As jconway writes about here, it’s unlikely that the Electoral College will block Trump on December 19th, in part because the vote is only a week away and in part because most electors are political activists that will stick with Trump through thick and thin. It’s unfortunate, since one of the only remaining reasons to keep the EC is one of the original reasons — to block a profoundly unqualified and corrupt individual from the presidency.
Still, it’s amazing that we’re just about a month removed from the election and there are already several concerns that quite conceivably could lead to full-blown impeachment inquiries not too far down the road. To wit:
(1) The subject of jconway’s post, namely Trump’s possible connections with Russia and possible direct ties to Russia’s interference in the election. This is the most serious issue, and it’s a real one. It is not hyperbole to suggest that this sort of foreign interference in our elections is a major threat to American democracy. If Trump’s team had any hand in that at all during the campaign (or current connections with Russian hackers or intelligence services), then it’s difficult to see how even Republicans could refuse to support an impeachment inquiry.
(2) Trump’s violation of the previously obscure Emoluments Clause prohibiting officials from receiving gifts from foreign states, which will immediately arise starting on Jan. 20th in the context of Trump profiting from foreign delegations using his hotels and other branded properties. The meaning of the constitutional provision has rarely been tested, and it’s difficult to see how a case against Trump would reach the courts given the lack of standing by any potential plaintiff. Still, the prospect that Trump could be repeatedly violating a constitutional provision through his business dealings is a serious matter and could be the subject of impeachment inquiries even if any legal case had difficulty getting into court.
(3) Apart from the Emoluments Clause issue, possible direct connections between executive decisions made by President Trump and the prospects of the Trump Organization profiting directly from those decisions. It is already clear that Trump has little interest in reducing these conflicts; he’s claimed he is exempt from concerns about conflict of interests (true only in the narrow sense of certain federal statutory laws; impeachment inquiries are another matter). He’s also delayed his announcement, originally scheduled for this Thursday, concerning what his connections to his business will be once president. That’s a clear sign that neither he nor his team has a real plan to take this problem seriously.
(4) I would also add actions that Trump has already done, and which will likely continue and get worse — namely, calling out specific companies and individuals on Twitter for the purposes of destroying them and their reputations. When it comes to Boeing and Lockheed Martin, for example, Trump’s tweets have already demonstrated the power to cause a significant hit to stock prices. He’s also gone after Carrier’s union chief personally, who has subsequently received death threats from deranged Trump supporters. If Trump continues to use this technique to destroy reputations — especially if it leads to someone’s death (unfortunately, quite plausible) — then this will be another avenue for an impeachment inquiry.
Keep in mind that this is where we are just five weeks after the election. The above list will likely grow considerably, and impeachment will be more plausible given Trump’s historically terrible approval ratings even before taking office (ratings that will likely decline further, especially if there is an economic downturn).
Buckle up; we’re in for a ride.
….and even reassuring, that there are Republicans who are willing to stand up to this tyrant, even though he is a Republican tyrant. Frankly, I see tremendous political advantages for any Republican who takes him down.
This thread is a thoughtful look at the far more reality based prospect of impeachment rather than thought piece I worked on, in a more far fetched hope we could avoid it.
My main concerns are if an impeachment is possible in the modern era of hyperpartisanship, largely on the right, and if his supporters would support the peaceful and ultimately constitutional removal from office of a President Trump for wrongdoing.
since the vote, after all, is still to happen and at least a small handful of Republican electors have expressed concerns. If nothing else, reducing the electoral vote margin will serve as a barometer for resistance to Trump’s practices and chip away at the already false claims that his electoral victory was somehow a “landslide.”
Unfortunately, it’s probably unlikely that we’ll know the “known” and “unknown unknowns” that you mentioned in your post until January at the earliest. Once more comes out, though, I do think that there are realistic prospects that at least a few Republicans would jump ship despite overwhelming partisanship. The fact that some members of his party have criticized his nominees suggests that not all of them are willing to get rolled by their party leader.
according to David Parkerman sources.
Reports out today that could flip 37 Trump electors to deny him 270. One Texas Trump elector has already announced he will not vote for Trump and has been contacted by many others that want a security briefing on Russian interference in the election before they decide on December 19 who to vote for.
I disagree with my friend, James Conway, that this is a done deal.
Trump should not be measuring the drapes in the Oval Office just yet.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
2016 has been full of em so far
David Parkerman who?
n/t
sorry for the mistake. He’s a cable TV political commentator.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
…I bet he’s as on target about the GOP as Todd Domke!
The RNC isn’t going to call on electors to vote for anyone but Trump as long as Reince Priebus is running it,
for fear it will go straight to the Kremlin. According to ABC news last night.
Fred Rich LaRiccia
Sorry Fred, nothing personal. I assume this was an anonymous source?
1) He’s not President yet.
2) We don’t have either House.
…who actually knows stuff.
Re Impeachment – can you be impeached for a High Crime or Misdemeanor in your past, or does it need to be one committed while in office? Is there a limit to ex post facto punishments and charges? HAVE emoluments ever been defined in law?
And FWIW – it is apparent that the professional governmental class has no idea how to treat an elected official from the Dreaded Public Sector. I hope you realize any precedent you create may be used against you (someday).
He would seem to be the resident expert on all these controversies.
…an impeachable offense is ultimately whatever the House decides it is. I don’t believe impeachment is much more likely than the EC going crazy next week. GOP controls both chambers and the House is so gerrymandered Republicans there are more afraid of their right flank than anything else. Prohibitions on ex post facto laws don’t apply as this is a political and not criminal justice proceeding. However, if he is subsequently prosecuted criminally than all the usual protections do apply to those proceedings. Personally I don’t want to worry too much about precedent since I very much hope this whole scenario is never repeated.
Since so little is defined in relation to impeachment in the Constitution itself, much is left for the House of Representatives to fill in the details. I will say that the exact situation that you raise came up before when the House considered impeachment of Grant’s Vice-President, Schuyler Colfax, for corruption Colfax allegedly engaged in while previously a member of Congress. The impeachment didn’t go anywhere largely because he was set to leave office soon anyways, but it implies that it is at least an open question and not unquestionably disallowed.
In any case, my point is about actions that Trump is likely to take once in office, not before it (with the exception of the Russia connections during the campaign).
The definition of the Emoluments Clause has never been tested in court, though various Attorneys General have tried to define it in particular contexts. As noted in the post, it would be difficult for anyone to have standing to sue alleging violations of the clause. So, again, it would be up to Congress whether alleged violations of the clause rose to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
I’m not sure what you mean by your last sentence. But I am indeed quite worried about creating bad new precedents and disrupting established democratic norms, which is why I see Trump as so dangerous (and, no, not because he is part of the private sector, which I assume you meant to say).
the crime would have to be committed while President, although I don’t know what the consideration is for President Elect, if that’s a special circumstance. Besides, there’s always crimes committed before he takes the oath that he continues to benefit from after inauguration. As for impeachment in general, I can’t see a Republican Congress going after a Republican President, although if they did and the Senate convicted him, a gigantic if, they would be left with one of their own, VP Pence who would be more dangerous because he is a true believer and knows the workings of Congress to get things done.
Pence believes in NATO, the EU, One China Policy and the post-Cold War foreign policy consensus. He may even respect constitutional constraints on the executive and the first amendment. Again, low hanging fruit but this is the soft bigotry of low expectations for the Trump era. He’s a retread of Dubya, an amiable dunce who believes in God, guns and deregulation but count me as Ken progressive willing to take the old crappy conservatism over the new normal.
What makes you think that the Trump-Pence administration won’t both
(a) have all the downsides of a knownothing erratic cleptocratic POTUS, and
(b) have all the downsides of a skilled Congressional insider VPOTUS with hard right ideals?
If the current situation has both of those things, wouldn’t only having to deal with one of those things be better, scorched earth 2020 strategies notwithstanding?
The only people that crowd actively attacks are FDR Democrats. They need to keep their powder dry, no doubt to propel their bullets when Zombie FDR rises from the grave to smack some decency into them.
It’s the Republicans that might impeach, so they can get that lunatic Pence into the Oval Office.
Thanks ClintonDNC!
” We must especially beware of that small group of selfish men who would clip the wings of the American eagle in order to feather their own nest.”
Fred Rich LaRiccia