The impression I came away with was that a “high crime” could be committed by anyone.
Not meaning to call you out; I’m merely asking for justification to discard a cherished belief from my childhood.
Agnew did apparently take the position that a sitting Vice President could not be indicted. He is also reported to have requested that Carl Albert, then Speaker of the House, initiate an investigation (since Albert was right behind Agnew in the line of Presidential succession, one supposes that this could have the appearance of being self-serving), which Albert declined to do.
The question of Vice Presidential indictment validity aside, it did not stop the presentment of a criminal charge, to which Agnew pleaded no contest forty-four years and fifty-one weeks ago today.
I am killing myself that I cannot find it now but earlier today I saw something where Susanne Craig (one of the reporters who worked on this) said it was “beyond hard” to piece together what they did.
NYT employees are motivated. IRS employees are not.
As I understand it, the word “high” in “high crimes and misdemeanors” affects both nouns, “crimes” and “misdemeanors”. That means we are talking about a “higher” level of seriousness, more than an individual crime because the subject is in a position of trust and power. What might be a relatively trivial matter for an ordinary guy is a “high misdemeanor” for a President, and demands more serious concern.
Also, by this wording, they cover things that might not be strictly illegal, but are nonetheless a breach of public trust.
Thus, had Trump ever done any such thing, he might be impeached. Anyway, that’s the theory.
That or, as Bricker and others have pointed out here many times, the president can be impeached for any damn thing thing House wants because there is no real definition of what constitutes a “high crime or misdemeanor” and there is no one to appeal to if you think they got it wrong.
As a political matter they will generally need more than saying they do not like his haircut but as a legal matter they can impeach because they do not like his haircut.
The Republican party is seriously just going to try to ignore this. I shouldn’t be surprised, but I am.
Consider all the things about Trump they have already ignored. At this point I would be surprised if they didn’t ignore something he did.
His supporters probably chalk this up to him being smart for not paying the evil taxman cuz screw the taxman!
When Trump steps down as president, probably after the 2020 election, then the shit will hit the fan. I won’t be surprised if he spends the rest of his life in prison.
Repeating the question. Does any here know? Maybe I should start a new thread, but knowing the answer to this seems very pertinent to the topic at hand.
I am not anything in any like a lawyer, but I expect that the president could not forgive what is owed to the government, but he could pardon anyone charged with any criminal consequences for not paying.
Right, but are IRS fines criminal?
Whether Trump is liable for this money or impeachable for tax evasion almost seems beside the point. IMO the big news here is that Mueller now has a much better picture of the motive connecting Trump’s campaign with Russian interference. As with Watergate, follow the money – and here’s a whole stinking pile of it.
Well, I’m hoping for the trifecta of removal from office, impoverishment, and lifetime of jail.
Just answering questions by quoting myself. No need to pay attention to me, ever. Do people want more explanations, or am I just shadowbanned?
Ok, i guess the question is if he can pardon himself out of back taxes. No, of course not. Back taxes are not crimes. Evading taxes is the crime, and serving a sentence for that is completely separate from paying what you owe.
My question is whether a President can pardon non-criminal fines levied by the IRS. That is, under what conditions do or do not IRS fines constitute a pardonable “offense against the United States”?
I’m not worried that much about what he does about his federal taxes because New York is going after his state taxes. Even if Kavanaugh is confirmed and the court this session rules that pursuing state AND federal charges separately are, in effect, double jeopardy, it’ll be New York state law violations that are not congruent with Federal Tax Code violations.