In the 1/29/18 NYT David
Leonhardt proposes a bill of impeachment against President Trump.
He lists ten items,
but only one is an act that could be impeachable, if it turned out to be a high
crime or misdemeanor, the act of firing Comey.
The other nine are basically descriptions of impure thoughts or political
braggadocio, which would mean impeachment for every politician who ever opened
his mouth.
Trump may have tried
to influence Comey to drop his investigation or parts of it, at the White House
dinner, for example, but if Comey was not swayed by Trump, no crime was
committed. If your best friend was being
arrested, wouldn't you ask the police if they couldn’t let him go and give him
another chance. That doesn't seem like a
crime although it puts pressure on the police.
It's their job to say no, if that's the appropriate response. The statement about Trump Junior's meeting
with the Russian lawyer was basically just spin, which is a Washington
staple.
The firing of Comey
was to some extent made less serious by the immediate appoint of Mueller. As a result, justice was not obstructed,
whether that was the intent or not.
However, I believe the firing of Comey does raise serious
questions. Trump had legal authority to
fire him, but if he fired him to stop the investigation into crimes and
possibly treasonous conduct, then that merits serious consideration. If there was no actual obstruction of
justice, is attempted obstruction enough?
I don't know.
I find the whole
Russia investigation spurious. People,
particularly politicians and diplomats, talk to spies all the time. It's part of life in the big leagues. If they don't disclose classified
information, it's no big deal. What if
the Russian lady lawyer had told Trump, Junior, that Hillary Clinton had passed
secret information to Russia while she was Secretary of State, and showed Trump
the documents Hillary had passed. Would
people still say that Trump should not have met with her?
No comments:
Post a Comment