Even though the process would likely call for additional evidence and detail, that’s the logical thrust of the argument that Trump offered a bribe: corruptly soliciting something of value “in exchange for official action.” As it stands, the case appears straightforward, and, unlike most legal or political issues, several key underlying facts aren’t even in dispute.

Ari Melber keeps it simple. Less nuance, it’s right in the damn Constitution.

I, [name], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.[1]

EFlpZpvWoAA2ZyI1

Amid a series of House investigations, however, and several public, potentially incriminating admissions by Trump, Democrats haven’t settled on a core legal rationale for impeachment, which is striking, considering the Constitution’s answer is staring them in the face. Trump’s statements and actions with regard to Ukraine appear to fit one of the few offenses the Constitution specifically lists as impeachable:

Bribery.

Along with treason, it’s the only impeachable offense expressly listed in Article II, Section 4 before the catchall category, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” as a reason to impeach federal officials, who “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

The legal case would be that Trump offered a bribe. He encouraged Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky “to do us a favor” and look into, among other things, the Biden family. Trump would later acknowledge that goal, telling reporters on Oct. 3 that he wanted Zelensky to “start a major investigation into the Bidens.” Evidence and testimony from inside the Trump administration, meanwhile, suggests that the sought after benefit — an investigation of Trump’s rival — was conditioned on U.S. government action: Administration officials have referenced apparent conditions on both a coveted White House meeting between the two leaders, and on disbursement of millions in military aid, pending Ukraine’s government announcing an investigation of the Bidens.

[…]

Most of these defenses turn on credibility. Are they corroborated, or undercut, by firsthand witnesses, the administration’s actions, and the evidence of Trump’s intent? In the end, there may be many things about the president that merit criticism, but few that merit impeachment. That is what the Founders intended when they listed only bribery, treason, and high crimes and misdemeanors as grounds for taking that step.

If Congress, pursuing impeachment, begins with the Constitution’s text, it may find bribery is the right place to focus. That’s true especially because of evidence drawn from Trump’s own words: Remarkably, the president who spent years successfully resisting an interview with special counsel Robert Mueller finds an impeachment probe rapidly escalating, in part, because of interviews he’s given, freely, sometimes standing on the White House lawn.

Liked it? Take a second to support Associate Editor on Patreon!

This is a Creative Commons article. The original version of this article appeared here.

7 COMMENTS

  1. You may well get an impeachment of a sitting president, but will the senate convict so that he can be thrown out.
    It’s looking more and more dire for Trump as the impeachment inquiry gains speed and its getting more and more difficult for the reps to defend him and keep a straight face.
    I honestly think that the inquiry should proceed to a point where it will be impossible for the Reps not to convict him and although I think that we are close, we are not fully there yet.
    The country needs to get to a place where it can be absolutely certain and convinced without question that a conviction in the senate can be obtained, and until that point is reached it’s all a bit academic as the inquiry will prove a case for impeachment but will the reps convict, however the senate can not be allowed to fall over at the last minute and not convict and that’s why the evidence has to be one hundred percent rock solid.

    • This country will never successfully remove this traitor. Don’t get your hopes up…in addition the ‘smartphone’ addicts who get their news from fecesbook will never go to the polls. We are doomed to 4 more years of hell.

      • Yea of little faith, The smartphone addicts as you refer to them, will vote because they believe in climate change and they are very aware of the damage that is being caused by the administration sitting on its hands all because the Don is a nonbeliever and it’s just not the Don who is a skeptic, I heard an interview that Mc Connell gave on a radio station and he was asked the direct question do you believe in climate change, yes or no and his response was I am not a scientist and anything that we do won’t make a difference, they say that here in Aus as well, that’s a cop-out, if all the countries in the world take that attitude then no-one will do anything, so the younger generation will, vote because they can see what’s coming and they don’t like what they see.

  2. Well now I see the problem. It’s obvious by the look on his face. Melania is holding a bible. He doesn’t give a dam about that. She should have been holding a sack of gold. That he believes in!

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here