Tags
Conspiracy, denial, dishonest, donald trump, finland, impeach, Impeachment, interpreter, investigation, lies, lying, Mueller, president, public trust, Putin, russia, russian collusion, vladmir putin
President Trump today denied that he has worked for Russia in what has been described as his “most direct response” to the accusations of collusion. This denial came in the wake of a report that after a meeting he had with Russian President Vladmir Putin last summer in Finland, Trump took their interpreter’s notes and instructed him not to discuss the meeting with any other officials.
One theory is of course that Trump did work for, or at least with, Russia, which if true means that what he said today was a lie. Which begs the question, what consequences may come to a President for lying to the public? Professor Bowman has written at length on this subject, and his writings can be found here. However, in the way of summary, Prof. Bowman noted three kinds of lies which he believes could warrant impeachment: criminally indictable falsehoods, unindictable official falsehoods, and chronic or pervasive falsehoods. The lie at hand is neither indictable or official, as it was not given under oath and is not a communication with Congress. However, the lie could fit in the third category if added to the pool of President Trump’s many other falsehoods, which, in aggregate, Bowman has suggested, are potentially impeachable. He wrote: “chronic presidential lies do not merely render the president himself ineffectual, but also damage every other branch and function of American government.” In essence, Trump’s constant lies are one of the things which make him unfit. For an in-depth analysis of this novel idea, the reader should check out Bowman’s article, which can be found here.
Evan Vucci/AP
The New York Times/Eric Thayer
Impeachable Offenses? 