Reply
Honored Social Butterfly

Trump exemplifies abuse of power

Trump exemplifies abuse of power

 

President Richard Nixon faced impeachment not for any crime but, under the first article of impeachment, because, “in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice.” It does not say — and it was not established — that he committed a crime. In essence, the House of Representatives concluded that impeachment and removal would be justified if Nixon used the instruments of power not for the country’s benefit but to save his own political skin (“using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation” of the Watergate break-in).

 

As one charged with enforcement of the laws and the fair administration of justice, the president is not acting in the public interest when he uses his powers as a shield against inquiry. That seems particularly relevant as we begin to look at the case for impeachment against President Trump.

 

Following on The Post’s blockbuster story that Trump was seeking a major deal with Russia at the time he was running for president, the New York Times reports:

 

A business associate of President Trump promised in 2015 to engineer a real estate deal with the aid of the president of Russia, Vladimir V. Putin, that he said would help Mr. Trump win the presidency.

The business associate, Felix Sater, wrote a series of emails to Mr. Trump’s lawyer, Michael Cohen, in which he boasted about his ties to Mr. Putin and predicted that building a Trump Tower in Moscow would be a political boon to Mr. Trump’s candidacy.

 

“Our boy can become president of the USA and we can engineer it,” Mr. Sater wrote in an email. “I will get all of Putins team to buy in on this, I will manage this process.”

As the Times notes, there is no evidence Sater “delivered” for Trump, but what we do get is a clear picture, in conjunction with previous disclosures, of gross conflicts of interest and abuse of power.

 

Now The Post reports:

 

A top executive from Donald Trump’s real estate company emailed Vladi­mir Putin’s personal spokesman during the U.S. presidential campaign last year to ask for help advancing a stalled Trump Tower development project in Moscow, according to documents submitted to Congress Monday.

Michael Cohen, a Trump attorney and executive vice president for the Trump Organization, sent the email in January 2016 to Dmitry Peskov, the Kremlin’s top press aide.

So Trump was taking a soft line on Russia at the time his personal attorney was asking Putin for help. Perhaps “collusion” is too kind a word for trading favors with an enemy of the United States.

Consider the following:

 

  • Trump’s family, associates and campaign staff had numerous contacts with Russia during the campaign and post-election transition. Evidence exists that Trump’s personal attorney was seeking help from Putin as Trump was running a peculiar campaign that omitted any harsh talk about Russia.
  • Trump lied in saying no such contacts occurred. Other members of his administration omitted mention of their Russian contacts on required security applications.
  • Trump’s son and son-in-law met with Russian officials for the purpose of obtaining damaging information on Hillary Clinton.
  • Trump openly encouraged Russian hacking of his opponent and in the closing days of the campaign made dozens and dozens of references to WikiLeaks.
  • Once in office, he tried to pressure then-FBI Director James B. Comey, Director of National Intelligence Daniel Coats and National Security Agency Director Mike Rogers to curtail the investigation into fired national security adviser Michael Flynn.
  • After Comey refused, Trump fired him, concocted a fake reason for the firing, attempted to intimidate him before his testimony (e.g. hinting at tapes, threatening to investigate for leaking information) and publicly continued to hint at his power to remove both the attorney general and special prosecutor.

That is a pattern of behavior that goes to the core of his oath of office and his obligation to faithfully enforce the laws. He is using the powers of government for selfish, personal ends in an attempt to prevent scrutiny of his own affairs and conduct. Certainly special counsel Robert S. Mueller III will add to the portrait, filling in with illustrative detail. However, the contours of the case for impeachment are already there. As Benjamin Wittes and Jane Chong of Lawfare write:

 

Trump has embarrassed the presidential office in innumerable ways, and members of the House and Senate are obliged to organize these incidents in their heads and get a handle on their constitutional significance. There is a wrong way and a right way to go about this task. The wrong way is to treat the launch of an impeachment inquiry as a matter of political popularity or opportunism. … The right approach is to commit to a clear-eyed and ongoing assessment of Trump’s words and actions against the obligations of the office and to trace out the effects of his misconduct on the security and welfare of the United States.

When we consider the myriad other ways in which Trump has used and misused the presidency — e.g. praising police abuses, insulting federal (“so-called”) judges, pardoning someone who defied a court order, enriching himself while in office, putting unqualified relatives in office, refusing to reveal his financial dealings or to free himself of conflicts of interest — it becomes clear that Trump is not fulfilling his oath or faithfully executing the law; he’s enriching himself, deflecting inquiry and undermining the rule of law. How could impeachment not be on the table?

 

Even if Republicans won’t do so, it is incumbent upon Democrats, especially those on the House Judiciary Committee, to begin considering how Trump’s conduct aligns with conduct that was the basis for impeachment (interrupted by resignation) of Nixon. They’d better start now to seriously assess what behavior should be considered an abuse of power and what evidence they would need to reach a definitive conclusion. If they win the House majority a year from November, the issue will no longer be hypothetical.

 

Trump exemplifies abuse of power


"FAKE 45 #illegitimate" read a sign at the Woman's March in DC, 1/27/2017
Honored Social Butterfly

Guys, don't be so hard in our dims...

 

 Can't you see they are still so emotional from losing the election (and so many seats across all government) they simply do not have the ability to think logically.

 

The evidence is the total hysteria they display here everyday.  I suspect this will be their new normal right on through for the next 7 1/2 years to come.

 

The everyone should get a trophy mentality has overtaken the party and they no longer have the ability to function in the real workd.  

 

Its very sad...:(   

 

 

VIMTSTL
0 Kudos
226 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Once again, the inability to separate businessman Donald Trump from candidate Donald Trump and then President Donald Trump. It is understandable - we are used to career pols in that  position.

 

So, to an extent it is understandable. But then it gets a bit fuzzier when we get to the part where some cannot separate Donald Trump from Trump Industries. And then the true dishonesty comes out when the distinction between President Trump (today) and "a business associate" (of the past) is blurred to make a negative point.

0 Kudos
261 Views
2
Report
Honored Social Butterfly

Hard to tell what anyone one "thinks" when all they do is post other people's thoughts. Sound like intellectual flavor of the day shopping... to me.

Clinton's impeachment would be more of a bench mark.

Hasn't impeachment been the call to arms by democrats every time a republican is in the white house?
http://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/democrats-want-to-impeach-a-republican-president-what-e...


Libs are nuttier than squirrel poop
0 Kudos
250 Views
0
Report
Honored Social Butterfly


@rk9152 wrote:

Once again, the inability to separate businessman Donald Trump from candidate Donald Trump and then President Donald Trump. It is understandable - we are used to career pols in that  position.

 

So, to an extent it is understandable. But then it gets a bit fuzzier when we get to the part where some cannot separate Donald Trump from Trump Industries. And then the true dishonesty comes out when the distinction between President Trump (today) and "a business associate" (of the past) is blurred to make a negative point.


A ploy used by the left, over and over.

0 Kudos
256 Views
0
Report
cancel
Showing results for 
Show  only  | Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
Users
Announcements

Does AARP donate to political parties or endorse candidates?

AARP is strictly non-partisan and always has been. We never endorse or donate to candidates, political parties or political action committees.

Learn more.

AARP Members Only Games

Play members only games, like FIll Ins, Lumeno, 2048 and a collaborative, multiplayer Let's Crossword.

Play Now
AARP Members Only Games Logos
AARP Rewards

Solve Crosswords. Earn Rewards. Activate AARP Rewards to earn points for games, quizzes and videos. Redeem for deals and discounts.

Get started with AARP Rewards now!
/html/assets/Rewards-program-badge-355x224.png