• Home
  • Mission of This Site
  • Contact

Impeachable Offenses?

~ The Use & Abuse of Impeachment in the 21st Century

Impeachable Offenses?

Tag Archives: president

Suing Trump over Free Speech Violations

29 Wednesday Aug 2018

Posted by crosbysamuel in Uncategorized

≈ 3 Comments

Tags

first amendment, first amendment violation, Impeachment, manhattan, naomi reice buchwald, president, sonja r. west, suit, trump, twitter, unblocked, university of georgia school of law, users

It was reported today that Donald Trump unblocked several more Twitter accounts pursuant to a ruling from May 23rd. U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald in Manhattan held that government official’s twitter accounts were public forums and that blocking users based on their political beliefs was a violation of their first amendment rights. Sonja R. West, of the University of Georgia School of Law, offers a more in depth analysis of the intricacies of bringing a first amendment lawsuit against the President in her article entitled Suing the President for First Amendment Violations. Though she expresses some doubt about the capacity of one to sue the President for first amendment violations, West concludes: “courts should take into account the potential damage to our public debate if the President cannot be held accountable for violating the expressive rights of the people.” It would seem that Judge Buchwald agreed.

trump-on-phone.pngTheHustle.co

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
Like Loading...

The Consequences of Pardoning Manafort

18 Saturday Aug 2018

Posted by crosbysamuel in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

18 U.S.C. 1510, bribe, campaign, Collusion, deliberations, Election, Impeachment, interference, jury, Manafort, manager, Mueller, pardon, president, russia, trial, trump, ukraine

Today marked the second day of jury deliberations for the trial of Paul Manafort, the former Trump campaign manager. Manafort is being tried for 18 criminal charges for bank and tax fraud related to the time he spent working for a Ukrainian political party. Manafort refused to cooperate with the Mueller investigation, and it has been theorized that this decision was based on a belief that President Trump would pardon him if he were convicted.

Whether Trump will pardon Manafort is unknown; however he has used his pardon power politically in the past, and his former lawyer, John Down, apparently broached the subject of a possible pardon with Manafort’s lawyers. When asked whether he would consider pardoning Manafort, the President refused to say, but did comment that  “the whole . . .  trial is very sad.”

In an article written for the American Constitutional Society, entitled Why President Trump Can’t Pardon His Way Out of the Special Counsel and Cohen Investigations, Noah Bookbinder, Norman Eisen, Caroline Fredrickson, and Conor Shaw write that “a prospective pardon of a witness in the Russia investigation might . . . constitute an obstruction of a criminal investigation . . . .” They are referring to section 1510 of title 18 of the the United States Code, which makes the “[willful endeavoring], by means of bribery to obstruct, delay, or prevent the communication of information relating to a violation of any criminal statute of the United States by any person to a criminal investigator” a federal crime. If President Trump did, directly or indirectly, promise Manafort a pardon in exchange for his refusal to cooperate with Mueller, then he may not only be subject to criminal indictment but yet another article of impeachment as well.

5b3f9a219e2a102f008b47ed-750-375.jpgDrew Angerer/Getty Images

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
Like Loading...

Trump and Stone can’t be Sued in D.C.

04 Wednesday Jul 2018

Posted by crosbysamuel in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

agent, campaign, Collusion, Conspiracy, D.C., democratic national convention, dismissed, DNC, elleb, Emails, hacked, huvelle, judge, lawsuit, personal jurisdiction, president, roger stone, Russian, suit, trump, venue, washington, wikileaks

U.S. District Court Judge Ellen Huvelle, of Washington, D.C., decided yesterday that her court lacks personal jurisdiction, or alternatively that it constitutes improper venue, to entertain a suit brought against the Trump Campaign and Roger Stone by members of the Democratic National Convention (“DNC”). The suit alleged that Stone and the Campaign conspired with unidentified Russian Agents and Wikileaks to hack the DNC’s emails, a tort amounting to conspiracy to violate their privacy rights, to inflict emotional harm,  and to  interfere with their right to support the candidate of their choice. The judge ruled that D.C. lacked sufficient contacts with the allegations to make it a viable place for suit, but avoided making any ruling on the sufficiency of the Plaintiff’s evidence.

So what’s this result mean? We keep holding our breath, while hoping they can find a place to bring their suit. Should these Plaintiffs manage to find a court willing to entertain their action, then they will be able to bring the power of liberal civil discovery procedure against the Trump campaign, and perhaps expedite the collusion investigation. Fingers crossed. Interested readers can find the opinion here.

BCWin17_F_Huvelle_Slide2-690x414.jpgJudge Ellen Huvelle, Picture taken from lawmagazine.bc.edu

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
Like Loading...

The Travel Ban, Constitutionality, and Impeachment

28 Thursday Jun 2018

Posted by crosbysamuel in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Articles, ban, Congress, Green, Impeachment, muslim, president, Representative, resolution, roberts, sotomayor, supreme court, travel, trump

The Supreme Court held, yesterday, that the Trump Administration’s travel ban had “sufficient national security justification to survive a rational basis review,” and that therefore it would reverse the preliminary injunction granted by the District Court. This is an indication that the travel ban is constitutional, and allows it to go forth unhindered, at least for the time being. Because the travel ban has been cited in at least Representative Green’s impeachment resolution as evidence of the President’s “bigotry,” one might wonder what effect this decision will have on the President’s chances of impeachment.

While it could be argued that the Supreme Court decision could set some, perhaps ethereal, precedent, it is still Congress that decides whether the President will be removed. And while the Supreme Court’s decision could in some way be construed as an endorsement of the executive order, so too can Justice Sotomayor’s dissent remind Congress of the reason the travel ban was cited as an impeachable offense in the first place:  “[the] appearance of discrimination that the President’s words have created.” Though Trump’s “muslim ban,” may have been rolled back enough to be constitutional, it can still evidence the  President’s bigotry, and therefore could still contribute to his impeachment.

ap_18115517534302_custom-de2433708c26b21f70c27b24fa1da4764a5b7a5d-s1600-c85.jpgAndrew Harnik/AP

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
Like Loading...

The G-7 plus 1?

09 Saturday Jun 2018

Posted by crosbysamuel in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

annual, canada, Collusion, economic policy, france, G-7, G-8, germany, impeach, Impeachment, italy, japan, Meeting, president, Putin, russia, summit, the united kingdom, trump, united states

President Trump, at the annual summit meeting, suggested that Russia be readmitted into the G-7, the group of 7 nations (Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom, and the United States) which meet to discuss world-economic policy. Russia was ousted from the then G-8 in 2014 for seizing parts of the Ukraine. Trump defended his suggestion, stating as follows:

“You know, whether you like it or not — and it may not be politically correct — but we have a world to run. And in the G-7, which used to be the G-8, they threw Russia out. They should let Russia come back in. Because we should have Russia at the negotiating table.”

President Trump acted antagonistically at the summit meeting, rendering himself an outsider, and causing some to refer to it as “G-6 plus 1.”  For some this is a cause of concern: Trump treating allies as enemies and enemies as allies. And it could further bolster the theory that there was and is collusion going on between Russia and Trump; however, it is unclear that that rejoining the G-8 is actually on Putin’s agenda. In response to the news, the Kremlin spokesman, Dmitri S. Peskov, said that “we are putting emphasis on different formats,” insinuating that Russia is not particularly interested in rejoining the G-7. Russian officials made similar comments in 2014 when they were removed: Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said that Russia was “not attached to this format and we don’t see a great misfortune if it will not gather.” So if Trump is acting on behalf of Russia, it is the result of some very coy maneuvering. Regardless of the reason for his stance, however, it betrays more of the same peculiar friendless we have seen since the beginning of Trump’s presidency. We will find out exactly what it means in due time.

g7-summit-trump-may-merkel-macron-809690.jpgexpress.co.uk

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
Like Loading...

Trump won’t be Indicted

17 Thursday May 2018

Posted by crosbysamuel in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

Congress, Impeachment, indicment, investigation, Mueller, president, report, rudolph giuliani, trump

Rudolph Giuliani claims that he has it on good authority that Mueller will not indict President Trump; and the Washington Post says that there is good reason to believe him, because the Justice Department guidelines say that he can’t.  This question has been examined by Professor Frank Bowman on this blog; and he pointed out that the question, as far as Mueller goes, is not whether an indictment will occur, but whether Mueller will recommend that Trump be indicted. Bowman proposed that this recommendation may come in two forms; that Trump be indicted after his presidency, or that he be indicted immediately. The latter recommendation, even if doomed to fail, will potentially have the same effect as the former recommendation: Mueller’s report will reach Congress and lead to impeachment.

180503095830-01-rudy-giuliani-file-exlarge-169.jpgCarolyn Kaster, AP

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
Like Loading...

Pres. Trump Hiding his Health

03 Thursday May 2018

Posted by crosbysamuel in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

25, amendment, articles of impeachment, dishonesty, doctor, fitness, hair loss, harold bornstien, impeach, lie, mental, pervasive, president, raid, removal, remove, trump, unfitness

Trump’s former doctor, Harold Bornstein, claims that a 2015 statement about the  President’s health, which was then attributed to Bornstein, was in fact written by Trump himself. For those who don’t recall, a passage from the “Doctor’s letter” which received special attention went as follows: “[h]is physical strength and stamina are extraordinary. If elected, Mr. Trump, I can state unequivocally, will be the healthiest individual ever elected to the presidency.” Bornstein went on to say that, after he let it slip that Trump took a hair-loss medication, three men from Trump’s office, a group which included Alan Garten, a lawyer, and Keith Schiller, former director of Oval Office  operations, came to his office and took Trump’s medical records in a “raid”-like fashion.

Trump’s actions have been described as totalitarian, and one opinion summarizes his concern over the news as follows: “[d]oes he have a condition or problem that will shorten his life or impair his ability to do the job?” The problem with Trump’s attempts to hide his medical history can be divided into two issues: 1) his fitness to serve, and 2) a trend of dishonesty.

There has been some speculation about the use of the 25th amendment to remove Trump for mental or physical unfitness.  One might argue that if Trump is trying to hide some serious health issues, that might increase the likelihood of his removal; however, Trump is hardly the first president to have and hide health issues. President Franklin Delano Roosevelt  concealed the true extent of his polio-caused paralysis throughout his political career, and kept his increasing heart problems carefully under wraps during his third and fourth terms. President Wilson suffered from a severe stroke while in office which his wife and doctor hid from the public, and President Kennedy, though “famous for having a bad back,” successfully hid “other illnesses, including persistent digestive problems and Addison’s disease, a life-threatening lack of adrenal function.”

What may distinguish Mr. Trump’s blatant falsification of his medical history from the concealment practiced by some of his predecessors is the degree to which this incident is part of a larger pattern of lying.

The topic of President Trump’s pervasive falsehoods has been explored thoroughly on this blog. Should congress choose to pursue impeachment on that basis, Trump’s efforts to hide his health may constitute another avenue of inquiry.

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
Like Loading...

Justices Signal that Revised Travel Ban is Constitutional

26 Thursday Apr 2018

Posted by crosbysamuel in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ 1 Comment

Tags

al, ban, Green, Impeachment, iran, muslim, oral argument, president, roberts, supreme court, The House of Representatives, travel, trump

Oral arguments over the Trump Administration’s new travel ban occurred yesterday in front  of the Supreme Court. The conservative justices of the Court signaled that they believed the revised ban to be a constitutional exercise of executive power done in pursuit of national security. Significantly, Chief Justice Roberts indicated that President Trump’s statements detailing an intention to implement a “Muslim-ban” would likely not be considered in determining the order’s constitutionality.

If the Supreme Court ultimately confirms that the revised travel ban is constitutional despite Trump’s statements, it may have a negative effect on future impeachment proceedings. Representative Al Green’s impeachment resolution cited President Trump’s travel ban as one reason he should be impeached. Though an act may be both constitutional and worthy of impeachment, as they have far different standards, the Supreme Court decision could still set a precedent. It may act as an endorsement of sorts.

A3C0CAC7-5D5B-4C82-8E01-AB1360326948_cx0_cy7_cw0_w1023_r1_s.jpgV. Macchi/VOA

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
Like Loading...

Executive Lies and How to Handle Them

29 Thursday Mar 2018

Posted by crosbysamuel in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

executive, houston law review, impeach, lie, lies, national, president, security, trump, tung yin

National Security Lies, written by Tung Yin, and published in the Spring 2018 edition of the Houston Law Review, is  an article which reviews the types of lies which have been told by officials of the Executive Branch, and explores what remedies are available in light of such lies. This article is especially relevant in light of what our current President views as ‘alternative facts.’ Below is the article’s abstract:

What legal consequences, if any, exist (or ought to exist) when the President or other Executive Branch officials mislead, dissemble, or outright lie and then, when exposed, justify the deceit in the name of national security? This is a complicated question to answer, because some lies (such as those by the Carter Administration to deny the existence of a rescue mission on the eve of the ill-fated Operation Eagle Claw) are so naturally understandable, while others (such as the false stories surrounding the capture of Private Jessica Lynch in Iraq and the killing of Sgt. Pat Tillman in Afghanistan) seem to have been issued for less defensible reasons.

This article categorizes a number of notable national security lies in American history, examines the seductive appeal of national security lies for executive branch officials to explain why such lies may seem like better options than saying nothing, explains the harms caused by national security lies, and analyzes the likely reasons that national security lies generally incur no sanctions (criminal or otherwise). Finally, the article proposes a model for regulating national security lies that draws from the statutes governing the related areas of covert actions, classification of information, and invocation of state secrets to block litigation.

Trump-SOTU-2018-rtr-img.jpgReuters / Win McNamee / Pool

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
Like Loading...

Trump Claims Obama Acquiesced in Face of Russian Interference

21 Wednesday Feb 2018

Posted by crosbysamuel in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

attorney general, Conspiracy, Election, hackers, impeach, Impeachment, interference, Jeff Sessions, obama, Obstruction of Justice, Politics, president, russia, Russian, trump, twitter

In response to the indictment of a group of Russians for meddling with the 2016 presidential election, Trump seems to have asked why Attorney General Jeff Sessions has not investigated the crimes of President Obama, because the meddling happened during the Obama administration, and “. . . . [he] [didn’t] do something about [it].” The allegation came in the form of a tweet, which read:

Question: If all of the Russian meddling took place during the Obama Administration, right up to January 20th, why aren’t they the subject of the investigation? Why didn’t Obama do something about the meddling? Why aren’t Dem crimes under investigation? Ask Jeff Sessions!

Trump’s question as to why Jeff Sessions, the Attorney General, is not investigating the Obama Administration and the the crimes of the Democrats, reads as an allegation of criminal conduct. The fact that he sandwiched Obama’s lack of action in the middle of his question further suggests that President Obama, by virtue of his inaction, is guilty of a crime. If that analysis is correct, the President is suggesting that acquiescence in the face of a complete conspiracy is criminal conduct. There is some argument to made here (though a very poor one). Section 3 of Title 18 of the United States Code says that “whoever, knowing that an offense against the United States has been committed, receives, relieves, comforts or assists the offender in order to hinder or prevent his apprehension, trial or punishment, is an accessory after the fact.” This crime, though arguably the most relevant to Trump’s allegation, is a very bad fit. One would have to believe that Obama, in not speaking out harshly enough against the Russian meddlers, relieved, comforted, or assisted them to prevent their prosecution. One might argue that if Obama were to impose no sanctions on Russia he may in some way be preventing its “punishment.” Still, that would be a very abstract argument, because if President Obama had decided not to sanction the Russians, there would be no punishment to prevent. This argument is still more outrageous, in light of the fact that Obama DID sanction Russia for election meddling in the last two years of his administration.

All that being said, I think it is far from accurate to suggest that a less-than-fierce reaction to Russian election interference could be considered criminal. However, if it could, Trump would have something far worse to fear than President Obama — President Trump himself has yet to impose the Russian sanctions passed by Congress last year. Despite all this analysis, I doubt Trump meant to make a serious accusation. Rather he continues to try and distract the American people by pointing fingers away from himself.

f63d3fa9e9b34571ca1b4b11f5a8598b.jpgJim Watson/AFP/Getty Images

 

Share this:

  • Click to share on X (Opens in new window) X
  • Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window) Facebook
Like Loading...
← Older posts
Newer posts →

Blog Owner

Frank O. Bowman, III


Curators' Distinguished Professor Emeritus
Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Prof of Law Emeritus
Univ of Missouri School of Law

Web Profile

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Professor Bowman on Impeachment »

Bibliographies

Explore bibliographies categorized by author and subject, and find other resources.

Posts by Topic

  • The Case for Impeachment
  • Defining Impeachable Conduct
  • Impeachment on Foreign Policy Grounds
  • Impeachment for Unfitness
  • Obstruction of Justice
  • Abuse of Criminal Investigative Authority
  • Election Law Violations
  • Foreign Emoluments
  • Conspiracy to Defraud the   United States
  • Politics of Impeachment
  • Lying as an Impeachable Offense
  • Abuse of Pardon Power
  • Electoral College
  • House Impeachment Resolutions
  • The Logan Act
  • The Mueller Investigation
  • Impeachment of Missouri Governor Greitens
  • Historical Precedent for Impeachment
  • Messages from Professor Bowman

Student Contributors »

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Blog at WordPress.com.

  • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Impeachable Offenses?
    • Join 199 other subscribers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Impeachable Offenses?
    • Subscribe Subscribed
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d