The politics, partisanship, timing, and optics of impeachment are irrelevant.

Photo by Jon Tyson on Unsplash

Article II Section 4 of the Constitution reads as follows:

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

First, we should consider the Framers’ Intent. The fact that ‘misdemeanors’ have been included in the list of crimes for which the President may be removed from office indicates that removal from office was not supposed to be a ‘high bar.’ The President was expected to be held to high standards as he or she should be.

Article 1 § 8 of the Articles of Impeachment against Nixon was for ‘lying to the American people.’ You can read Nixon’s Articles of Impeachment on the Quartz website. There is no statute that says you cannot lie to the American people, yet it can be a reason for impeachment.

When the Constitution was written, there was no United States Code because there had been no federal government. We only had the laws of the states. Therefore, if we rely on framers’ intent, we cannot know how they defined a law simply by what the US Code says today. We have to consider what the framers intended had they existed within the context of the modern world. If they truly understood the significance of a cyberattack, would the framers have considered it war? Unfortunately, few Americans fully appreciate the danger of a cyberattack by a malicious nation.

Consider the following credible allegations of Treason, Bribery, and High Crimes against Trump.

Treason, Bribery, and High Crimes Committed by Trump

Treason

In the case of treason, the term is defined in the Constitution at Article III Section 3 Item 1 as follows:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The United States Code also defines treason at 18 U.S. Code § 2381 reads as follows:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

One can be guilty of treason only if they aid an enemy during a time of war. What does ‘time of war’ mean? Does that mean treason can only occur when the United States has declared war on the enemy? On December 7, 1941, we had not declared war on Japan, but we were attacked. If treason can only be applied during a time of a declared war, any American who aided the Japanese attack on that day could not be guilty of treason. This seems unreasonable.

Consider another hypothetical: What if an American had knowingly and willingly aided the 9/11 hijackers in their attacks; would this be treason? We never formally declared war on these terrorists. These terrorists did attack America with a ferocity not seen since 1812. More people died on 9/11 than during the Pearl Harbor attack.

Laurence Tribe, of the Harvard Law School, is the foremost Constitutional scholar in our country. He was the Constitutional Professor for almost half of the current Justices on the United States Supreme Court. Professor Tribe wrote the Constitutional Law treatise that almost every law student in America studies. As an aside, he was my Constitutional Law Professor’s Professor. Here is what Professor Tribe told Newsweek about Treason and Trump:

If one defines war to include cyberwar — e.g., by deliberately hacking into a nation’s computer-based election infrastructure — then what we witnessed in Helsinki was President Trump openly aiding and abetting the Russian military’s ongoing war against America rather than protecting against that Putin-led cyber-invasion.

The particular act that Professor Tribe refers to is the easiest to prove, but it is the smallest act. Upon thorough and unobstructed investigation, reasonable proof (with two the required two witnesses) could be discovered that shows that Trump along with his campaign knowingly aided the Russian cyber-attack on America. The date of the aforementioned statement by Professor Tribe was July 17, 2018. The Mueller Report was not released until April of 2019. The Mueller report included a finding that Paul Manafort, Trump’s Campaign Chairman, shared campaign data with known Russian intelligence agents regarding the key states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Wisconsin. See page 148 of the PDF (140 by report numbering) of the Mueller Report at this link.

Bribery

Article 1 Section 9 Item 8 of the Constitution reads as follows:

And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.

This Emoluments Clause does not require a quid pro quo relationship. It requires only the mere acceptance of a ‘present’ or ‘emolument.’ Merriam-Webster defines ‘emolument’ as the returns arising from office or employment usually in the form of compensation or perquisites. Alexander Hamilton in Federalist №22 wrote, ‘One of the weak sides of republics, among their numerous advantages, is that they afford too easy an inlet to foreign corruption.” Therefore, to counter this “foreign corruption” the delegates at the Constitutional Convention worded the clause in such a way as to act as a catch-all for any attempts by foreign governments to influence state or municipal policies through gifts or titles.’ Do not be confused by the reference to ‘state or municipal’ here. Hamilton was referring to the central government (federal) government as well.

I am not going to go into the current emoluments suits pending in the courts. I am not going to consider the story on Trump aids sharing a speech with UAE, though that matter shows that Trump wanted to make sure he wanted to ‘please’ the government of the UAE while he was a candidate. See Trump Adviser in 2016 Gave Draft of Energy Speech to UAE for Edits from The Week for more on the Trump campaign’s questionable interactions with the UAE.

To investigate all of Trump’s alleged misdeeds takes a substantial portion of the resources of the entire United States government. It is far beyond one writer to cover all these issues. One has to wonder if our government is having to use so much of its resources to investigate Trump, that we are leaving ourselves open to other attacks. Trump’s obstruction is making investigations and legal proceedings very difficult. Furthermore, he is using the government’s own resources to maintain this obstruction.

I will concentrate on this one issue: Trump received an emolument in the form the Russian government’s help in the 2016 election. Trump asked for help (Russia if you’re listening). See this video from YouTube. Trump’s son, son-in-law, and campaign manager were very interested in Russian help (Trump Tower meeting). Vladimir Putin said he wanted Trump to win the election and possibly said he directed his people to help Trump. He did answer yes twice to the two questions (Helsinki press conference). Trump says he would take Russian help in the 2020 election. See Trump Is Assailed for Saying He Would Take Campaign Help From Russia from the New York Times. Michael Flynn, during the transition, asked the Russian Ambassador to not overreact to Obama’s sanctions because the matter would be reviewed as soon as Trump was sworn in. See National security adviser Flynn discussed sanctions with Russian ambassador, despite denials, officials say from the Washington Post. Did Trump plan to remove all sanctions that President Obama had put on Russia? Was that going to be Trump’s way of paying the Russians for their help?

At this point, we are going past the emoluments clause and into the bribery statutes. 18 U.S. Code § 201(a)(1) reads as follows:

(a)For the purpose of this section — (1) the term “public official” means Member of Congress, Delegate, or Resident Commissioner, either before or after such official has qualified, or an officer or employee or person acting for or on behalf of the United States, or any department, agency or branch of Government thereof, including the District of Columbia, in any official function, under or by authority of any such department, agency, or branch of Government, or a juror;

This description does not explicitly include the President. However, the definition of a public official would include the President. The part I find most interesting here is the clause that reads ‘either before or after such official has qualified.’ In other words, for an elected official, this statute would apply either before or after elected. Presumably, this means during the ‘election process, after elected but before taking office, and after taking office.

Next, look at 18 U.S. Code § 201(b)(2) which reads as follows:

whoever being a public official or person selected to be a public official, directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally or for any other person or entity, in return for: (A) being influenced in the performance of any official act; (B) being influenced to commit or aid in committing, or to collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud, on the United States; or (C) being induced to do or omit to do any act in violation of the official duty of such official or person;

As an aside, I will note that the word ‘collude’ is used here. I thought ‘collusion is not a crime’ is one of the Republican talking points. That is as silly as saying ‘killing’ is not a crime. Whether ‘killing’ is a crime depends on what is being killed and under what circumstances it occurred. Similarly, ‘collusion’ is not a part of a crime (except within the anti-trust sections) unless one is ‘colluding’ or ‘conspiring’ to commit some illegal act.

Now, focus on ‘directly or indirectly, corruptly demands, seeks, receives, accepts, or agrees to receive or accept anything of value personally.’ Trump seeks (Russia if you are listening and Trump says he would welcome Russian help again ), Trump receives (help in the campaign), Trump accepts or agrees to receive (Trump says he would welcome Russian help again), and anything of value (help with the campaign).

Now, look at item (A) which reads as, ‘being influenced in the performance of any official act.’ This goes back to the Flynn message of help on sanctions. At this point, we have Treason and Bribery. Is there anything else? Yes.

Consider that Trump had a meeting in the Oval Office with the Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Ambassador Sergey Kislyak where he shared classified intelligence provided by a US ally with the Russians. The allied country had not authorized the sharing of this intelligence with the Russians. See Trump Revealed Highly Classified Intelligence to Russia, in Break With Ally, Officials Say for the New York Times. No American press was not allowed into this meeting. See Trump’s meeting with Russians closed to U.S. media, but not to TASS photographer from USA Today. Consider that Trump bragged to the Russians about firing FBI Director James Comey, saying ‘I just fired the head of the F.B.I. He was crazy, a real nut job. I faced great pressure because of Russia. That’s taken off.’ See Trump Told Russians That Firing ‘Nut Job’ Comey Eased Pressure From Investigation from the New York Times.

Trump showed that he is more interested in pleasing the Russians and getting rid of any investigations into his connections with the Russians as opposed to having an unobstructed investigation that could have exonerated him. Clearly, Trump is hiding something. Any American who is avoiding the obvious question of ‘How much other classified information has this President shared with our adversaries’ is clearly in a state of denial. We cannot ‘wish away’ the fact that this President may have severely weakened our national security by sharing other information with enemies of our nation. It is amazing that we know about the incident above. The question is how much do we not know? It is incredibly unpatriotic for an American not to be giving serious consideration to these questions about Trump. Anyone who puts the economy above this issue is, in essence, saying, as long as I am in good financial position, I do not care if Trump is the 21st Century Benedict Arnold. Would such a Trump supporter not be selling their country for their own prosperity? At least Benedict Arnold fought bravely for our nation before he switched sides. What has Trump ever done for our nation?

Other High Crimes

By ‘high crimes’, due to the fact that it is listed in conjunction with non-felonious crimes (misdemeanors), I am going to assume the framers meant felonies. Trump’s personal attorney plead guilty to a felony campaign finance violation. The FBI says that Trump was actively involved in this scheme to pay off a porn star not to tell her story to the press. See FBI tied Donald Trump and top aides to 2016 effort to silence a porn star, new court files show from USA Today. At least this is just a regular felony, not treason, but it is still a ‘high crime’ that would have gotten any other President impeached. In the case of Trump, he has a political party that is shielding him from justice. The Republican Party is essentially saying that it is alright to have a President that is a criminal as long as he is a Republican. Hence, the Republican Party is aiding and abetting a criminal. They have no intention of being an impartial jury as required by the Constitution. The Republicans from the past would not have gone to such partisan lengths to protect a President against the best interests of the country.

The Timing of Impeachment

With the pace at which things are moving through the House, it could be that we do not have a trial in the Senate until the Summer of 2020. Many say that this would be too close to the election. BULL! Had Trump and the Republicans wanted such a trial to occur earlier, they could have stopped the obstruction and started cooperating with the investigation. The Democrats in Congress are having to go to court for everything. This is a clear obstruction of justice in plain sight.

Mitch McConnell, now known as ‘Moscow Mitch,’ may well not allow an impeachment trial in the Senate. Article II Section 3 Item 6 of the Constitution reads as follows:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present

The language implies that all impeachments are to be tried. If the House impeaches, then the Senate must try the case. Yet, the legal term of art ‘shall’ is missing. The first sentence does not say that the Senate shall try the case, it just says the Senate shall have the sole Power to try all impeachments. Any other Senator from the past would interpret this to mean that the Senate has no choice but to try the case when the House has impeached a government official. McConnel is not ‘any other senator.’

Though the case may have a weaker ‘shall,’ McConnell has already refused to follow Article II Section 2 Item 2 of the Constitution. The aforementioned item reads as follows ‘He shall have Power … and he shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate … Judges of the Supreme Court.’ McConnell refused to have confirmation hearings for Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama’s appointment to the United States Supreme Court. The pronoun ‘he’ in the aforementioned passage refers to the President. The conjunction ‘and’ is a logical term meaning that both sides of the conjunction must be met. The failure to hold hearings means that the ‘advice’ requirement was not met. The Constitution does not say that one Senator can give the ‘advice.’ The Constitution says that the Senate must give the advice. The only way the Senate can give ‘advice’ is to hold hearings.

If McConnell would engage in such a flagrant violation of the Constitution as to refuse to hold confirmation hearings, he will certainly use the excuse of being too near the elections to hold a Senate trial for impeachment. If the impeachment hearings in the House provide the expected evidence of wrongdoing by the President (the Mueller Report is enough in my opinion), then the Democrats need to push it on the Senate anyway. At that point, if McConnell chooses to violate the Constitution again, hopefully, there will be enough patriotic voters in Kentucky to remove McConnell. I will save a further examination of all of McConnell’s misdeeds for another story. There are a few very good reasons that the nickname ‘Moscow Mitch’ is sticking to McConnell. For now, suffice it to say, that though McConnell is a distant second to Trump, McConnell is the second most unpatriotic politician on the federal level in American history since the Civil War. Only those that took up arms against our nation during the Civil War exceed the treachery of McConnell.

The Republicans that will say such an impeachment trial would be too close to the election are the same Republicans that continued to investigate Hillary for ‘Benghazi’ until after the 2016 election. Did anyone ever figure out what the Benghazi investigation was about? No prosecutor would have ever brought such a case in criminal courts. In the matter of Benghazi, the Republicans had no case and the Republicans knew it. Yet, the Republicans persisted and they did it for one reason — political gain.

A Comparison of the Reasons for Impeachment of Trump to Other Presidents That Have Faced Impeachment

Andrew Johnson was impeached and came within one vote of being removed from office during the Senate trial. What was he accused of? He violated a few laws passed by Congress. He made three speeches with the intent to ‘attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States.’ Trump makes such speeches or tweets almost daily about Congress, some other government official, members of another political party, or the Federal Reserve Board. Lastly, Johnson was accused of ‘Bringing disgrace and ridicule to the presidency by his aforementioned words and actions. Johnson was certainly subjected to higher standards than Trump.

Richard Nixon was accused of involvement with a break-in of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee at the Watergate Complex. He was accused of other abuses of power, including obstruction of justice. Nixon left office before impeachment.

Bill Clinton was accused of obstructing justice in relation to affairs he had with some women. Is that it? Going back to the founders, we have had many Presidents that had extramarital affairs. We never impeached anyone for those affairs in the past. We never investigated a President’s affairs in the past. Do not get me wrong, I take a very strict outlook on those who engage in extramarital affairs. I would not vote for Bill Clinton again. However, it is not the business of the government of the United States to be investigating an office holder’s marital infidelities. Adultery is not treason, bribery, high crimes or misdemeanors. Adultery is fair game for the press and for political opponents to investigate during campaigns as this provides a way for the voters to judge a candidate’s character. It is not a reason for impeachment.

In the case of Donald Trump, we are talking about working with a foreign power to subvert the American electoral process. Trump has made every effort to obstruct any investigation into these matters. Trump has not only failed to take action to prevent future foreign election interference, but he has also said he would welcome Russian help with the 2020 election. What does Trump owe the ‘foreign power’ in return? What has he already given the Russians that the public does not know about? The credible allegations in the case of Trump as compared to the allegations of the previous impeachments are what a nuclear bomb is to a firecracker. Anyone who cannot see this is blind. To turn and look away in an attempt to deny the obvious is to condone some of the most unpatriotic behavior in American history. To those Trump supporters who take comfort in denying the obvious because they are surrounded by others who similarly deny, I can assure you, that there will come a day when the truth is known. When that day comes, those Trump supporters and their friends will deny that they were ever Trump supporters. It would be better to face reality now.

Conclusion

Some, on the extreme right-wing like to say that the ‘Trump-haters’ could not get Trump on this, so now they are bringing up some new accusations against him. This is similar to the way that those supporting John Gotti argued that the government could not get Gotti on one thing so they brought new allegations against him. The fact is, that we never convicted Gotti of all his crimes. Similarly, we will never convict Trump of all his crimes. Trump has yet to face impeachment on any of the allegations against him. Trump has yet to face trial on any of the allegations against him. Trump has not been exonerated by any of the investigations against him. Some of his accomplices are already in jail. Trump has continuously delayed his day of reckoning. Someday, Trump will face justice and it will not go well for him. Our long national nightmare will not be over then. Only after Trump is removed from the office of President can America begin the hard work of repairing itself from the wounds it has incurred due to the misdeeds of this President. Hopefully, America can arise from its weakened state and once again become as great as it was before Trump took office.