• Home
  • Mission of This Site
  • Contact

Impeachable Offenses?

~ Examining the Case for Removal of the 45th President of the United States

Impeachable Offenses?

Tag Archives: ukraine

1941 – A Parable

27 Wednesday Nov 2019

Posted by impeachableoffenses in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Franklin Roosevelt, ukraine, Winston Churchill

By Frank Bowman

Return with me now to April 1941. Germany has overrun France and all of western Europe. The British saved their army the previous year with a fighting withdrawal from Dunkirk. But their cities are being blasted from the air by the German Blitz and their ocean supply lines are being strangled by German U-boats. The freedom of the last island bastion against Hitler’s tyranny hangs by a thread.

In March, the U.S. Congress had passed the Lend-Lease Act, permitting America to lend or lease (rather than sell) military supplies to any country deemed “vital to the defense of the United States.”  Britain is cash-strapped and desperate for the gusher of food, arms, and equipment America’s farms and factories could provide under the terms of the new bill.

But somehow the aid is mysteriously held up. Prime Minister Churchill calls President Roosevelt on the newfangled transatlantic telephone.

CHURCHILL: Mr. President. A great pleasure to speak with you. This island is in grave danger of being starved out of the war against the Nazi menace. We need supplies to carry on the fight. It had been my hope that the generosity expressed in the magnificent Lend-Lease Act would by now be filling the holds of convoys of merchantmen steaming across the Atlantic. I am told, however, that there have been unaccountable delays.

ROOSEVELT:  You’re right. We’re generous. I’m generous. The most generous. Do a lot for you, I guess you call it England. Or Britain. Or whatever. More than anybody. A lot more than those Frenchies.

CHURCHILL: Our gallant French allies suffered greatly and …

ROOSEVELT: Gallant! Ha!  Buncha frog-eating losers. But we’ve been very, very good to you Brits. I wouldn’t say it’s reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good.

CHURCHILL: Mr. President, I’m sure any issues that impede our two great democracies standing shoulder-to-shoulder against Hitler’s barbarism can be resolved with frank discussions between our military and diplomatic experts.

ROOSEVELT: Don’t know what you got against Hitler. He says nice things about me. Regardless, General Marshall and all my generals, and Cordell Hull and all his Deep State crowd at the State Department say I should let you have the aid. But I’d like you to do me a favor, though.

CHURCHILL: Anything to advance the common cause of the free peoples of the world.

ROOSEVELT: You remember that Wilkie guy I beat in 1940. Greatest victory in history. Biggest crowds. Everybody says so. Well, anyway, Wilkie’s married, but I hear he’s got action on the side. Van Doren’s her name. I hear she wrote letters to some dame in London, spilling it all. If I had those letters, that’d fix his wagon for 1944.

CHURCHILL:  Mr. President, I’m not sure…

ROOSEVELT: Oh, and one other thing, Doug MacArthur.  He’s out in the Philippines now. May need him as a general if the Japs get frisky. But he’s got White House fever. Some people say his wife had shady dealings with bankers in your Singapore colony before the war.

CHURCHILL: We looked into that. There was nothing to the rumors.

ROOSEVELT: Just announce you’re reopening an investigation. That’ll do fine.  Until then, good luck with those U-boats.

***

This fictional dialogue reads like farce because we cannot imagine Franklin Delano Roosevelt extorting personal political favors as the price of keeping Britain free and an ally against spreading dictatorship. Indeed, it is impossible to envision any of the historical moments that defined America and tested its presidents and insert into the frame a personality as ignorant, as rude, as shallow, as self-interested, and as unprincipled as Donald Trump.  But the analogy between my farce and Trump’s real-world extortion of a Ukraine besieged by expansionist Russia is far too close for comfort.

Precisely because it is impossible to imagine an American president from our rightly storied past acting like Donald Trump does every day of our frighteningly diminished present, his enablers and acolytes are forced to pretend that events which undeniably happened never happened at all. 

Or worse, as the evidence becomes so overwhelming that even some Republicans grudgingly admit the facts of Trump’s conduct, some defend him with an unpardonable libel on every one of his predecessors – that it is normal, or at least unexceptional, that an American president should leverage the massive power of the United States to against an imperiled democracy for personal gain.

Donald Trump will pass. That’s certain.  What is achingly uncertain is whether he –and those who cling to him – will warp our conception of ourselves so far that we can never recover the essential decency that is the core of the American identity and the true source of our power among the nations.

[Historical footnotes: Wendell Wilkie reportedly did have an extramarital affair with a Ms. Van Doren. The reference to “shady dealings” by Gen. McArthur’s wife is my invention; so far as I know, Mrs. McArthur never had any connections in Singapore and was rigorously correct in her private life.]

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Trump’s Betrayal of American Foreign Policy and Why the Founding Fathers Would Have Impeached Him

10 Thursday Oct 2019

Posted by impeachableoffenses in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

impeachment for foreign policy, ukraine

This semester, I have the pleasure of teaching a seminar titled, “The Impeachment and the American Constitutional Balance” at Georgetown Law School. From time to time, I may post the work of some the students in that seminar. Here is one such contribution. — F. Bowman

By Hamdi Soysal

            Based on the number of House Democrats in favor of an impeachment inquiry,[1] President Donald J. Trump will likely be the third president to be impeached in American history, barring unforeseen circumstances. What united the Democrats behind impeachment – more than the Mueller Report, illegal hush money payments to a pornstar, or his alleged violations of the Emoluments Clause – was the President’s request from Ukraine to investigate one of his potential rivals in the 2020 election.[2]

            There are many reasons why the Ukraine affair is unworthy of the Office of the President of the United States. One is its blatant compromise of the nation’s foreign policy and consequently, national security. The favor the President asked for in his now-infamous call with the Ukrainian President Zelensky was not closer cooperation against U.S. adversaries, more intelligence-sharing, or participation in a foreign policy that would make the U.S. safe. It was help with his reelection.[3]

            Although in a different context, the possible betrayal of American foreign policy for personal gain was in the minds of the Founding Fathers while defining impeachable offenses at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. On the way to their confining those offenses to “Treason, Bribery, [and] High Crimes and Misdemeanors,”[4] James Madison said impeachment is required because the president “might betray his trust to foreign powers.”[5] Similarly, he argued at the Virginia ratifying convention that a president who made a treaty that “violated the interest of the nation” could be impeached.[6] At the same convention, Edmund Randolph said a president “may be impeached” if discovered “receiving emoluments from foreign powers.”[7] 

            The framers’ concerns with undue foreign influence were not limited to the impeachment context. One measure they enacted was the aforementioned Emoluments Clause,[8] over which the Second Circuit recently revived a lawsuit against Trump.[9] Moreover, in his farewell address, George Washington mentioned the “insidious wiles of foreign influence,” deeming it “one of the most baneful foes of republican government” and urging the nation “to steer clear of permanent alliances with any portion of the foreign world.”[10] Likewise, in a 1787 letter to Thomas Jefferson, John Adams wrote that he understood Jefferson’s apprehension of “foreign Interference, Intrigue, Influence.”[11] Concerned about corruption in the political system, Adams argued that America should not conduct elections often, because “as often as Elections happen, the danger of foreign Influence recurs.”[12] Similarly, Alexander Hamilton wrote in his Federalist Paper Number 68 about the dangerous desire of foreign powers to “gain an improper ascendant in our councils.”[13] 

            The Founders could not have been clearer: there should be no foreign interference in the American democracy, and no president should be urging such interference. As some legal scholars opined, using the Office of the President of the United States for personal political benefit fits both the standard understandings of bribery and the broader category of high crimes and misdemeanors.[14]

            However, the same Founders who repeatedly warned about the danger of foreign interference in elections and the corruptibility of the president by foreign influences also gave the president authority over most aspects of foreign affairs. The Founders gave Congress the power to declare war, raise armies and provide for other aspects of national defense,[15] but it is the president who appoints ambassadors, negotiates treaties, and deals with other heads of state.[16]

            This raises a conundrum: Does the discretion granted to the president in the realm of foreign affairs mean that he should not be as vulnerable to impeachment over a situation like the Ukraine affair? One answer to this could come from the constitutional law of separation of powers. Although not in response to an impeachment setting, in his famed concurrence in the seminal Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer case, Justice Robert Jackson laid out three categories of presidential authority vis-à-vis Congress.[17] The first category is “when the President acts pursuant to an express or implied authorization of Congress,” he explained.[18] Under this category, “his authority is at its maximum, for it includes all that he possesses in his own right plus all that Congress can delegate.”[19] The second category is “[w]hen the President acts in absence of either a congressional grant or denial of authority.”[20] In this case, Justice Jackson opined that “there is a zone of twilight in which he and Congress may have concurrent authority…”[21] Ultimately, when a president acts amid silence from Congress, “any actual test of power is likely to depend on the imperatives of events and contemporary imponderables rather than on abstract theories of law.”[22] Lastly, a president could take measures incompatible with the express or implied will of Congress. Then, the president’s power “is at its lowest ebb, for then he can rely only upon his own constitutional powers minus any constitutional powers of Congress over the matter,” Justice Jackson explained.[23]      

             The level of authority President Trump has with respect to the withholding of anti-tank missiles from Ukraine thus in part depends on Congress’s implied or expressed will – or the lack thereof – concerning the matter. When viewed through this lens, it becomes clear that the Ukraine affair falls under Justice Jackson’s third category, where a president could take measures incompatible with the will of Congress and his power “is at its lowest ebb.”[24] Before President Trump’s call with Zelensky, the military aid to Ukraine had already been appropriated with “broad bipartisan support” in Congress.[25] The issue was a “rare foreign policy issue that united members of both parties.”[26] Capitol Hill largely viewed support to Ukraine as a way to deter Russian aggression and secure the region.[27] Based on recent reports, it bothered many in Congress that “the money was being held up without a clear explanation or briefings about a changing policy prescription in the region.”[28]

            The bipartisan reaction in Capitol Hill to President Trump’s withholding of military aid to Ukraine for reasons unbeknownst to them is a good indication that the President acted against the will of Congress. Thus, no matter the discretion granted to the executive in foreign affairs, his authority at the time was at its minimum. In other words, even the ample authority the President has with respect to foreign policy would not be enough to save him from being impeached. If they were here to see the President’s blatant betrayal of the nation’s safety and security, the Founders would definitely agree. 


[1] Alicia Parlapiano et. al., Complete List: Who Supports an Impeachment Inquiry Against Trump (Oct. 3, 2019, 11:00 AM), https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2019/us/politics/trump-impeachment-congress-list.html.

[2] Transcript of Phone Call Between Presidents Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, (July 25, 2019, 9:03 AM), https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf.

[3] Id.

[4] U.S. Const. art. II, § 4.

[5] 2 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, at 66 (Max Farrand ed., 1911).

[6] 3 Jonathan Elliot, The Debates in Several State Conventions of the Adoption of the Federal Constitution 346 [hereinafter 3 Elliot] (statement of James Madison).

[7] 3 Elliot, supra note 3, at 326.

[8] U.S. Const. art. I, § 9, cl. 8.

[9] Zoe Tillman,  A Court Revived Another Lawsuit Against Trump For Continuing To Profit From His Businesses (Sep. 13, 2019, 10:41 AM), https://www.buzzfeednews.com/article/zoetillman/donald-trump-hotel-lawsuit-back-emoluments.

[10] President George Washington, Farewell Address to the People of the United States (1796).

[11] Letter from John Adams, United States Minister to the United Kingdom and Netherlands, to Thomas Jefferson, United States Minister to France (Dec. 6, 1787).

[12] Id.

[13] The Federalist No. 68 (Alexander Hamilton).

[14] Leah Litman, Trump’s Ukraine call mentioning Biden is the strongest reason yet for impeachment (Sep. 24, 2019, 5:45 PM), https://www.nbcnews.com/think/opinion/trump-s-ukraine-call-mentioning-biden-strongest-reason-yet-impeachment-ncna1057921.

[15] U.S. Const. art. I, § 8.

[16] U.S. Const. art II, § 2.

[17] Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer (The Steel Seizure Case), 343 U.S. 579, 635-38 (1952) (6-3 decision) (Jackson, J., concurring).

[18] The Steel Seizure Case, 343 U.S. at 635.

[19] Id. at 635.

[20] Id. at 637.

[21] Id.

[22] Id.

[23] Id.

[24] Id.

[25] Lauren Fox, Stalled Ukraine military aid concerned members of Congress for months (Sep. 30, 2019, 10.30 AM), https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/30/politics/ukraine-military-aid-congress/index.html.

[26] Id.

[27] Id.

[28] Id.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Why is Trump’s interaction with Ukraine so bad?

30 Monday Sep 2019

Posted by impeachableoffenses in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

impeachment for Ukraine call, peaceful transfer of power, ukraine, Vice President Biden

By Frank Bowman

My new friend (and landlord when in D.C.), Shikha Dalmia, of the Reason Foundation and columnist for “The Week,” asked me to explain why it should matter constitutionally that Mr. Trump may have used his powers over domestic law enforcement, military affairs, and foreign diplomacy to obtain negative information on Vice President Biden and his son. This was my best effort at a response:

The essence of impeachable abuse of power is using a power legitimately granted by presidential office for an illegitimate purpose.  The most common illegitimate purpose is using official authority to promote one’s private interests. 

In authoritarian states like Putin’s Russia, it may be seen as normal for a leader to use state power to ensure his continuation in office. In this country, we consider a president’s interest in getting re-elected to be a private, rather than a public interest. Therefore, although we understand that presidents, and all elected officials, will have an eye on public reaction and thus their political prospects when they exercise the powers of office, it remains profoundly improper – un-American I might even say – for a president to leverage his official power to disadvantage political opponents.          

This is particularly so in the case of investigations of supposed criminal wrongdoing.  One of the hallmarks of what we Americans loftily call “banana republics” is the tendency of each incoming administration to bring criminal charges against leaders of the outgoing administration.  Leaving aside the fact that such charges are often (pardon the term) trumped up, the danger is that the stakes of losing become too high. That is, good people won’t enter political life because the risks are too great.  Those who do shortly realize that the price of losing an election could be financial ruin or even prison.  Thus, they are tempted to go to any extreme to win, and so avoid the awful results of losing.

When we talk proudly about our uninterrupted history of peaceful transfer of power, we are referring not only to the absence of military coups or violence in the streets, but to the fact that public officers lose elections and go quietly back to private life, unmolested by the organs of the state.           Trump’s misuse of power here is dreadful for two reasons:    

First, he is trying to drag us into the abyss of political investigations and prosecutions that could destroy the essential, and widely admired, character of our politics.  Second, the threat he employed to pursue dirt on VP Biden and son was to withdraw American support from a vulnerable country on the edge of an expansionist Russia. Doing so is not only immoral, but subverts the 70-year bipartisan consensus that peace and stability in Europe requires containing any expansionist tendency of the Russians.

These are matters of the utmost seriousness. No American of either party can afford to dismiss them.          

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

An illustrative hypothetical…

28 Saturday Sep 2019

Posted by impeachableoffenses in Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Barack Obama, donald trump, Impeachment, Impeachment for Trump Ukraine contacts, Mitt Romney, ukraine

By Frank Bowman

This semester, I have the pleasure of teaching a seminar titled “Impeachment & the American Constitutional Balance” one day per week at Georgetown. I have a group of first-rate students who will be writing about a variety of impeachment-related topics throughout the semester. Sometimes, I’ll post their work here.

In yesterday’s class we talked about the historical definition of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and then turned to the week’s revelations about Mr. Trump’s contacts with Ukraine.

Max Lesser posed the following hypothetical, which readers may find thought-provoking:

It’s 2012 and President Obama is running against Mitt Romney. Obama has just “lost” the first presidential debate, and his re-election campaign looks to be in trouble. Obama has noticed his attacks on Mitt Romney having off-shore bank accounts in the Cayman Islands seems to be having an effect, however, and a plan is hatched.

The Cayman Islands have just been hit by a hurricane and are desperate for aid and relief. President Obama unilaterally directs his Chief of Staff to freeze $400 million in aid to the Cayman Islands. President Obama calls the Prime Minister of the Cayman Islands, who immediately requests the aid they desperately need and have historically received. Obama tells him the U.S. has been very good to the Cayman Islands in the past, better than any other country. The relationship hasn’t been, reciprocal, however, and the President needs a “favor.” He says the Prime Minister should look into the Romneys’ holdings in the Cayman Islands, especially his son Tagg, who appears to be cashing in on his father’s name. This is because President Obama is concerned about “corruption.” Nothing to do with re-election. 

Obama tells the Cayman Islands PM to coordinate with his Attorney General Eric Holder and his non-government employee private attorney, Michael Avenatti, who has been the main point of contact this far. He says they will be in touch. The Cayman Islands PM realizes he will have little choice but to bend to these demands.

Obama administration staff, realizing the transcript of this call is likely criminal and at a minimum extremely problematic, violates protocol to store the conversation in safes meant for critical national security interests. A whistleblower comes forward to expose these actions, and the administration releases a transcript of the call that confirms the allegations. 

A day later President Obama implies the whistleblower is a “spy” who should be treated the way we did in the “old days.” I.E. He appears to be obviously implying the death penalty. 

How do you think the Republican House of Representatives will respond? 

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Impeach Donald Trump

24 Tuesday Sep 2019

Posted by impeachableoffenses in Uncategorized

≈ 5 Comments

Tags

donald trump, Hunter Biden, impeach Trump, Joe Biden, ukraine

By Frank Bowman

I haven’t been blogging for a longish time. That’s partly been due to frantic scuttling about attending either to personal life or the opportunities to communicate through other media occasioned by the recent publication of my book. Part of the radio silence must also be put down to fatigue — simple inability to tabulate and maintain a suitable level of outrage at Mr. Trump’s endless assaults on constitutional propriety. At a certain point, the parade of offenses is so relentless that the man just wears you down.

But now I have to shake off my lethargy. We all do.

What Trump has now admitted about his contacts with the Ukrainian President is – by every textualist, originalist, historical, living constitutionalist, or commonsense standard – impeachable. Full stop. I’ll expand on that in later posts.

For today, I worry about two things, but come to one long-delayed conclusion.

First, Trump and his abettors in Congress, Fox News, and far-right echo chamber are already turning this into a story about supposed corruption of Vice President Biden and his son. To 30-40% of country, that will stick, regardless of the facts. See Benghazi.

Second, regardless of the facts, the law, and the applicable ethics-in-government rules, Hunter Biden’s choice to take a seat on the board of Ukrainian conglomerate Burisma Holdings looks bad. Legal or not, one would have to be blind not to suspect Hunter Biden’s major asset from Burisma’s point of view was his father’s position. Perhaps Joe couldn’t have stopped his boy from cashing in this way. Any father with a wayward son will understand the limits of that endeavor. But Hunter’s opportunism now unavoidably taints the Biden family as akin to the Clintons – congenitally unable to resist trading on their public position for money.

That’s desperately unfair to Vice President Biden. Whatever he is, he’s not a grifter. But fair or not, it means that both the looming impeachment battle and perhaps the 2020 election will be ugly mudfights comparing the real corruption of Trump & Co with supposed corruption of the Bidens.

It all makes me inexpressibly weary and sad. But I no longer think a real, to-the-knife, impeachment fight can be avoided. Trump has unapologetically admitted that he used the power of the presidency to secure help from a foreign power against a political rival. Constitutionally, he has shot someone in the middle of 5th Avenue. And he’s daring Congress and the rest of us to do something about it.

So, at last, I come to the point I have avoided for many months. Since starting this blog, I’ve contented myself with parsing the constitutional text and the historical evidence to distinguish between presidential behavior that could fairly and soberly be deemed impeachable and other behavior that, however distasteful, could not. But until today, I have never expressed an opinion about whether Congress should do what Mr. Trump’s misconduct has long given it the constitutional authority to do.

AS OF TODAY, here’s what I believe: If we love this country, we must take up the gauntlet Donald Trump has sneeringly thrown down. We must insist that the House stop its cautious minuet — one step forward, two back, and a hop step to the side — always hoping to be seen as doing something while never actually getting anywhere much at all.

We must insist that the House immediately hire the necessary staff to do a proper, comprehensive, speedy impeachment inquiry. We must demand that it move expeditiously to prepare and vote on articles of impeachment once that inquiry has winnowed the possible offenses down to those that are most serious and most readily provable to the public and at the bar of Senate.

We must insist that the Senate face its own reckoning. Mitch McConnell will no doubt attempt to shield Republicans from the unpleasantness of choosing between political expediency and their country’s honor and safety. But I think, in the end, he will not succeed. Both courage and principle are in short supply in the American Senate in these degenerate days. And conviction of Trump in the Senate remains vanishingly unlikely. But I do not believe McConnell can prevent at least a public vote. And I am no longer convinced, if I ever was, that forcing Republicans to choose is even bad politics.

In any case, there comes a time when nice calculations of political advantage simply cannot matter any more. This is such a time. If the House of Representatives will not at least try to use the tools the Constitution provided for the emergency of an ignorant, mendacious, bullying, demagogic, would-be autocrat, it abandons even the pretense of being a consequential participant in American republican government. If the House will not even risk labeling Trump’s brazen abuses of power as the constitutional high crimes they are, what future is there for representative democracy?

It falls to the rest of us to help our timorous leaders screw their courage to the sticking place. It falls to us to demand that now — at long, long last — Donald Trump must be impeached.

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Manafort Lied about Dealings with Kilimnik

09 Wednesday Jan 2019

Posted by crosbysamuel in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

Collusion, Conspiracy, conspiracy to defraud, conspire, donald trump, impeachable, Impeachment, konstantin kilimnik, lie, lying, madrid, paul manafort, polling data, president, Robert Mueller, russian collusion, russian intelligence, Special Counsel, ukraine, witness tampering

Special Counsel Robert Mueller believes that Paul Manafort, former Trump campaign chairmen, shared polling data with Konstantin Kilimnik, a Ukranian translator and campaign adviser believed to have ties with Russian intelligence, and that he later lied about it. Apparently, Manafort’s lawyers have conceded that Manafort neglected certain details of his Ukrainian dealings, as they wrote in a court filing that “[i]t is not surprising at all that Mr. Manafort was unable to recall specific details prior to having his recollection refreshed.” The filing also notes that Manafort forgot  and later recalled that he had met with Kilimnik in Madrid in January or February of 2017, which was after Trump became President-elect, but also after Manafort’s tenure as campaign chairmen. Manafort and Kilimnik have previously been accused of witness tampering, for allegedly reaching out to members of the Hapsburg group, and asking them to lie about secret, pro-Ukrainian lobbying done at Manafort’s behest.

If it is to be believed that Kilimnik does have ties to Russian intelligence, then this information establishes, at least, a Russian interest in President Trump’s candidacy. Of course, that is not new information. At most, it could go to establishing communication between Trump and Russia post-election. That being said, it is only circumstantial evidence. The fact that foreign powers are interested in Trump’s nomination and presidency, does not mean he cooperated with foreign powers, and the fact that Manafort cooperated with foreign powers, does not mean that Trump participated. Still, this another straw on the camel’s back.

gettyimages-975251610_wide-a5b8c154718a06791ada3f9447c359251dd114b5.jpgAFP/Getty Images

 

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

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:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Poor US-Russia Relations and What to Make of Them

24 Sunday Dec 2017

Posted by crosbysamuel in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

cold war, Collusion, conspiracy to defraud the united states, eastern, militias, Putin, trump, ukraine, weapons

One does not have to be an avid reader to know that Trump’s presidency has been marred with suspicions of and evidence of collusion between the President’s campaign and Russian officials; which makes the deteriorating relationship between the United States and Russia all the more confusing. Conflict between the two nations has been heating up through the proxy of the Eastern Ukraine, where Russia is battling for control. The United States has given the Ukraine weapons to fight off Russian Militias, and has condemned the Russian interference in a National Security Strategy report. Despite these actions, however, Trump still speaks of Putin as if they are chummy. So, what is one to make of this double-speak (and double-action)? If there was collusion between Putin and Trump, has their relationship deteriorated since? Did Putin simply bet on the wrong horse? Or could this conflict be part of a larger plan?

06321985_2ffbc90ce085561de1c79b7098820fdb.nbcnews-ux-2880-1000.jpgMIKHAIL KLIMENTYEV/SPUTNIK/KREML /EPA

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Manafort in the Ukraine

10 Sunday Dec 2017

Posted by crosbysamuel in Articles, Uncategorized

≈ Leave a comment

Tags

campaign manager, gag-order, indicment, Manafort, russia, russian collusion, ukraine

Special Counsel Mueller is protesting against Paul Manafort’s, Trump’s former campaign manager’s, petition to have his house arrest lifted pending his trial. Manafort was indicted for assiting in the Russian interference of the 2016 Presidential election — his charges include money laundering and failing to register as a foreign agent. Judge Amy Berman Jackson had ordered Manafort not to discuss his case in the media. Mueller, however, alleges that Manafort violated said gag-order by collaborating on a piece about himself and his efforts in the Ukraine for a Ukranian newspaper.  His alleged coauthor is Konstantin Kilimnik, a Russian with, Muller claims, ties to Russian intelligence.

The article at issue addressed Manafort’s efforts in the Ukraine, describing them as “pro-western.” However, an account of Manafort’s efforts in the Ukraine seem to contradict that narrative (see this article decribing Manafort’s activities in the Ukraine). At best, Manafort’s work in the Ukraine could be described as merely political, and at worst it may be seen as pro-Russia.

15MANAFORT1-master675.jpgThe New York Times/Eric Thayer

 

Share this:

  • Twitter
  • Facebook

Like this:

Like Loading...

Blog Owner

Frank O. Bowman, III


Floyd R. Gibson Missouri Endowed Professor of Law
University 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.

  • Follow Following
    • Impeachable Offenses?
    • Join 204 other followers
    • Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
    • Impeachable Offenses?
    • Customize
    • Follow Following
    • Sign up
    • Log in
    • Report this content
    • View site in Reader
    • Manage subscriptions
    • Collapse this bar
 

Loading Comments...
 

    %d bloggers like this: