Beyond impeachment, an indictment
The stickler of the problem with Trump is that the framers of the Constitution and its implementation never thought that a total crook would ever be elected president. Nixon was a crook, but the system worked so that as a case was being built against him, he saw the ultimate end and resigned. When tapes recorded in his office were subpoenaed, he relinquished them when the court ordered him to do so, and they contained evidence against him. He acknowledged the primacy of the democratic processes and that his presidency had to end. Trump, however, holds democracy and its systems in disdain. He is not capable of apprehending any value other than serving his greed and misusing power to subvert the democratic system.
The Department of Justice holds the beneficent attitude--and policy-- that a sitting president should not be impeded in doing the work of the country by being indicted. That is a policy that ignores the possibility that the criminal acts of a sitting president could put the country in its greatest peril.
The Mueller report detailed some acts by Trump that were clearly criminal. Mueller did not issue an indictment because of that DOJ policy. Many Democrats, and a few Republicans, think the Mueller report is a call for impeachment. The report, even in its redacted form, lays out the articles of impeachment. Speaker Pelosi has cautioned against stampeding into impeachment. She has said that the impeachment process, however, could be used to gather more information.
If Trump were successfully impeached, he would merely be removed from office. It is not likely that his GOP lackeys in the Senate would vote to impeach. But if Trump were indicted, he would be brought to trial. He would have to face and respond to the charges against him. And if he were indicted, the case against him would be irrefutable.
Trump's crimes are a cancer on the presidency. He is a malicious perpetrator. If an indictment were constructed against him, it could be served and he could be tried whenever he left the presidency. The rule against indicting a sitting president is not a matter of law. It is a matter of executive policy that could be changed by law. And should be.
But if an indisputable indictment were constructed for him, he would have to answer at some point and held responsible for his criminal acts.
Justice cannot be subverted by corruption. Let the indictment be made.
1 comment:
Exactly, Dave!
Had former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton been elected in 2016 Paul Ryan would be president today.
Her campaign knew that if Hillary won the rabid Republican House would have impeached her by now, the Senate would have removed her before the midterms and Trump would be on the sidelines egging them on. Somebody (Robert Mercer and Cambridge Analytica) promised Paul Ryan the presidency had Clinton been removed and Tim Kaine met an unfortunate end but that all crashed when Trump was installed. There’s no way in Hell the GOP would have given a President Kaine the time to choose a Veep.
Clinton sat in with the most sophisticated intelligence community on the planet, ferfucksake! She and her campaign knew the Russians, the Trump campaign, Mike Pence and the Republican Party were hacking the election and the battle over her private emails proves it. The tarmac meeting between Bill Clinton and Attorney General Loretta Lynch was to deliver a thumb drive containing the Steele Dossier to the Justice Department. It was likely an open secret Trump was already under the microscope. Hillary's campaign was phoned in at best so they gave Trump and the GOP all the rope they're using right now to hang themselves.
It’s becoming more obvious all the time the outcome of the 2016 presidential election was engineered by the Obama White House, the Clinton campaign and the FBI to throw the election and destroy the GOP by destroying Trump.
It's the only explanation that makes any sense.
Post a Comment