There’s no constitutional crisis: just impeach Trump for bribery

644

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.

Thank you to all who already support our work since we could not exist without your generosity. If you have not already, please consider supporting us on Patreon to ensure we can continue bringing you the best of independent journalism.

Leave a Comment

7 Comments on "There’s no constitutional crisis: just impeach Trump for bribery"

avatar
newest oldest most voted
James Simcoe
Guest
James Simcoe

Boom Pow! Ipso facto! Throw the bum out, pouting all the way.

Dave
Guest
Dave
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… Read more »
David Bishop
Guest
David Bishop

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.

Dave
Guest
Dave
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… Read more »
David Bishop
Guest
David Bishop

Oh yea of great faith, that is indeed a rosy and optimistic view. If only people cared about the climate here in Ohio. They only care if it will rain today – ‘live in the moment baby’ is their credo.

Dave
Guest
Dave

okay, what ever

chris whitley
Guest
chris whitley

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!