PSA for "Armchair" Attorneys --> Impeachment: A Handbook

[Xelor]

Sooner or later, if not already, in Congress will arise the question of whether Donald Trump's behavior and intentions, singly or severally, are impeachable offenses because presently, the DoJ has an internally binding policy that prohibits indicting a sitting POTUS. Of course, in less official corridors, the matter has no shortage of discussants.

The seminally authoritative guide to impeachment was written in the 1970s by Charles Black, and his handbook remains so today. Accordingly, I thought it'd be useful to here introduce that text: Impeachment: A Handbook.

Black's text, like any good guide, provides a framework; it teaches one how to think about a question, but refrains from telling one what to think about the matter. Among the sorts of questions that Black's book addresses:

• Was the hacking of the Democratic campaign chairman’s emails in 2016 like the burglary of the Democratic campaign chairman’s correspondence at the Watergate complex in 1972?
• Was the Republican campaign’s contacts with Russian diplomats in 2016 like the Nixon campaign’s contacts with South Vietnamese diplomats in 1968?
• Do the House Judiciary Committee’s charges against Nixon set a precedent defining an "impeachable offense" arising from improper use of the Justice Department, even though the President resigned before the House could vote on this charge?
• Was the Clinton impeachment charge for the obstruction of justice a precedent because it was adopted by the House -- or not, because the Senate did not convict on this charge?
• What is role of the Emoluments Clause as a possible basis for impeachment?
• Are there circumstances in which the issuance of a pardon -- or the promise of one -- can provide a ground for impeachment?

Even though it was written in the '70s, Black delineates clearly and concisely the methods whereby, for each of those questions and more, one may obtain a legal answer could be derived from the text, history, structure, doctrine, practicality, and ethos of the Constitution, and it shows rather elegantly how to apply these six fundamental legal analysis methods.

Obviously, Black is a handbook, not a law degree, or even law school class. Nonetheless, it's a great primer point of departure for astute individuals who care to ponder, from a legal POV, Trump's impeachability. Obviously, impeachment is a process undertaken in Congress, the singularly most political and inherently partisan unit of the US government, and with the gloss of jurisprudential rigor and probity; thus whether a POTUS can impeached ultimately is a political matter and it's "prosecutors, judges and jurors" are bound by no constraints beyond those imposed by the members' will.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

I tend to agree with Dershowitz that we should avoid prosecuting presidents because it opens the door to endless politically driven prosecutions. But I think there are a few cases where the president should be impeached:

1. If the president's actions endanger national security.

2. If the president abuses the power of his office to engage in criminal activity

3. If the president obstructs justice

But this is not an exhaustive list. I do think that there are certain circumstances where impeachment is justified even when nothing illegal has been done. For example, let's say that the president went on some racist rant during a press conference and his popularity dropped to below 20% then it's fair to impeach him.

 

[Crovax]

Sooner or later, if not already, in Congress will arise the question of whether Donald Trump's behavior and intentions, singly or severally, are impeachable offenses because presently, the DoJ has an internally binding policy that prohibits indicting a sitting POTUS. Of course, in less official corridors, the matter has no shortage of discussants.

The seminally authoritative guide to impeachment was written in the 1970s by Charles Black, and his handbook remains so today. Accordingly, I thought it'd be useful to here introduce that text: Impeachment: A Handbook.

Black's text, like any good guide, provides a framework; it teaches one how to think about a question, but refrains from telling one what to think about the matter. Among the sorts of questions that Black's book addresses:

• Was the hacking of the Democratic campaign chairman’s emails in 2016 like the burglary of the Democratic campaign chairman’s correspondence at the Watergate complex in 1972?
• Was the Republican campaign’s contacts with Russian diplomats in 2016 like the Nixon campaign’s contacts with South Vietnamese diplomats in 1968?
• Do the House Judiciary Committee’s charges against Nixon set a precedent defining an "impeachable offense" arising from improper use of the Justice Department, even though the President resigned before the House could vote on this charge?
• Was the Clinton impeachment charge for the obstruction of justice a precedent because it was adopted by the House -- or not, because the Senate did not convict on this charge?
• What is role of the Emoluments Clause as a possible basis for impeachment?
• Are there circumstances in which the issuance of a pardon -- or the promise of one -- can provide a ground for impeachment?

Even though it was written in the '70s, Black delineates clearly and concisely the methods whereby, for each of those questions and more, one may obtain a legal answer could be derived from the text, history, structure, doctrine, practicality, and ethos of the Constitution, and it shows rather elegantly how to apply these six fundamental legal analysis methods.

Obviously, Black is a handbook, not a law degree, or even law school class. Nonetheless, it's a great primer point of departure for astute individuals who care to ponder, from a legal POV, Trump's impeachability. Obviously, impeachment is a process undertaken in Congress, the singularly most political and inherently partisan unit of the US government, and with the gloss of jurisprudential rigor and probity; thus whether a POTUS can impeached ultimately is a political matter and it's "prosecutors, judges and jurors" are bound by no constraints beyond those imposed by the members' will.

“An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history” -Gerald Ford

 

[DaveFagan]

“An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history” -Gerald Ford

I never considered Ford a rocket scientist, but that is a good definition.
/

 

[Lutherf]

Sooner or later, if not already, in Congress will arise the question of whether Donald Trump's behavior and intentions, singly or severally, are impeachable offenses because presently, the DoJ has an internally binding policy that prohibits indicting a sitting POTUS. Of course, in less official corridors, the matter has no shortage of discussants.

The seminally authoritative guide to impeachment was written in the 1970s by Charles Black, and his handbook remains so today. Accordingly, I thought it'd be useful to here introduce that text: Impeachment: A Handbook.

Black's text, like any good guide, provides a framework; it teaches one how to think about a question, but refrains from telling one what to think about the matter. Among the sorts of questions that Black's book addresses:

• Was the hacking of the Democratic campaign chairman’s emails in 2016 like the burglary of the Democratic campaign chairman’s correspondence at the Watergate complex in 1972?
• Was the Republican campaign’s contacts with Russian diplomats in 2016 like the Nixon campaign’s contacts with South Vietnamese diplomats in 1968?
• Do the House Judiciary Committee’s charges against Nixon set a precedent defining an "impeachable offense" arising from improper use of the Justice Department, even though the President resigned before the House could vote on this charge?
• Was the Clinton impeachment charge for the obstruction of justice a precedent because it was adopted by the House -- or not, because the Senate did not convict on this charge?
• What is role of the Emoluments Clause as a possible basis for impeachment?
• Are there circumstances in which the issuance of a pardon -- or the promise of one -- can provide a ground for impeachment?

Even though it was written in the '70s, Black delineates clearly and concisely the methods whereby, for each of those questions and more, one may obtain a legal answer could be derived from the text, history, structure, doctrine, practicality, and ethos of the Constitution, and it shows rather elegantly how to apply these six fundamental legal analysis methods.

Obviously, Black is a handbook, not a law degree, or even law school class. Nonetheless, it's a great primer point of departure for astute individuals who care to ponder, from a legal POV, Trump's impeachability. Obviously, impeachment is a process undertaken in Congress, the singularly most political and inherently partisan unit of the US government, and with the gloss of jurisprudential rigor and probity; thus whether a POTUS can impeached ultimately is a political matter and it's "prosecutors, judges and jurors" are bound by no constraints beyond those imposed by the members' will.

The House will vote to impeach Trump merely because he’s not a professional politician. The Senate will not confirm the House vote because they don’t want to set a precedent for future administrations. However, it’s too late for all that. The precedent has been set and the genie is out of the bottle. Every future president will be subjected to this same kind of scrutiny. It’s also likely that the process used against Trump will show up in legislative and state elections. The result will be that business owners and political outsiders will refrain from running for office at any level.

The result will be a complete confirmation of the political class and the republic will cease to exist in anything more than a figurative sense.

 

[Xelor]

The House will vote to impeach Trump merely because he’s not a professional politician. The Senate will not confirm the House vote because they don’t want to set a precedent for future administrations. However, it’s too late for all that. The precedent has been set and the genie is out of the bottle. Every future president will be subjected to this same kind of scrutiny. It’s also likely that the process used against Trump will show up in legislative and state elections. The result will be that business owners and political outsiders will refrain from running for office at any level.

The result will be a complete confirmation of the political class and the republic will cease to exist in anything more than a figurative sense.

That is among the most ridiculous charges I've seen or heard anyone posit as potentially appearing in the articles of impeachment for Trump or anyone else. I'm quite confident that no such charge will ever appear in articles of impeachment any US House of Representatives approves for submission to the US Senate.

 

[SonOfDaedalus]

The precedent has been set and the genie is out of the bottle. Every future president will be subjected to this same kind of scrutiny.

Every president is already subject to this sort of scrutiny. Hillary was subjected to this sort of scrutiny. Obama surived 6 years surrounded by Republicans. Bill Clinton was actually impeached for lying about an affair.

The only precedent is having a president who has 17 ongoing investigations. We've never had a president this crooked. You keep blaming the opposition but politics has always been a tough game where you get scrutinized and your opposition are always looking to take you down. It's always been that way.

Trump is a crooked businessman who should never have run for president given all the skeletons in his closet. His Trump foundation is a complete and total scam. The board hasn't met since 1999.

Why do you blame everyone but Trump for this mess? Is Trump responsible for ANYTHING in your mind?

 

[Xelor]

Every president is already subject to this sort of scrutiny. Hillary was subjected to this sort of scrutiny. Obama surived 6 years surrounded by Republicans. Bill Clinton was actually impeached for lying about an affair.

The only precedent is having a president who has 17 ongoing investigations. We've never had a president this crooked. You keep blaming the opposition but politics has always been a tough game where you get scrutinized and your opposition are always looking to take you down. It's always been that way.

Trump is a crooked businessman who should never have run for president given all the skeletons in his closet. His Trump foundation is a complete and total scam. The board hasn't met since 1999.

Why do you blame everyone but Trump for this mess? Is Trump responsible for ANYTHING in your mind?

FWIW, you may find this interesting:

• 5 Most Notorious Presidents

None of them, not even Nixon came close to having so much "stuff," as does Trump, going on around them that augured to show they were corrupt, felonious and/or misdemeanant.

 

[Xelor]

“An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history” -Gerald Ford

I never considered Ford a rocket scientist, but that is a good definition.
/

Well, I did conclude my OP by writing:

Obviously, impeachment is a process undertaken in Congress, the singularly most political and inherently partisan unit of the US government, and with the gloss of jurisprudential rigor and probity; thus whether a POTUS can impeached ultimately is a political matter and it's "prosecutors, judges and jurors" are bound by no constraints beyond those imposed by the members' will.
​