A Case for Trump’s Impeachment
A University of Utah law professor, Christopher Peterson, has laid out “an objective and professional” argument for President Donald J. Trump’s impeachment which he has based on Trump’s foray into higher learning, “Trump University.”
In the final weeks of the 2016 Presidential campaign Donald J. Trump faces three lawsuits accusing him of fraud and racketeering. These ongoing cases focus on a series of wealth seminars called “Trump University” which collected over $40 million from consumers seeking to learn Trump’s real estate investing strategies.
Although these consumer protection cases are civil proceedings, the underlying legal elements in several counts that plaintiffs seek to prove run parallel to the legal elements of serious crimes under both state and federal law. This essay provides a legal analysis of whether Trump’s alleged behavior would, if proven, rise to the level of impeachable offenses under the presidential impeachment clause of the United States Constitution.
Ponder for a moment, Mr. Peterson’s not-so-farfetched scenario. January 20, 2017, Trump is sworn in as our 45th president (I know, I’d rather not either). January 21, 2017, a smarmy-looking Democrat from the House Judiciary Committee sidles up to Trump with a stack of formal impeachment papers. Not so crazy, really, especially if Republicans lose the House. Read the full essay here.
Professor Peterson sticks the broader question in his concluding paragraph.
( … ) the illegal acts in Trump’s high pressure wealth seminars have already occurred. Indeed, a federal judge appointed under Article III of the U.S. Constitution has already determined that Trump’s alleged actions, if true, constitute fraud and racketeering. The campaign of a major presidential candidate with pending trials for fraud and racketeering is structurally corrosive to our system of government because it pits two of the Republic’s most treasured values against each other. On the one hand American [sic] has always believed in the electoral process. And yet, on the other hand America has also always held to the view that no one is above the law. A Trump presidency may force Congress to choose between the two.
As BIG and BOLD as Texas, teachers at a K – 12 have installed a sign at every entrance warning all trouble makers that the students at their school are heavily protected by two fine gentlemen, Mr. Smith and Mr. Wesson.
In full, the sign reads, “Attention, please be aware that the staff at Medina ISD may be armed and will use whatever force is necessary to protect our students.”
Good for you, Medina ISD! Way to stare down the bad guys!
Today is National Dogs in Politics Day. In 1952, Richard Nixon was the Republican VP pick. In a moment America might have foreseen as a trend, the press uncovered possible corruption surrounding a pay to play between Nixon and his political backers.
Mid-campaign, on September 23rd, he flew to Los Angeles to deliver a speech to a television audience of 60 million that would put him back in the good graces of public opinion. The speech was dubbed, The Checkers Speech, because Nixon said that no matter what anybody says, he’s keeping one gift: his daughters’ dog Checkers. Over time a speech morphed into a day to celebrate all dogs in politics. There you have it. Happy National Dogs in Politics Day.
No pay to play politics here at the WaterCooler! It’s RedState’s ONLY daily Open Thread! Pick any topic, from up top or your own and lay it down in the space provided below. Enjoy!