Brilliant essay. Would but one anti-Trumper read it and understand it. Hatred blinds them to reality.
152
Mr. Blackman, go peddle this nonsense on Fox News. Only the gullible would ever agree with it.
No one with critical thinking skills would give this specious argument any consideration.
136
Really? Even if they take such "policy" actions entirely in secret, assembling a private parallel bureaucracy outside the government to implement it, and it includes contemplating the assassination of senior US diplomats?
Lincoln didn't secretly hire a private attorney to contact one of his Confederate officer brothers-in-law to formulate a plan to assassinate Sherman did he? Gosh, I missed that in school.
Perhaps I missed it because, like Trump, Lincoln then also organized his senior cabinet officials to carry out a scheme to destroy on conceal evidence.
Sure, that must be it. All perfectly normal.
I suppose we knew that, as has so often been the case with this party and this Presidency, the after action would include a concerted effort to "normalize" the outrageous conduct. This time, however, we are not debating bragging about serial sexual assault. This time the outrageous conduct threatens the republic.
87
If Mr Trump were truly interested in investigating Burisma for the American people’s benefit, then why did he only care about a Ukrainian public *announcement* of an investigation? If Mr Trump thought there was actual foul-play on the younger Mr Biden’s behalf, which may have been in the American public interest to know, he would have asked for the whole enchilada.
Also, nowhere in this article is the extortion mentioned - “give us the *announcement* of an investigation, or we will illegally withhold your life-saving aid.” If Mr Trump were truly asking the Ukrainians to investigate corruption in good faith, he wouldn’t have lethally twisted their arm in order to get an answer that benefitted him politically. An arm-twisting that the GAO has determined *was* a crime.
No, the only conclusion that rational thinkers can come to is that Mr Trump was unconcerned about American interests in demanding the Ukrainians investigate the Bidens, that he did not really care about the outcome of any investigation (only the dirty appearance of an investigation), and that he illegally pressured the Ukrainians in order to extract an appearance of impropriety against his rival for his own political benefit.
I call that an abuse of power.
1226
Bravo
finally, a voice of reason
30
Thank you, New York Times, for presenting this alternative point of view. I have carefully considered it and find it to be malarkey.
180
This president believes he is above the law by his actions. He must be put in his place.
45
Thank you for including this piece from The Onion.
123
That The Times would even publish this is an indictment of media in general and the ridiculousness of trying to provide "both sides" of an issue.
Sometimes there is really only one side.
91
Maybe the desperate & evil orange man should try just for once in his life to "act" like a decent human, instead of "acting" like a politician (an act at which he has so miserably failed).
24
Where do you find these people?
73
More than 500 prominent law professors signed a letter agreeing that Trump's conduct is impeachable.
https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/2019/12/06/hundreds-of-law-profs-declare-trumps-conduct-clearly-impeachable/?slreturn=20200023093100
106
Holding already allocated money hostage until someone does your bidding is OK. Blackman is teaching Law students this? Political benefits have sent many a pol to the Big House.The former Governor of Michigan who tried to sell Obama's senate seat should have Blackman on speed dial so he can stop making license plates.
42
A truly impressively, brain dead argument.
The president has no right to stop and dangle Congress approved funding for the sake of his political career. Full stop.
87
Trump is just another politician as Valdemort is just another wizard.
27
But.... there are two Articles. Assuming, arguendo, that the first does not pass legal muster (and it does), what about the obstruction Article? This is but half an analysis.
26
Mr Blackman,
I sure this was an oversight, but the paragraph where you mentioned that release of congressionally approved aid to Ukraine being conditional upon Mr. Trump receiving information of a personal benefit, that paragraph was somehow missing from your article.
62
Except the action to withhold aid was declared illegal by the G.A.O. https://www.gao.gov/assets/710/703909.pdf
49
If the argument/reasoning put forth here by Mr Blackman who is a Constitutional Law Professor represents any acceptable standard in the field...the Constitution is in a lot of trouble.
Oh Boy.
44
Move along, nothing to see here...
12
Except it was, you know, illegal.
40
What greater political benefit could there be than corrupt Joe Biden getting his worthless, baby daddy, son a no show job for $50 thousand a month. Turns out, this is only going to make the re election of Trump a slam dunk. What will the Democrats do next? Another impeachment?
18
well you may be a constitutional professor but what say you to the 1974 impoundment act. since he was withholding funding to Ukraine(and that was during the legislative yr so don't say that didn't happen)he never went to congress to tell them or request why they (Ukraine )didn't have the money yet?
and that has to happen for him even to wait one day before sending the aid to Ukraine.
also, you may be a constitutional authority but you are not a CIA operative. he wanted Ukraine to say they were opening an investigation into a private citizen (which in fact would have been impeachable since a foreign power is not supposed to go opening investigations on private citizens.
also, he went with the idea that rudy told him (along with Russia)that it was Ukraine that interfered in the 2016 election and that hillarys server was in the Ukraine!
the fact is that Russia was disseminating that information about Ukraine. all intelligence operations said it was Russia and putin who interfered. so that is a lie. obviously there is something to that.
and mueller decided that there was no criminal conspiracy to charge the trump campaign with but there was collusion in that so many people in his campaign took meetings with the Russians.
11
Mr. Blackman’s premises are partisan, misleading, and false. He needs to pedal his twisted theories on “Fox and Friends.”
41
I wonder if Josh is reading any of these well thought out opinions?
13
Maybe you need to go do some more research into the Framers' intent. You might also want to add a dash of common sense to your point. Extorting a foreign government by withholding money appropriated by Congress to get them to open a bogus investigation into a bogus conspiracy theory is as impeachable as it gets. Grow a conscience.
32
Yet another self proclaimed Stable Genius. When I read hogwash like this I wonder if the person writing it actually believes anything they write, because I don't.
34
It's not every day you see someone throwing away their integrity in the Times like this.
39
No, he acts like a power-crazed tyrant who "runs" the country for his own personal benefit.
13
Bribery is an impeachable offense. Try reading the US Constitution.
19
well. this piece was so willingly obtuse and deferential to reality i had to double check i wasn't on Breitbart
27
newsflash: extorting another country by withholding taxpayer dollars is not politics. its illegal and un American. get a grip dude.
30
The federal campaign finance law bars soliciting anything of “value” from a foreign national to influence a federal, state and local election.
http://www.lawfareblog.com/trump-impeachment-and-question-precedent-part-ii-trouble-alan-dershowitzs-constitutional-argument
16
Professor Blackman, those aren’t normal lies that you normalize.
19
Trump acts like a mobster, which jeopardizes our Republic and our standing in the world. He should have been impeached long ago.
17
Whenever I read defenses of Trump’s actions regarding Ukraine I want to ask that writer: if this were a Democrat in the White House, what would you be saying? The fact is that anyone who has followed Trump’s career knows that he has always done business like a mafia don. The man is utterly amoral and wouldn’t know an oath of office if he tripped over it.
17
Very well said
6
Professor , extortion is a crime engaged in by crimin, it is not the behavior Americans expect from their Politicians .
The argument your making is the exact same as Mick Mulvaney, every does it, "get Over It'. Mulvaney quickly walked it back realizing that he had just said the President committed a criminal act and we should get over it
Mulvaney is clearly not the brightest bulb in the room, Professor what is your excuse.
13
Mr. Blackman appears to be angling for a judicial appointment by twisting/ignoring reality to the benefit of the impeached one.
28
I always believed the old saying it's better to keep your mouth shut and let people think your a fool then opening it and proving them right.
Mr. Blackman should have taken that advice. It's amazing The Times would publish a piece so filled with half truths and outright lies and that demonstrates such a complete lack of knowledge about American history. Perhaps it was just trying to demonstrate how weak the arguments made by the Trump supporters are.
Lincoln didn't request Sherman to dig up dirt on McClellan, his opponent. And no one forced Ramsey Clark to accept the Attorney Generalship nor did he hate his father and sought to have him removed from the court. Anyone who knows anything about Ramsey Clark's career knows he has high ethical standards and wouldn't have allowed anyone to manipulate him.
34
The equivalent behavior by Lincoln would have been to have told the President of Mexico that the condition for the United States providing support to Mexico to repel the French invasion of Mexico would be that Mexico launch an investigation into atrocities during the Mexican-American War committed by George McClellan, who would become Lincoln’s opponent in the 1864 election.
Would Lincoln have been impeached for such behavior? Probably not, because first this scenario is incompatible with 19th Century standards of what is ethical behavior and secondly, even had this occurred it would have been an anomalous action by Lincoln rather than part of a pattern of abuse of office.
This is the Al Capone impeachment: Trump has turned the presidency into a criminal enterprise, but this particular act is the one that is best documented to be able make a case for prosecution. Just like the government couldn’t convict Capone for murder but was able to do so for tax evasion, the House of Representatives couldn’t make a case based on the Russian and Stormy Daniels affairs, among others, but they have the documentation to make the case regarding Ukraine.
388
Well said! Thank you!
41
Normalizing extortion. Nice try.
38
This is a stupid and boring argument. In addition it makes no sense. This so called Professor is attempting to conflate things that don’t go together. It is a near equivalent to comparing rape or murder with stealing a candy bar....”because they are all crimes”. Thus us yet another attempt at a failing argument based on parsing language so finely and underscored by the most tenuous of threadbare ideas.
It is equally patently a biased position. There’s no law against having an opinion but an opinion is not the same thing as a fact.
The closest this inept argument even comes to clever is the word smithing twist of rightly pointing out that indeed people do think (consciously or not) about how outcomes affect them and naturally would like to see results which benefit them. However DJT (aka: the Human Stain) isn’t playing blackjack and”hoping” for Kings and Aces, He’s dealing off the bottom of a deck loaded with Kings and Aces - as Adam Schiff pointed out so eloquently yesterday - HE’S CHEATING.
You’d think a law Professor could recognize Cheating, Lying, Coercion, Bribery, Conspiracy regardless of the clothes they are in. The Stain is a traitor, flouts rule of law, constantly admits (brags in fact) to his crimes and potential ones and that doesn’t include his deplorable persona, traits, ugly friendships and shortcomings.
24
Although you must have a law degree, you appear not to know the difference between right and wrong, the funcamental basis upon which all laws are supposed to be produced. Your arguments appear to me to be entirely biased and false. Go back to the first year of some mediocre law school that will accept you and learn about the fundamentals of the law.
22
The author of this opinion clearly does not know that violations of Campaign Finance laws are clearly illegal fact made clear in the Mueller Report Volume 1 Page 184-187 which discusses Foreign interference in US Elections. The report states specifically that it is illegal to solicit foreign assistance in connection with an upcoming election. This is the gravamen of the Articles of Impeachment.
As relevant here, no one may “solicit, accept, or receive” from a foreign national —“a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value” or “an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election.” 52 U.S.C. § 30121(a)(1)(A), (a)(2).1283 The term “contribution,” which is used throughout the campaign-finance law, “includes” “any gift, subscription, loan, advance, or deposit of money or anything of value made by any person for the purpose of influencing any election for Federal office.” 52 U.S.C. § 30101(8)(A)(i).
FEC interpretations support the view that candidate-related opposition research given to a campaign for the purpose of influencing an election could constitute a contribution to which the foreign-source ban could apply . A “knowing[] and willful[]” violation involving an aggregate of $25,000 or more in a calendar year is a felony. 52 U.S.C. § 30109(d)(1)(A)(i).
It begs credulity to think Trump did not know.
20
Put all the lipstick in the world on this pig, and you still have an impeachable offense.
Misuse of federal funds is QED. And Mueller had Obstruction to a "T".
These lawyerly discourses of history & what ifs are devoid of current context (purposely or not ?), and as I see from my fellow early commenters, are perceived by other readers as similar to the ridiculous "process" arguments which POTUS is wielding in conjunction with his Privilege/Obstruction obstruction legal defense.
Call the White House if you want to speak this gibberish before the Chief Justice; they're hiring. You might get the job with that argument, and win the trial in the Senate, but you will be in the company of John Yoo. I consider you his brother already...
17
At least this guy admits that Trump has done exactly what he is accused of doing. The rest of his argument is hogwash, but he does make the confession. I will not cancel my NYT subscription!
7
As usual, Trump supporters see only what they want to see and disregard the rest. Blinders are for horses, not humans. And lame horses are useless...
16
Russia, if you're listening -
12
The author here is yet another GOP contortionist who is happily willing to pervert truth and democracy to defend the circus leader, Donald J. Trump. As he has done in writings (ACA, The Mueller Report, firing of Comey,...), Mr. Blackman uses his position and status as a law professor to defend the indefensible, attack progress, and with clever writing appears to be rational and caring about the large issues of the day, and particularly defending the POTUS, but in reality the professor is acting as a spin man and cheerleader for a known cheat, fraud, and despicable citizen, D. J. Trump. To use the actions and motives of any other POTUS in our history, save Johnson and Nixon, for comparison or excusable behavior is distortion and perversion at it's worst.
18
Yes he acted to try to convince Ukraine to do his political bidding... NOT a crime. However, linking it to withholding $$ made it a crime because that was a thing of value.
Lets say he just said please do me a favor... NO crime, just politics, a "perfect phone call".
Lets say he did "do me a favor and I am not giving you $$ unless you do", that is a CRIME. The money was only disbursed because he was found out.
13
Your rather pathetic view that all politicians are inclined toward illegal acts is heart wrenching.
Your rationalized view of institutionalized political sociopathy is why we have swung 180 degrees in public trust of government in the last 50 years.
21
"Elected officials almost always consider the effect that their conduct might have on the next election.”
That may be so. But in the case of Trump, the elected official was stupid and brazen enough to openly admit that he was using the power of his office to ask for a purely personal favor.
6
You are leaving out the quid pro quo which amounts to blackmail. Either the Ukrainian government does what he asks or he holds up Congressionally allocated funds for their self protection effort. This president already uses taxpayer funds for his personal benefit, putting money into his own business pockets every time he goes to one of his golf clubs since we the people end up paying not just for excessive airplane costs but also for food his protectors and staff eat and the hotel rooms they stay in at his properties. Disgusting!
13
Unfortunately the author opted to wade only through the murky legalistic bath water to make his argument. The baby—the withheld aid—is nowhere to be found.
12
Perhaps Trump should try to act like the President instead.
Judging by the following imbecilic statement delivered by Trump before the World Economic Forum in Davos, there is obviously no hope.
Trump:
“You know, we have to protect Thomas Edison, and we have to protect all of these people that came up with, originally, the lightbulb, and the wheel and all of these things.”
Really?
This, from the President of the United States of America?
This, from our Commander in Chief?
This, from the Leader of the Free World?
Omg. Please help us.
14
Sorry, Trump behaves like a criminal and THAT is an impeachable offense!
10
NO! Trump acts like a child
4
Wow, this essay is so full of errors that it's astounding it made it past the NYT editors.
First of all, it sets up a paper tiger: if a president benefits politically, then a specific act is not necessarily a crime.
But conveniently leaves out that the specific act in this case, according to the GAO, is a crime. Trump broke the law by withholding the aid, it's that simple.
Second, it conveniently ignores the hired goons and the conspiracy against a US ambassador and one of our fledgling allies.
It ignores the cover-up.
Everybody with a brain and conscience sees Trump is an impeachable criminal, using the presidency as a cash machine and ego machine.
17
Swiss citizen here. I think I need to remind this scholar of some useful information.
Extract from the US law code, campaign finance, §30121. Contributions and donations by foreign nationals.
"It shall be unlawful for a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value from a foreign national".
President Donald Trump, on tape, and on record, asked the president of Ukraine to investigate a political rival.
The President asked for something of value to a foreign national. He broke a federal law. He committed a crime.
These are all the facts you need, right here. Mister Blackman, I find your attempt at dodging the main issues of the case downright pathetic.
18
"The House seeks to expel Mr. Trump because he acted “for his personal political benefit rather than for a legitimate policy purpose.”"
The very definition of abuses of power is rooted in the corrupt intent of the perpertrator. That's why Mueller was so flumoxed in his investigation: Trump wouldn't sit for a personal interview, only answering vapid questions that later proved full of holes.
Comparing Lincoln's desire to let solders go home to vote to Trump's Ukraine shakedown is the height of sophistry. Give me a break. Trump not only broke the law (in withholding funds), he did so for petty personal political gain, affecting the ability of an ally to defend itself and hoping to smear a political opponent.
If Mr. Trump didn't commit an impeachable offense in his dealings with Ukraine, why did he block all witnesses and documents? If lying about sex with an intern is impeachable, why isn't stonewalling a congressional investigation?
12
Whitewash Trump all you want but he still comes out orange.
14
No mention of Clinton or Nixon only Lincoln and Andrew Johnson? By omitting Clinton, Blackman is saying that lying under oath about receiving oral sex is impeachable but Trump's actions with Ukraine were business as usual? This column is weak. I'm not a lawyer but even I can see that. Speaking about partisan.
12
Mr. Blackman's Opinion on page 1 (digital) gives me hope that the NYT is not all sense of balance - even though it is 10 to 1.
1
I couldn’t get past his first paragraph of this written advertisement to get on trump’s train wreck of lawyers defending him in his impeachment.
7
Not impeachable conduct you say Josh? Well guess what, Trump was impeached, and will stay impeached, now and forever more... get over it. Hes a liar and cheat, who according to the non partisan GEO broke the law in holding back aide to Ukraine for political purposes. That is the gist of article one, for which, let me repeat in case you missed it, he was impeached.
Article two is proven by the facts that no documents, not one, were handed over to the House for its lawful investigation, in itself an impeachable offense. You can commend his lawyers Josh, for defending the crooked acts of a crooked POTUS, but Trump stands impeached... permanently, and deservedly so.
10
My taxpayer money is NOT for Trump to use in exchange for dirt!
14
Rationalization 1, ethics 0.
12
Amazing how Mr. Blackman's detractors auto-redacted at least three paragraphs of his essay.
2
I'm more interested in why Hunter Biden got those Ukraine and China board jobs than Trump's "abuse of power". Swamp got to be exposed.
7
Josh Blackman, read the US Constitution with all it's attendant articles. What Trump did was a crime. Fact.
6
Mr. Blackman, are you part of Trump's defense team? I am not a lawyer, just a well informed NYT reader, and even I can tell your argument would be blown away in court - a real court, not the Rs in this Senate of course. Even publishing this "argument", ignoring the most pertinent events and the details of the calls and actions, is at the least, unprofessional for an attorney. Your argument is pathetically weak, pathetically incomplete and obviously a purely political "analysis" without constitutional basis, IMHO. Penn State undergrad (We are...!!!), and George Mason law school - those schools should be embarrassed by this opinion (not analysis) piece.
11
Why are there so many Republicans making bad arguments in support of criminal acts? Open your eyes.
11
Who decided this was publishable? Josh Blackman pulls out anecdotes to say “ha! See?” But trump broke the law by not appropriating the funds. And he did so in order to create a Biden-damaging investigation. And he obstructed justice.
How does the Lincoln or Johnson story line up with that? It doesn’t.
10
Please read the entire Schiff (HPSCI) Report.
The notes alone are priceless. Talk about academic and prosecutorial rigor!
The meticulous documentation of phone calls alone is damning.
"Everyone was in the loop."
The inaugurated President of the USA is supposed to be working for all Americans.
Trump was working for his own personal profit -- and for Putin's advantage over Ukraine.
It's a textbook case of Betrayal. Speaker Pelosi is 100% correct.
11
Why is the NYT featuring such legal sophistry? Trump used the withholding of promised aid (taxpayer $) to pressure a foreign country to benefit himself. Only personal interest, zero national interest. How dare he compare this to Lincoln and Johnson where the national interest was clearly served in both cases. Why do the defenders of Trump have no shame in their pathetic efforts to defend this indefensible wreck of a presidency? Why is the NYT featuring such legal sophistry? Trump used the withholding of promised aid (taxpayer $) to pressure a foreign country to benefit himself. Only personal interest, zero national interest. How dare he compare this to Lincoln and Johnson where the national interest was clearly served in both cases. Why do the defenders of Trump have no shame in their pathetic efforts to defend this indefensible wreck of a presidency?
7
Joe Biden: China....if you are listening, find Trump's tax returns and I think you will be rewarded mightily by our press ( and I will remove all the trade tarrifs that DJT has in place).
Liz Warren: Iran...if you are listening, find what Putin "has" on DJT, and I think you will be rewarded mightily by our press (and I will remove the sanctions DJT has in place).
Bernie Sanders:...North Korea, if you are listening....
(well, you get the point !)
12
I get a kick out of Republicans who argue in one breath that Trump is wonderful because he's not a politician, and in the next breath excuse his transgressions because, well, that's what politicians do.
Even funnier are the ones who praise Trump for "telling it like it is" because he's not a politician. When challenged with Trump's record of constant lies, these folks say "So what? All politicans lie!"
12
Complete drivel bro. What crackerjack box did your law degree spring from? The Don’s tap dance at the “March for life” fits right in with you bud! Woohoo! Winning. Winning strategy.
10
I could not believe what I was reading. From a "constitutional law professor," no less! So I had to google him and wow, a babyfaced 35 year old associate professor. That explains a lot.
12
So this is the definition of a politician:- cheater, liar, betrayer of the trust of the people, of our Constitution, the meaning and intent and the law?
7
A more appropriate title to this article would be "An Exercise In Willful Ignorance ". Is the writer also a dues paying member of the Flat Earth Society? Wow, just wow.
13
But the impeachment of Clinton for lying about whether he had sex was an emergency measure to save the downfall of the Republic? No double standard here.
9
Many commenters are focusing on what Trump tried to extract from Zelenskyy--a phony announcement of an investigation that would embarrass Joe Biden.
What is more germane to the crime is what Trump seized illegally and withheld: something of Zelenskyy's--the $ 391MM authorized by Congress. Trump broke the law in withholding it and broke it again in trying to influence Zelenskyy's behavior in order to obtain it.
Here's an example: you have a life-threatening disease, for which your doctor prescribes the drug Magna-Med. You go to your pharmacy, buy it, pay for it, and bring it home.
Before you can take it, I remove it from your grasp, and say: sign over to me all of your personal holdings and when you do, I will give you back your medicine (this for that; quid pro quo).
The $ 391MM was appropriated legally by Congress, and Trump had already approved Congress' action. The actual distribution of the money was a normal administrative process carried out by OMB--Mullvaney's dept. The money was set to go. That's when Trump stepped in and said, no, don't send it. I want it held.
At that point, he and his co-conspirators violated the Congressional Budget and Appropriations Act of 1974, which was specifically passed in the wake of Watergate to remove arbitrary actions by the President to thwart legal appropriations made by Congress.
I don't know what Prof. Blackman is trying to do here, but his only contribution is to distract malleable minds from the true issues.
9
"Politicians pursue public policy, as they see it, coupled with a concern about their own political future." No, they are not coupled together. To make them so would dismiss the professional work of the political leader as an efficient servant to the needs of the populace, it will dismiss such work to the level of a charlatan. Professional service to the citizens and within the legal framework is the first consideration of the political leader. And this writer, this teacher of constitutional law has the gall to compare the historical settings of two valorous acts by Lincoln and Johnson, respectively, with the illegal defiance of the constitution for personal gain by a two-bit shyster. Are you telling me Judge Marshall represented personal gain, or was it American gain? Did winning the Civil War by Lincoln represent personal gain or American, world gain? And lastly, what kind of lawyer are you? - that's ok. you've already written the answer.
7
The key word in that last paragraph was “foreign”. Yes, check!
3
Is it a political perk when a Democrat bribes a country we promised to help if they gave by nuclear weapons to win their election in 2028? Just checking... we all know how what’s good for the goose is good for the gander.
2
You know how bubblegum stretches ? WOW. Eventually it breaks.
5
To Pollyanna and all the other back seat legal quaterbacks - you are just plain wrong. There are dozens of times Obama, Clinton and JFK withheld funding as a condition of a political favour. If you believe otherwise you are ignorant.
This entire process is viewed by the whole world as a sham. It is transperently the attempt to disrupt the Presidency. As was the Russian interference investigation. It has no real teeth.
The people supporting this will be remembered as foolish.
5
Trump did not turn over requested documents, refused to let his staff testify. Why? That is obstruction.
We aren’t stupid. He lied about Russian hacking and continues to lie by saying “Ukraine” was the 2016 hacker! Trump is amoral and a traitor by covering for Putin.
We still have the rule of law in this country.
Apparently Blackman thinks Trump is above the law.
3
If you are requesting an investigation of American citizens there are appropriate law enforcement agencies you can deal with especially if you are The President of the United States. You do not withhold funds already approved by the US Congress as a means of exerting pressure in what is clearly a you do this for me and I do this for you situation. The case against President Trump is very clear and it is most certainly backed up by enough evidence to impeach him and remove him from office. I am truly amazed at the number of law professors and lawyers who are defending the President. Are they serious? Do they know the law and are they all just trying to publish and/or perish using this hot topic to jump into print and /or get on a news program. OMG. Lets get real and honor truth and justice.
3
52 USC 30121: it is a crime to solicit a thing of value from a foreign national in a federal election
7
Mr Blackman and many other lawyers of his ilk, in twisting and perverting language in an attempt to distort laws to their benefit are inherently more dangerous than wayward politicians. Like in many empires past, they are destroying the country. See AG Barry.
4
Why does the Times consider it appropriate to post this opinion at the top of their homepage today? This should be a simple editorial decision*not* to highlight extreme minority legal opinions or outright obfuscation. There is a preponderance of evidence that POTUS was not, in fact, "asking a foreign leader to investigate potential corruption." And the GAO report?
What was it that Steve Bannon said? "Flood the zone with..."
8
Donald J. Trump will most likely be acquitted, due to cowardice,
and hypocrisy of our current Senate Republicans at their own peril and quest to be re-elected to another term, but Donald J. Trump will forever into eternity have an asterisk next to his obituary name when his time arrives as it will for all of us, his demented soul will take that gold plated escalator down, and he will forever be known as the third President of the United States impeached in our brief national history, no matter how what he says.
When all his nasty deeds are revealed and written in our presidential history annals, it will come to be for all to see, what a evil man he really was...
5
When in 2032 President Buttigieg openly solicits a foreign power for damaging material about potential candidate Ivanka Kushner‘s son, I’m sure this author won’t have any problem with it.
4
I pity Mr. Blackman’s law students who might have to unlearn the garbage and total illogical arguments he adheres to.
9
Oh, please. There is a world of difference between dirty political tricks being played within this country and the President of the United States using the power of his office to gain political advantage using another country. Blackman's arguments are a joke.
6
Just a quick glance at Blackman’s bio on Wikipedia is all one needs to know about his “scholarship.” He is very obviously a partisan hack and a card carrying member of the right wing welfare network. Stayed another way for the right wingers reading this: Trump solicited a bribe to influence an election. Both are CRIMES.
12
Mr. Blackman what if Donald Trump had made the perfect call to Vladimir Putin of Russia or North Korea's Kim Jong Un? At that point the President of the United States would have opened himself and America to blackmail in which the leaders he made the call to could present Trump with a laundry list of demands. Trump did commit an impeachable offense violating the Emoluments Clause Article 1, Section 9, Clause 8 of the United States Constitution. I imagine if Barack Obama had made the same call I have no doubt you would be calling for his impeachment.
4
I wish I could say that it never ceases to amaze me the contortions these so-called Republican patriots go through to try to defend the indefensible.
Their names will go down in history next to Chamberlain, Quisling and Petain.
5
When public policy becomes attempting to influence/ rig free democratic elections, then the US has become, evidently, Texas.
2
This is utter nonsense.
Trump tried to condition funds allocated by Congress to Ukraine vital to its defence to Russian aggression on a personal political benefit and then obstructed, and continues to obstruct, justice when he got caught.
Your narrow argument is wrong and in any event ignores obstruction and misses the bigger picture.
5
Sir, if this is not impeachable, than what is? Out of curiosity, was Clinton's offense impeachable in your view?
2
When he seeks assistance from a foreign government to influence an American election that does it for he. He is a traitor and needs to be impeached and removed from office.
3
This piece is nonsense. It willfully ignores the underlying dynamics of this whole matter. So far as I understand it, there is a difference between statesmanlike behavior and purely selfish behavior. The one, as Mr. Schiff has said, considers the good of the country and ignores personal benefit. The other...well, you could get any used car salesman to be President, to do that. Any hog feeding at the trough. Which is practically what we've done.
3
“elected officials almost always consider the effect that their conduct might have on the next election.”
That is absolutely true - any politician who did the opposite, would be what we call a "Great Man". But Trump, who is the "Least of Men", got right into it. Nevertheless, his actions did not warrant impeachment.
The real reason for the impeachment, was to generated a fantastic amount of notoriety for Nancy Pelozi and Adam Schiff. They knew, they would be able to translate the buzz, into tremendous amounts of campaign contributions, which would guarantee their own re-election.
Adam Schiff became the top Democratic House fund raiser with $4,410,347.97 taken in during 2019, beating the well know Pelozi, who came in 2nd, with $3,743,305.89.
How many people had even heard of Adam Schiff, before the "impeachment" was invented?
Money in politics is a cancer which must be stamped out - next time you speak to a politician, ask them what they intend to do about that; expect a torrent of weasel words.
Data source: https://www.fec.gov/data/
2
With such contortions, Professor Blackman may be seeking a position within this administration.
4
Politician isn't the first word that should come to mind if you truly know about the guy, his activities throughout his life. Criminal, abuser of young and not so young women, rapist, liar, cheat--these are all more important to pay attention to, not to mention traitor. Look at the facts, his behavior, not a myopic glance in an effort to distract.
2
Oy vey.
Fair and balanced NYTimes, giving space to, as our wonderful, thoughtful, representative of her constituents and ardent supporter of freedom of the press, Sen Martha McSally, might bark: "a CONSERVATIVE hack".
This dude's been in "trump's" uh, pocket, for a long time. He would literally write anything he is told to. And proves it here.
His students should rise in protest and demand their tuition back.
6
As we have learned from the hugely ideological Supreme Court, lawyers are great at twisting any principal into a legal argument on behalf of their client or idealogy.
For every argument for, there is an argument against of course all justified through some legal interpretation vs. any empirical analysis.
So - I’m not going to read another dumb argument from a lawyer - as if this is coming from some holy mountain and their title of expertise holds any weight.
Fact is, this president lies (all under oath) on an hourly basis. The lies are easy to empirically prove and this lying has promoted the obscuring of truth today.
To have a sitting President do this is infuriating for half the country and given that truth has been destroyed, we don’t care about your dumb legal arguments. They are dumb and pointless.
The other half wants to bring the whole place down from their interests given they have nothing to lose and they won’t care either.
So that’s what your profession has been reduced to - irrelevance.
4
So an alternative side is presented in the opinion section of the NYT. This should go over well with its readers.
1
Searching your article for illegally withholding $390 million of congressionally approved aid to extort lies in support of Trump's re-election. That's OK, right professor?
5
I have no problem with what Mr. Blackman is saying and actually it is nice to hear an opposing viewpoint. However, let's put all the chips on the table and present witnesses and documents and allow the senate and more importantly the country have all the facts. The senate is fully entitled to agree with Mr. Blackman and vote accordantly.
trump's actions are more like lincoln getting sherman to only let republican supporters of lincoln come home to vote.
2
I live in NYC and people here are well versed on Trump's epic level of corruption and that is why he polled so badly here and will do so again in 2020 if not removed first. Now the country and the world is seeing how corrupt Trump is. He is no politician, he is just about advancing his own interests. If Trump is not removed, the country will just limp along and he will continue with his next diabolical scheme.
Time to dump Trump !!!! Send in the witnesses and supply the requested documents, and dumping him will be the logical outcome. He is corrupt to the core.
5
It is a sad day when the NY Times publishes the opinion of someone who clothes lies in legal arguments. Haven't we had enough charlatans?
5
Translating Josh Blackman: "Some Democrats have done political things I disagree with (and you will, too, assuming you believe how I describe them). Therefore, Trump must be permitted to commit as many high crimes and misdemeanors as he wishes. God save the autocracy!"
Got it! But jeez, what a cheap trick.
5
To author- Undermining your country’s democratic process, using the power of your office, bestowed on you by your country, is an impeachable offense.
3
"President Trump did not stand to receive any money or property from the Ukrainian president. (The House wisely chose not to charge Mr. Trump with bribery.)" How simplistic (plainly missing the point) can you get? Trump gets the USA Presidency through Deceit and Corruption. That's gotta be worth a couple of thousand eh? And that White House property? Whew? Check Zillow!!
2
Even politicians need to have boundaries and ethics. What a lame, intellectually lazy and unsophisticated way to think: politicians can do anything because they are politicians.
5
Years from now, will we be celebrating Rudy's extra-legal campaign in Ukraine with the same reverence with which we recall the elevation of the first African American to the Supreme Court or the Great Emancipator?
2
Well, an argument here and I am sure a review of the historical record could find more. Trump is not the first president to pursue foreign policy outside normal diplomatic channels or to sideline the State Department. That being said, Trump is his own worst enemy as was Clinton. Do remember that his own Administration was so alarmed that they turned him in. Perhaps they should create a clause that allows Congress to impeach for recklessness and stupidity.
1
I can't believe the Times is printing this. He is being impeached because he broke the law: abusing his power to illegally hold up Congressionally approved funds that were mandated to be disbursed. And it's also illegal to seek and use foreign aid in our elections. Let's do some fact checking, please. If people like this want to spout untruths, they can always go to the bought-and-paid-for Fox channel. The fact that he's a professor of law does not mean he is not corrupt, apparently.
4
There is no ethical bottom to this argument
4
The explanations keep shifting. Make up your mind.
4
You’re wrong, Mr. Blackman, and you should be careful what you wish for. Republicans will not always be in power (if we are all lucky enough to escape Trump’s blatantly open ploy to become our own fascist dictator).
Trump clearly tried to bribe (withhold aid $) a foreign government for his own personal gain (smearing his political opponent). The transcript of the call shows it, and numerous credible witnesses have testified to this. End of story.
You are an enabler, Mr Blackman. The republican senate and house members are ALL (to a lesser or greater degree) enabling the erosion of our great Republic. Right before our very eyes. It is truly sad. Republican enablers are hypocrites of the highest order. If any democrat, much less Obama, had committed the myriad offenses Trump has you would have been screaming bloody murder, and rightfully so. EVERYONE knows this as truth. But you’ve all gotten in too deep, and to denounce Trump now would be to denounce yourself, and you won’t do that. Republicans are no longer members of a political party. You are part of a cult. So you can all try and spin every last detail as much as you want, but until you can begin thinking and acting for yourselves, we’re all on a sinking ship and at the mercy of an admittedly charismatic but very dangerous, petulant lunatic and his brainwashed minions. Thanks a lot!
5
Sadly, the author omits the correct historical reference: the Enabling Act, which is how the German parliament transferred power to Hitler the power to enact laws -- sidestepping the legislature. Essentially, the executive can do what he wants without oversight.
Substantively, that what we're reading and observing in the Senate with out own eyes? The willingness to give the Executive the power to do whatever he choses, regardless of existing law, and a "so what" attitude?
We also seeing the systemic dehumanization of large groups and individual members of our American people -- yes, from the first step off the elevator. We the People who love our country and know history hated it. Now we see lies and hear this dangerous false "with us or against us" dichotomy on a daily basis. We have refugees with legal rights taken away with the snap of a finger. We are living in a barrage of dangerous name-calling and worse - degrading visuals.
Students of history have seen this, and it doesn't end well. We know what comes next. I've never been this afraid for our nation. We've seen this story before. We know what comes next. Therefore, I call rubbish on this NY Times article.
It's up to us not to enable it. Now, it's in the Senate's hands.
4
Mr. Blackman, I apologize in advance, but you have it all wrong. #45 is anything but a politician or diplomat. Quite simply, he is a businessman and not a very good one at that after listening to two billionaire businessmen talk about the Trump real estate businesses. It is quite obvious that he has no idea about the geography of our planet, nor does he have any depth of knowledge about foreign affairs. Good Lord man, he can barely speak a grammatically correct sentence even if it is written out for him. #45 is the worst person on the planet to be President of these United States. And, just so I am crystal clear, he should be found guilty, removed from office and not be allowed to run for public office until the end of days. They the great State of New York can prosecute him to the fullest extent of the law and throw him in jail until the end of his days.
3
Ah, a voice from the other side of the fence. A phone call (threatening? Unknown. All actions by a President are political. (I wanted to add “Duh?”). However, The PRESIDENT has a DUTY to SERVE AMERICA under the laws created by Congress. Same duty to serve as soldiers a President sends send to war.
But, this very temporal “President” ordered funds allocated by Congress, an equal branch of government, to be sent immediately to Ukraine, our ally, in an active war with RUSSIA (Hello? Putin, you need a bit more time?) Sounds and smells like TREASON. CONGRESS were you elected to condone treason - if the President is “on your Republican side of the aisle?
God, please intervene into the hearts of our Republican Congress.
4
Receiving a “political benefit” does not transform an otherwise legal action (like requesting an investigation) into an abuse of power.
Well, please tell us Genius, does reviving a "political" benefit transform an ILLEGAL action (like withholding deliberately already appropriated congressional funds for which you have no business withholding in order to force someone into announcing an investigation that benefits YOU) into an abuse of power?
THAT is the question you're deliberately prevaricating around.
3
So I guess when a Democratic led Executive Branch puts out bids soliciting a foreign government to collect dirt on a prospective political opponent, Mr Blackman will be fine with it.
12
The argument is weak in several ways, but a 156 year leap from "Mr. Trump is not the first president to consider his political future while executing the office. In 1864, . . ." really suggests desperately scraping the barrel to find a comparable example. Reminds me of Republicans claiming that Trump's specious claims about Mexicans being criminals and rapists isn't racists because, Republicans freed the slaves!!! Specious arguments is all they have. This piece also completely ignores the fact that actual diplomats, ambassadors and multiple state department personnel were 1) appalled by Trump's behavior and considered it beyond the pale and 2) had their names and careers smeared all for the personal vindication of a far right conspiracy theory which massages Trump's ego and might damage his rival. Professor fails to address Trump's thuglike remarks to Zelensky, lauding the corrupt Lutsenko, smearing and threatening Ambassador Yovanovitch? "She's going to go through some things?" What, she's going to be sleeping with the fishes?? Is this the American president you are defending? According to you, it's fine now that America (through Trump) praises and emulates murderous corrupt foreign dictators and their thugs while smearing American foreign service and State Department personnel because in 1864 Lincoln did something self-serving? Oh yes, very similar cases. NOT.
7
From which legal universe is this author?
(1) Foreign power asked to "do us a favor, though" with (2) foreign aid conditioned on the behavior.
Sounds like extortion to me.
...and comparing Trump's behavior to Lincoln's and Johnson's. Pul-eeze.
6
Public policy is not withholding aid to dig up “ dirt” on a political opponent.
Public policy is not turning over wetlands protection , as reported today.
Public policy is not banning religions, locking up children , assaulting women, praising white supremacists, lying repeatedly , aligning oneself with dictators, and ignoring the constitution, public policy is not denying healthcare and adding1 trillion to natl debt.
Trump has so many lawsuits pending , his head must spin.
You can make all the excuses you want for this criminal con man , but it doesn’t change reality.
2
Another Republican who seems to think the general electorate is too ignorant to understand the case against Trump.
6
Not a mention in this article of withholding congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine. A lie by omission.
5
Trump took tax payer money that the Ukraine desperately needed to aid in their fight against the Russians and used it to extort a demand that was completely baseless. A demand that has origins in a lunatic conspiracy theory. He had no legal right to hold up that money for any reason and in doing so he undermined the constitutional rights and powers of the Congress to raise revenue.
If it was legal, then why the big secret? All of a sudden THIS President is the Elliot Ness of the Ukraine? THIS President?
He is the most corrupt President in the history of this nation. He's used his office to enrich himself, and his family and his cronies and all out in the open too. That's how arrogant he is. And his arrogance is why he got caught.
3
If willful ignorance isn't a crime it should be. Extortion, as in 'nice little country you got here, be a shame if it was taken over by those mean Russian-backed militias' is a crime. So is withholding aid approved by Congress.
3
I'm less surprised by the blatant political infestation in this very thin argument than I am at the fact that the Times would actually print it. The so called "liberal press" tries way too hard at times to go out of its way to appear fair-minded. It's good that journalistic integrity is practiced but when the President of the United States and his party are engaged in furthering the aims of the Russian intelligence community for their own political gain, we need to think twice before airing such misleading and politically motivated nonsense.
3
Rubbish - Trump could not get anything at home so tried to string arm an inexperienced politician in the Ukraine. Perhaps the news has not reached Texas but Russia wants the Ukraine and the Black Sea. Currently Ukraine is investigating Trump operatives for violation of international law!
2
The cynicism of the author is sickening. There is such a thing as public service and dedication to truth.
Trump puts faith in him above faith in this country. The fact that the author spreads this anti-patriotic message is one more reason that Trump should be removed. Trump's ideology of selfishness must be defeated, starting with the nihilistic defense of the author.
4
This is the last defense the Trumpist right has: Trump did extort an ally by illegally (according to the GAO) withholding Congressionally-approved aid to smear his chief political rival in the 2020 election, but that's all fine and proper.
Given the mountain of evidence that this took place, this is all they have left.
Pathetic.
3
Trump asked a foreign government to gin up a phony investigation of his political rival. This is not hard to understand. That is not public policy. The author and his institution should be ashamed.
4
I pity the poor students that are “learning” from this “professor”.
6
The president is not a king. The president is not the emperor. The president is elected to serve the all the people of the a United States of America.
3
So you are just fine when a politician extorts other countries or when a politician accepts benefits to himself personally from a country led by a murderous thief? Has it ever occurred to you that con artists can also be marks? Trump thinks he is so smart but he is utterly vulnerable to flattery and influence from people way smarter and way more evil than even he is. We are the victims of his utter lack of a moral compass and the most pathetic thing is that someone who gets paid to teach constitutional law has as little a moral compass as the lifelong con artist and crook, Donald J Trump. Ugh.
3
This argument is typical for those who live in an alternate (and Confederate) fake reality. Totally consistent with the illogical diatribes like most recently seen coming from L. Graham of South Carolina.
3
Blackman’s argument is DOA. We don’t need a law professor to know that when a president leverages public funds to smear a political rival he/she commits a flagrant abuse of the public trust. Only a fool or a narcissistic wannabe autocrat would lack the moral compass, the voice in his head, telling him it was wrong.
2
Professor Blackman please stop insulting our intelligence. It appears you do not have a problem with Trump asking another country to do him a favor to dig up dirt on a political rival. It's that against the law? You have invented a yoga pose in a weak attempt to protect Trump. I'd call it Downward Goes This Country.
3
Facts? Who needs them? Laws? Who cares?
The guy was just “acting like a politician.” No one gave him a million dollars in a paper bag so he stood to gain nothing. Everybody freezes military aid to other countries allocated by congress when they want to start a smear campaign on their political rivals in advance of an election. Lincoln did it too ... or something kinda bad like that ...maybe...
Brilliant Constitutional scholarship.
To borrow a popular refrain from your favorite anti-thought club: “Lock him up! Lock him up!”
3
Did you have a bet with a colleague that you could write a defense for Trump's actions?
4
This is a shocking, indefensible immoral argument.
8
Trump---the tunnel at the end of the light
4
Mr. Blackman overlooks a key point in the charge against Trump: he did far more than simply "ask" Zelensky to announce an investigation of Hunter Biden. He essentially extorted such an action by using the power of the presiden to to withold--illegally withold, according to the GAO--vital military aid to Ukraine. That's the impeachable crime, not the political motive behind it.
3
Ahh, but it was illegal
2
Hum...
How about encouraging a foreign government (Ukraine) to spy on a US Foreign Service Officer?
Does that violate FISA maybe a little tiny bit?
4
Why is this article given any creedence in this paper?
The Supreme Court placement of Thurgood Marshall was for the betterment of the USA.
Withholding aid that was approved by Congress was illegal and conditioning the release of the aid for dirt on a political opponent was for the direct benefit of DJT.
5
I cannot understand how anyone, much less a constitutional law professor, who believes that it is OK for the president to ask a leader of a foreign to interfere in our elections by offering a bribe (I'll let you have our $$$, if you will do what I ask).
We have a president (in name only) that truly believes he is above the law. Your so-called analysis and those of the president's legal team apparently also believe this lie.
3
Well worth noting that Professor Josh's own law school was recently slapped by the U.S. Federal Court for trying to rename itself to appear as if it were affiliated with the University of Houston. This sort of fraudulent behavior is common among Trump and his minions: consider "Trump University", or Trump minion Jay Sekulow's legal organization ACLJ, with its own fraudulent attempt to disguise itself as the esteemed ACLU.
8
Earplugs keep the sand out of your ears while you keep your head buried in it, I hear.
2
Surprising that a "constitutional law professor" would write such drivel. Plus, he attempts to muddy the facts by analogizing Trump's actions with those of Lincoln. Shameful.
4
Oh, please. What 45 has done (and continues to do) is driven purely by personal motivation, and what is best for him personally and/or his family. If you have examples of others who did NOT act in the best interests of the US, then you need to just sit down & shut up.
2
Acting without legal authority is the mark of a tyrant not a “politician.”
3
The author writes “Mr. Trump wanted to learn about potential financial corruption concerning Hunter, . . .”
This is not true. DJT only wanted an investigation to be announced. Why does the author lie? Why does he ignore the true motive for DJT’s request?
Law professor? Does the dean of that school know who they are employing?
4
This argument is not serious nor worthy of publication in a major periodical. It’s so transparent that it might as well be invisible.
3
What utter nonsense. Next Prof. Blackman will be supporting Dershowitz's argument that he was correct in his legal opinion of the last century, and was simply "more correct" in his latest one on impeachment, even though they are conradictory.
4
No? But having your own private Rudy stalk, insult, threaten and seek the removal of our own Ambassador? What say ye of this? Is that becoming of a president? I mean, who's side is Trump working on if he's cozying up to Russian puppets and propaganda to thwart our own State Department's mission and fire out own ambassador without cause?!?!?!?
4
Mr. Blackman, you can perform all the verbal and legal mumbo- jumbo gymnastics you like...but it does not change the fact that what the president tried to do was as corrupt an action as can be imagined. It warrants the drastic intervention we are seeing. He is unfit ho hold the office and he needs to be removed.
5
Donald J. Trump not only thinks he is above the law, he believes it and acts accordantly.
The one big problem for him this time is he got caught!
3
Let’s not lose the forest for the trees. Trump isn’t fit to be a school crossing guard. Checks and balances are a sham. The Electoral College gets an “F.” Democracy has failed.
3
So politicians are above the law? They can consort with foreign adversaries (to taint elections!). They can lie and run roughshod over the Constitution? They can revere people like Roy Cohn, Joe McCarthy, and Stephen Miller and Putin and MBS? They can ignore Intelligence briefings while asking for briefings from Putin and ignoring national security? Ignores the well being of all Americans?
Oh, please.
2
Mr. Blackman's arguments are so specious one wonders what kind of education his students are getting at the law school where he teaches.
4
Imagine M. Blomberg publicly asks:
- Europe do you hear me?
- Investigate any Trump hotels there, Trump kids did a lot of shady stuff I heard. And announce any investigation on your TV.
2
Presidential? He is a criminal that made a lot of rich people richer.
4
This opinion piece is a prank, right? Is it from "The Onion"? The South Texas School of Law: a division of Trump University?
7
I guess the New York Times had to allow the anti-impeachment argument to be made, in the interest of fairness. Kudos to them for finding the most flawed one out there! Given his notion of logic, one wonders how Mr. Blackman even graduated from college, let alone pass the bar.
3
Is Josh a pen name for Dershowitz? This post should be exposed. I want the senate to investigate how a member of the trump defense team can impersonate a constitutional scholar by claiming to be a person he is not. I am guessing the senate defense for this fraud will be that Dershowitz is only a proclaimed constructional expert and words do not matter. Hence no fraud. And they would be correct.
2
The most ridiculous line in the piece.
"Mr. Trump wanted to learn about potential financial corruption concerning Hunter, realizing that such an investigation would, perhaps, yield greater scrutiny of Joe Biden."
Learn? Are you kidding? He just wanted the announcement. He couldn't careless about the results.
Perhaps yield greater scrutiny? Trump would use this every single day. His followers would be chanting "Lock him up" at every rally. We would have to listen to made up stories about "Ukraine Joe" for years. We probably still will.
Oh Professor Blackman, corruptio optimi pessima, the corruption of the best is the worst!
3
I understand that the Times wants to present a variety of opinions. But this goes too far. So it’s only an abuse of power if Trump asks them for a cut of the aid? Completely insane.
3
Our democracy explicitly protects the press, in no small part because of the belief that a free press serves to protect our democracy. Today, the press does much to abdicate their end of the bargain by giving voice to sophists who make dishonest and disingenuous arguments and treating those arguments as equal to those which are based in fact and made in good faith. This article is clearly the former. Shame on the Times for giving its platform to it.
5
Dear Professor Blackman: I doubt that President Trump would have been impeached had he been a normal political president. But he wasn't. I think he was more corrupt than any other president. I think he lied more than any other president. And, what bothers me most, I think his relationship with President Putin was close to being treasonous. How could you overlook these obvious flaws when you wrote what you wrote???
3
$500,000,000 for an investigation.
$1,000,000,000 to announce an arrest warrant has been issued?
$2 billion for a rendition?
$4 billion if they execute your political opponent in the public square after a sham trial?
Sure....why not, Mr. Law Professor in South Texas.
3
A navy plane crashes into a school when its out of session. Congress passes an emergency appropriation of $20M to rebuild this school. Trump finds out the mayor of the impacted town is a GOP "Never Trumper" and refuses to crow about how great the president is when Fox News comes to interview him. Trump orders the $20M to be held until that mayor publicly endorses Trump...legal? Ignorance is one thing, willful stupidity or lying (as is the case with this article) should be called out for what it is...wrong.
6
The Times needs to stop the two-siding of impeachment and stop giving voices to the dishonest. Trump's insistence that Ukraine "announce" (but not necessarily pursue) an investigation of the Bidens was entirely corrupt in many ways, not the least of which is that Trump knew perfectly well that there was nothing to investigate. The Times was in part responsible for the horror of 2016 in its coverage. Please don't give us four more years. Let Fox News cover the dishonest defenders of this administration. The Times should stick to the news that is actually fit to print.
4
What a facile load of bunk.
The problem is not so much that he wanted dirt on Biden. The problem is that he illegally withheld aid to an ally facing an armed enemy in the field, thereby imperiling their safety and autonomy, and indirectly our own.
What do they teach these guys in law school?
4
Blackman offers an utterly debased definition of politicians and politics. along the lines of Mick Mulvaney's everybody does it so "Get over it."
3
If I saw Professor Blackman in a restaurant, I'd be sure not to have whatever he's having.
3
Yes, all true.....unless Obama had done it.
4
This man is a ConLaw professor? This is one of the most intellectually dishonest things I've read in a long time. It glosses over facts, motivations, testimony, logic, history... everything a person in search of the truth should be focused on.
5
Budget Office found that the withholding of aid in defiance of an Act of Congress broke the law. Abuse of power and coercion with a foreign government to interfere in a U.S. Election is impeachable. Keep making excuses. Our Republic and Democracy are in peril because of Republican apologists such as yourself.
2
OK. Let's agree that perhaps the first article is not an impeachable offence. It's just a clumsy man attempting to gift himself a political benefit clumsily. Sure. Now…how about that second article?
1
Oh, the naivete. Or partisanship. Either way, I hope Professor Blackman keeps both out of the classroom for his students' sake.
2
Ok. Let’s do Trump a favor. Take away his presidency and prevent him from having to deal with the tough decisions a president is called upon to do day after day.
Don’t you think this poor man deserves a rest?
Yes, let’s look at impeachment as a great favor to Donald Trump. Let’s show him how much he’s truly loved and just send him back to Mar-a-Lago to truly enjoy his life. Think positive!
3
Did Obama Suggest ‘More Flexibility’ Toward Russia After the 2012 Election? Obama asked that Putin give him "more space".... I guess to help him win the elction
In 2012, President Obama was overheard over a hot microphone telling President Dmitri Medvedev of Russia he would have "more flexibility" to negotiate with Putin after the election.
President Obama: "On all these issues, but particularly missile defense, this, this can be solved but it’s important for him to give me space."
President Medvedev: "Yeah, I understand. I understand your message about space. Space for you…"
President Obama: "This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility."
President Medvedev: "I understand. I will transmit this information to Vladimir, and I stand with you."
2
Those of us who saw the article here in the Times a couple of weeks back, about what they put in the text books in Texas, won't be surprised that Mr. Blackman can churn out such nonsense with such confidence.
4
The problem is, Trump acts like a corrupt Ukrainian politician. That is impeachable.
3
This is one of the most reductive, most short-sighted opinions I have ever read in the New York Times. At no point are Trump's actions considered, only his motives. What matters is that Trump took action to commit an illegal act - per the impeachment investigation and GAO findings - that resulted in foreign aid being illegally withheld from an ally. The primary flaw is that Blackman assumes Trump, the man, is analogous to Presidents Lincoln and Johnson. That alone is an absurd suggestion as Trump is an astonishingly ignorant human being, lacking both an understanding of history and the mental fitness required to lead. Indeed, what is ignored here is Trump's pattern of behavior. The impeachment investigation came about not just because Trump committed what was clearly an abuse of power, but because he has always been this way, proudly and without reservation. This is a man who has openly praised dictators, sided with Putin on a world stage while critizing his own intelligence agencies, heaped praise upon psychotic tyrants like Kim Jong Il, divided the country with hateful rhetoric, tweeting vitriolic attacks and disproven conspiracy theories, and on and on. The House responded accordingly because they knew that withholding military funds from an ally was a continuation of the behavior we have seen with Trump for his entire adult life. Let's not pretend we are talking about a man who can share the stage with Lincoln and Johnson. There is no precedent for this "President."
6
It’s a shame when people like Blackmun give away their credibility and honor. I feel sorry for them. History will be their judge. It won’t be pretty.
3
Why Biden? Why now? Why not in 2017? Why not the blatant nepotism with his own children? Sorry, but abuse and obstruction are not two words that should be associated with the Presidency.
2
If the whistleblower had not alerted us and if Democrats had not done their homework and impeached this corrupt and inept president, We, the People, would not know about his shenanigans to get foreign help for the 2020 election. Whether one agrees with his policies or not, and I do not, letting this man and his band of merry men pretend there was nothing there is a farce. I hear many Republicans were sleeping in the Chambers yesterday, say later on that they learned nothing new, that everyone wants to persecute the president, etc, etc.....the man they are trying to defend at all costs is playing them like a violin and holding them hostage for what? to save their party? No, to save himself. He has found an army of sycophants that suit his needs. The one thing they forget as they are building this fortress of lies around their puppet president, ignoring the polls and not paying attention, is that We, the people do not forget. We are paying attention not only to the proceedings of this trial, but to the pools and the disapproval ratings of this president and the Senators whose reelection is now hanging by a thread. Why they are still defending the non defendable will be the question of the year. They have played the ostrich for so long that they cannot get the sand off their eyes and see the truth for what it is. How sad!
3
Notice the mention of the second article of impeachment in Mr. Blackman's opinion piece here.
And I say notice it because he doesn't mention it. You see even a law professor, who makes hyperbolic legal arguments for students day in and day out cannot figure out how to beat that one.
3
Trump doesn't act like a politician. He acts like a business man, which is problematic because our governmental system is based on governmental norms, rules, regulations which are different from those of the business world. A businessman can become a politician, even a president, but he or she must agree to comply with governmental regulations and guidelines. Just as a business who decided to become a physician would have to follow a different set of criteria. That the Republicans allowed Trump to act in a way that undercuts our government and threatens our society is as problematic as the actions of Trump himself. Trump is a bully who has intimidated those who work with him and those politicians who need his support to be re-elected. The fact that Republicans have continued to support and defend him (although many find him utterly repugnant) is incomprehensible to me. Nations can be broke and it is easier to do so than one might think. Trump's Presidency has done more to weaken our nation than any other event in our history.
4
Putin bribes Trump by stealing DNC emails and using them to sway the 2016 election. Trump returns the favor by, among other disruptions to western order, slow walking political and military support for Ukraine in their war with Russia, thereby weakening Ukraine’s negotiating position with Putin. In the process Trump coerces Ukraine to sway the 2020 election by impugning the Bidens in Ukrainian courts.
Putin is successfully attempting to sway two elections to put, and keep, his man in the White House.
Does it matter that the political help Trump receives is not cash? It is still Russian influence to achieve Russian goals. This is impeachable.
3
Trump did not just ask Ukraine to launch an investigation that benefited him personally. Trump withheld $400 million in military aid to Ukraine as leverage when making this request.
These taxpayer dollars were appropriated by Congress to serve the national security interests of the United States, not to be used as a piggy bank by Trump for his own personal interests. The GAO has already ruled that Trump broke the law by withholding these funds.
How could Mr. Blackman write a thousand-word essay on this issue and fail to mention the withheld military aid? Did he not think it relevant, or did he realize it completely undermines his argument?
To the New York Times: It’s fine to present opinion articles that challenge your predominantly liberal readers, but they should be honestly argued. We get plenty of deceptive propaganda on Facebook and Twitter.
2
I’m sure he wrote this nonsense just to get some prominence in his legal work or to get some gig work for trump. Once again these kind of characters that populated the “honorable profession” just keep destroying our system of justice and law and order!
Please enough, stop before it’s too late.
We’re a severly damaged country as it is don’t think we need musings like this from a person who needs to get work on perfectly corrupt team of defense.
4
This characterization of Trump's attempt to coerce a foreign power to interfere in a US election as a "request for an investigation" of what was a bogus charge floated by Russia and corrupt figures in Ukraine is of course nonsense. The parade of witnesses and the mountains of documents entered into evidence make clear what was happening.
3
No professor, trump acts like a Tsar, empowering his family politically; lining his coffers and betrayiniig the disenfranchised.
2
Sir, the only problem with this is, Trump attempted to use property of the United States in doing so. Why is this not important? It's not only what concerns me the most, it shows that he cannot be trusted things that are even more important than getting foreign help in manipulating his political future...leaving himself open to manipulation by foreign, perhaps hostile, governments. Like they say, people who con others are the easiest to con themselves. This is not just a politician, this is egocentricity on a toxic, pathological level precisely in the most important office of our nation.
2
Trump withheld American military aide during time of war from an Ally desperate for our aide, in order to secure for himself political propaganda for his personal reelection campaign.That is, in my opinion, damnable extortion by an acting President. It is as egregious a crime as committed by Nixon when he and Kissinger secretly slowed the Vietnam Peace talks in order to secure Nixon's own reelection.
Trump has also compounded his treasonous act of extortion with his ongoing contempt of Congress on a Dictatorial scale. By denying Congressional Subpoenas and hiding Congressionally requested Documents, Trump is clearly violating his Presidential Oath of Office to uphold the Constitution and should be removed from office by a majority of Senate Republicans.
Senate Majority Leader Addison Mitch McConnell Jr. should be recalled from the Senate, after pledging to collude with the Trump White House and having failed to recuse himself from the Impeachment trial, where he is clearly biased by the fact of his wife being a member of Trump's Cabinet. His wife has gone so far as to stand smiling next to Trump as he proclaimed there were "good people" amongst the NeoNazis and Seperatists who rioted and murdered in Charlottesville, Virginia. The McConnell "power couple" is a conflict of interest which calls for Supreme Court Justice Roberts to remove McConnell from the Impeachment Trial for conflict of interest.
Each and every Republican Senator will be held accountable by the Public
3
The main positive in Trump not being impeached is that Pence would not become this country's commander and chief. That is a scary thought!
1
No, Trump's not acting like a politician. He's acting like a king. We threw the last one out in 1776. We don't need, or want, another.
3
Hi Josh:
You have hit the nail on the head. Impeached President Donald Trump indeed acts like a "politician" - unfortunately, like the negative stereotype of a seedy, self serving politician - not a servant of the people.
But certainly, this Impeached president is no statesman.
3
Nonsense. Bribery is unConstitutional.
3
This is an absurd argument meant to confuse and distract. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain.
3
Withholding the aid has been deemed illegal by the GAO. So this entire argument fails, for this and the fact that the analogies are obviously inapt.
2
I look forward to your take on obstruction of congress.
2
Seriously? Trump did not just “ask” a foreign leader to investigate corruption. He *pressured* a foreign leader to announce an investigation, purely to damage a political opponent, by withholding aid duly allocated by the people’s representatives. There was no legitimate reason to withhold the aid allocated by Congress, so he was subverting the will of the people purely for his own political benefit. It really ain’t complicated. To equate this with considering whether it will be politically popular to take a particular action from among a variety of legitimate options (like whether or not to vote for a certain tax or tax break, for example) is simply ridiculous. Sadly, a lot of people will probably buy this. We as a nation appear have lost the capacity for critical reasoning and the ability to recognize the truth. It’s not just the emperor who is parading around naked, it’s the entire Republican Party. (Sorry for that mental image, everyone.)
2
He was not asking for an investigation. He was asking for an announcement of an investigation. Something public. So he could wave it in the air, just as he waved around Hillary's emails many years ago. It had nothing to do with corruption, except his own.
His obstruction is just another way the whiner in chief "goes his own way," as if the rules don't apply to him. How he used thugs and back doors to remove the ambassador, when all he had to do was ask her home. How, if he was concerned about corruption, he has an entire force of people who specialize in rooting it out.
He is a dangerous man to have in power. He's costing America a lot, in more than money.
2
Far more relevant now is the revelation last night that Biden's corruption was well known to White House. In fact, there was a meeting there by numerous administration officials on how to handle the problem of Hunter Biden's benefiting from his father's position and influence.
1
So presidents have not to be moral.
2
Shame on Josh Blackman for mischaracterizing the facts here. He wrote, "But receiving a “personal political benefit” does not transform an otherwise legal action — requesting an investigation — into impeachable conduct."
That description of what happened leaves out a crucial detail -- the withholding of military aid on the clear understanding that such aid would not be forthcoming unless Ukraine announced the dubious investigation.
Trump wasn't impeached for "requesting an investigation."
He was impeached for impermissibly withholding military aid from an ally at war, in order to pressure that ally to announce an investigation into his political rival, even if no such investigation was undertaken.
Yes, that's an abuse of power. Trump's own GAO found that it violated the law, the Impoundment Control Act -- see: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/us/politics/gao-trump-ukraine.html
That was far more sinister that merely, "requesting an investigation."
4
This president has shown over and over again that he doesn't understand right from wrong. He is a disaster waiting to happen.
3
The fallacy of this piece is ignoring that the only motive on Trump’s scheme to blackmail Ukraine to dig up dirt on his political rival was his personal political fate. Trump has never cared to prevent corruption. Indeed, he’s sought to make foreign bribery by American companies legal.
It is pure sophistry to claim otherwise.
3
So, lying under oath about an extramarital affair to protect one's reputation-- for instance-- is an impeachable offense Yet, holding up arms approved by Congress at the expense of a burgeoning democracy's safety during wartime at the detriment to US security and that of our allies in order to clandestinely dig up dirt on a political opponent, and then obstructing and covering up is merely politics as usual? No words.
3
The author conveniently overlooks the testimony of more than one witness to the effect that Trump didn't give a hoot about the investigation. He only wanted the public announcement of an investigation into 1) Biden to damage Biden's campaign and 2) alleged meddling by Ukraine into the 2016 election to bolster his ridiculous claims that it wasn't Russia.
The proposition that Trump only cared about corruption is risible.
Oh yeah, and Trump is just like Lincoln and Johnson. Please.
3
Since the likelihood of the Senate convicting Trump is nil, unreasonable arguments like this one come out of the woodwork because the creator of the argument can then say after acquittal, "See, my reasoning was right!".
So the fallout from acquittal will not just be a more unconstrained Trump but likely a parade of illogical and unreasonable arguments that will be held aloft by Republicans as gospel. It is quite possible that many people for many years may be thus hoodwinked into believing the power of unreasonable thinking when it was really the critical mass of Republicans holding on to power for the sake of power that will have acquitted Trump.
2
It's good to see The New York Times presenting opinion pieces that reflect different points of view. Other publications and broadcasts that don't do so should follow the Times's example. It could lead to a healthier discussion of important issues.
1
I thought maybe I mistook what I read last week. But my memory was correct: the GAO said Trump broke federal law by withholding the aid. So is not this article’s premise a blatant lie?
4
The comparisons to Johnson and Lincoln are very weak and strained. But, your point is valid. Presidents often make decisions with at least one eye on the political consequences. What makes this Trump action impeachable as opposed to just one more of dozens of despicable acts Trump has undertaken as POTUS?
Well written article Mr. Blackman. Hopefully it will actually lead to open thought by those rabid members on the left whom forgo fact for pure political gain.
1
This guy must be angling to get a high post in a Republican administration or a judgeship. Read 52 U.S.C. Sec. 30121(a)(1)(A) and (2). The courts have construed the phrase "thing of value" in this and other statutes to include intangibles and anything the requestor wants The bumbling Democrats should have charged Trump with bribery: he was using congressionally appropriated money in an attempt to bribe Zelinsky to announce the investigation he wanted. Trump could have been charged with attempted extortion as well
3
Allowing soldiers to vote is pro-republic. Blackmailing a foreign government to force it to smear a political rival then hiding the whole thing is anti-republic. Lincoln was a Republican.
325
The lengths Republicans will go to ignore that Trump wants FOREIGN interference in our elections is saddening.
2
Delaying aid until you get dirt from a foreign government is not politics as usual. Read Federalist 65, which applies directly to Trump and his impeachable actions.
3
No Professor. Trump acts like a king. He blatantly uses the office for himself. He speaks as if he is the State. Article II powers are his personal powers. Opposition to him is treason. In his mind he is not a president, but King Donald I.
2
I guess burglarizing the Watergate should have been construed as a wholly political act? Not within the Framers confines as a ‘High Crime or misdemeanor’.
2
Politicians are permitted to act in their own personal benefit -- just not with my tax dollars, violating federal law, abusing the power of their office, and then covering it all up.
That, Mr. Blackman, you don't get the difference, is sad.
5
Ummm, you left something out! He held up aid to Ukraine! That aid had already been cleared by Congress. That aid was taxpayer money. That aid was crucial for a country that is an ally and in a war against a country that is an enemy. Holding up the aid alone is bad but he held it up as a condition for getting something personal. It's convenient to leave that out but in doing so, you make yourself look irrelevant.
3
Mr. Blackman, you are obviously an intelligent man capable of making an unbiased argument, yet you made this one only about the 'impeachability' of a President acting for political gain. Left out entirely is the quid pro quo aspect of the accusations. There is no consideration (or mention) in your words about the withholding of Congressionally-approved funding intended to help Ukraine combat Russian aggression in the direct interest of US national security until personal political favors are fulfilled. There is no mention of the breach of trust that represents. Nor is there any mention of obstruction of Congress. Therefore I agree with your words but your words do not represent the current charges against the President. Why does an obviously intelligent man leave out the most important aspect of the accusations? Bias. Or something darker?
2
I don’t want my tax dollars to go to Trump “planning” his re-election.
3
We have to see arguments like Blackman's for what they are: attempts to distort facts, distract from the truth, and enable despotism in the name of winning. Facts are irrelevant.
Either we have have a nation based on laws or we move toward dictatorship. Mr. Blackman is playing toward the latter.
3
To be even-handed, The Times tries to present arguments from the "other" side for purposes of balance. One assumes that this piece was the best they could come up with at the moment. Can't anyone make a compelling case in defense of Trump?
1
"... President Trump’s request that President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine announce an investigation of Hunter Biden’s role with the energy company Burisma."
He left out the part about withholding 400 million dollars in military aid unless the Ukrainians did it. He used our money that should have been spent helping Ukraine defend itself (in our interest) to help himself get reelected.
"Mr. Trump wanted to learn about potential financial corruption concerning Hunter Biden... "
He didn't just want to find out why Hunter Biden was paid all that money, he wanted the Bidens publicly humiliated.
This was too much of an obvious shakedown for the Ukrainians so they refused.
3
You are wrong, sir. The benefit he received was purely personal, not political. As it has been all his life. Donald Trump always works for himself, not the Republican Party, not the country. Himself. I suggest you be honest with yourself.
2
Bill Clinton was not impeached for misconduct but for lying about his misconduct. Donald's being impeached for misconduct and lying about it. Once Donald is out of office, regardless when, he will face a reckoning for his life of crime.
Donald tells us he has unlimited power and Republicans seem to believe his election by a minority of Americans gives them and Donald a mandate to impose their agenda on us without consequences, as if there's no tomorrow and they will retain power forever. I see a frightening white "Christian" nationalist crusade taking place. They're having limited success for the moment, but regardless of how zealous the crusaders are, how driven by negativity, fear and hate, the crusade will fail, the vocal activist minority posing as the silent presumed morally and intellectually superior majority will take a backseat to real problems of climate change, income/wealth inequality and insuring a healthy educated workforce for a prosperous future.
1
When a president believes that a citizen, any citizen, should be investigated for corruption, whether at home or abroad, he/she calls the DOJ or FBI. Using foreign aid as a cudgel to have a foreign government, one that you describe as corrupt, do the investigation stinks of a secondary motivation, in this case the desire to weaken an opponent for an upcoming election. No matter how much nuance is applied to the act, Trump is guilty as charged!
2
Parody - an imitation of the style of a particular writer, artist, or genre with deliberate exaggeration for comic effect.
To be polite, this is what I believe Josh Blackman's opinion intent was...
2
This is the only honest defense that can be made of Trumps conduct. I think it’s baloney. But at least it’s not loaded up with lies.
1
It doesn't surprise me that this fatuous interpretation of the US Constitution comes from a Texas scholar. I'm certain that his interpretation would be 180 degs in opposition if the president performing these acts was a Democrat. The GOP fraud is systemic and growing. Even those in the party who are honest decent American citizens are being pulled into the maelstrom of hate and lies.
2
Mr. Blackman does not address whether Trump's directing the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to withhold almost $400M in duly authorized Congressional disbursements to Ukraine is impeachable conduct. Easy to see why. The GAO Decision dated January 16, 2020 determines withholding those funds violated the Impoundment Control Act (ICA). Violating a federal statute is a crime. Period. Mr. Blackman's rationale that actions for "personal political gain" are not impeachable entirely misses the point. The President's actions were illegal. He cut off aid, which itself is illegal, and then strong-armed President Zelenski - extorting him to investigate Trump's political rival in order to get the money flowing again. Any opinion that the US Constitution doesn't permit a President to be impeached for such conduct is, at best, ill-informed, and at worst, a sycophant's viewpoint.
3
"Preserving a unified nation during the Civil War? Check. Creating a vacancy so the first African-American can be appointed to the Supreme Court? Check. But asking a foreign leader to investigate [your main political opponent during the run up to the next general election, withholding Congressionally authorized military aid to leverage an ally at war into announcing said investigation (illegally per the GAO), using your personal attorney as a back-channel to implement the plan quietly, and blocking documents and testimony that could explain what happened once the public became aware]? Impeach."
Fixed that for you. I'll fix your responses too.
He was trying to fight corruption [though he never mentioned corruption or plans for broader reform on either phone call even though he had been instructed to do so, he approved similar military aid packages in the previous non-election years no problem even though the Biden-Burisma background had been public knowledge for years, and the Department of Defense had signed off on this year's aid from an anti-corruption standpoint].
The aid was released [months late and only after the whole scheme blew up in the news].
Zelensky said he didn't feel pressured [because he'd never say that he felt pressured when his relationship with the president is still of critical importance].
Trump said "no quid pro quo!" [Oh, well, that settles it then...]
3
Leaving aside the long litany of offenses, legal and otherwise, committed by Trump against the best interests of the Republic, I would say you guys need to get your story straight on this one. It started with "no collusion" with Russia. Then, on Ukraine, it became "Ok, collusion but no quid pro quo." Then, when it became clear there WAS a quid pro quo, it has become "well, quid pro quo is not an impeachable defense." I'd be a lot more comfortable with that argument if you hadn't gone to such extreme lengths to claim there was no quid pro quo. Never mind the fact that the independent watchdog has determined that the Trump side of the quid pro quo was a crime, or the finding by Wm Barr, while he still retained a shred of integrity, that a presidential abuse of power is an impeachable offense. Sorry pal, but all the fancy footwork just doesn't wash.
4
I am amazed that anyone doesn't see that hammering Joe Biden personally was Trump's objective from the word "Go", and most pro-Trump postings here exhibit the same ongoing purpose.
2
If Trump's behavior is merely the commonplace behavior of most politicians and is neither illegal nor impeachable, then we immediately need to demand more from our politicians and our highest priority as a nation must be to change any laws that make such political behavior illegal. I believe that the entire argument presented in this article is profoundly disingenuous and ethically sleazy but even if the author is accurate .......are we as a nation really OK with any or our elected officials - particularly our POTUS - behaving like Trump?
3
Trump abused his power to get re-elected by trying to dirty up Joe Biden for the next election. He only cared about the announcement of the investigation of Burisma and Hunter Biden, knowing full well that announcement alone would knock his primary political opponent (Joe Biden) out of contention.
Every Senator should be able to recognize that kind of dirty political tactic. It’s routinely done domestically, and they all have likely been either the pitcher or the catcher in that game at some point.
But this involved a nefarious effort to pursue a debunked theory about the Bidens, and more egregiously, to coerce a foreign government to influence our elections. Plus he misused our tax dollars as leverage as part of his scheme, as outlined by the G.A.O. report. How can they ignore that evidence? How can they condone allowing foreign interference in our elections?
Trump didn’t care about corruption in Ukraine. He didn’t do what’s good for our country or for Ukraine. He did it for his own selfish gain and tried to cover up his scheme, but got caught thanks to some courageous witnesses.
He’s been impeached and deserves to be removed from office, and barred from holding office ever again. Period.
3
Trump conspired to commit fraud to undermine the 2020 election process. Trump bribed and extorted a smear campaign against his feared opponent with improperly withheld, i.e., illegally withheld, appropriations. Trump and the Russian Republicans obstructed justice in preventing witnesses from testifying and providing documents. Nice try, tho.
3
To paraphrase this column: Trump did not commit a crime, as tabulated in law books, therefore he is not subject to impeachment. Mr. Blackman apparently hasn't bothered to read the overwhelming trend of legal opinions on this.
2
This argument completely ignores the most important half of the abuse of power. Trump attempted to *extort* personal political benefits from the Ukrainians *at the expense of the national interest and the execution of national foreign policy and the will of the Congress* by implicitly threatening to withhold, and then actually (illegally) withholding American aid. And that's without even touching upon approving and knowing about a campaign to smear an American diplomat as part of the same scheme. And using his own personal lawyer to do it! And he lied about the purpose to hide the personal gain motive-- Trump has never expressed in interest in investigating corruption anywhere else. Still not impeachable conduct, Professor? And of course, there's plenty more to it. What are you smoking?
11
Oh great. Another Federalist Society lawyer presenting their hacky opinions and the New York Times giving them a platform.
Mr Blackman (I would urge readers to look up his record) presents Lincoln and LBJ as examples of quid pro quo, however he fails to recognized that both men did not solicit the aid of a foreign government. They did not use personal representatives to operate "as though" they were representing the United States. Wrangling votes for domestic policy is not the same as using the presidential title to coerce a foreign power to aid in his personal political campaign (which is illegal). Trump has a cadre of people like Flynn, Erik Prince and Giuliani who are acting as foreign lobbyists either on his payroll or whispering in his ear.
In typical Republican fashion Mr Blackman attempts to dazzle us with his histrionics of great presidents doing the work of the country and compare them with this dumpster fire. Lincoln and LBJ might have had dueling motives but Trump only had one ... himself.
As an aside, Mr Blackman brushes aside abuse of power arguments, but fails to mention the Trump administration has been noted over 100 times of abusing the Hatch Act and ethics violations. Sadly Trump has demonstrated that when you have a corrupted Senate violations like that aren't held to account.
New York Times do better in selecting your opinion contributors.
7
A constitutional "expert" from Texas, a state that rebelled against the federal government - citing Abraham Lincoln. Now that's rich!
6
He needs to a sanity test along w Dershowitz. They defy facts and the views of literally hundreds of constitutional scholars. Stay away from his course.
He will most likely be adding to trump’s legal team.
6
When Lincoln seeks to preserve
a unified nation during the Civil War, he does so in the national interest. Ditto with Johnson creating a vacancy so the first African-American can be appointed to the Supreme Court. Both were undertaken for the benefit of the nation, in particular its (not yet fully recognized) African American citizens. Asking a foreign leader to investigate your political rival serves no one but yourself, and also steals the right of the electorate to choose its next president. There is no argument here. It’s astonishing and very troubling that the New York Times has elected to publish it.
6
This is a specious argument, but not uncommon from certain political circles. Sadly these self-proclaimed strict Constitutionalists cherry-pick what they believe to be the intent of the Founders as if only they can know what was unwritten but implied. Hogwash.
Our Constitution and American law is dynamically revised from Congressional legislation (e.g. - Amendments), actions by the Executive Branch and SCOTUS landmark cases. All three branches of government are equal and influence governing of these United States. It's farcical to pretend that only what was written in the 18th century is valid.
Setting that aside, note President Trump broke the law.
Trump violated 52 U.S. Code 30121(a)(1 & 2) by soliciting political contributions from a foreign national in asking Zelensky to do "...a favor, though..." No quid pro quo is needed because the solicitation itself is unlawful. Reference the U.S. Code linked below s needed.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/52/30121
There is no room in that USC for legal wrangling, but it's cute Mr. Blackman has tried. This silly OpEd reeks of what Chief Justice Roberts warned those conducting proceedings on the Senate floor ... pettifoggery.
Trump's July 25th call summary and speaking on camera defined the illegality. We The People demand the full transcript. Trump offered to release it. The call was not perfect and resulted in the whistle blower complaint. An action that AG Barr tried to keep from the light of day.
4
Dear Mr. Blackman (and anyone else who thinks President Trump's actions were A-OK),
Imagine, if you will, an alternative reality: it's 2012, and President Obama is on the phone with the Canadian Prime Minister regarding an aid package that Canada desperately needs.
"I'd like you to do us a favor, though," Mr. Obama says. "Mitt Romney's son has had some shady dealings with a Canadian company. Would you mind investigating those?"
Here's my question to you: In such hypothetical scenario, how many Republicans would have said, "Oh, it's perfectly fine! Nothing to see here, move along"?
If your answer is anything other than "exactly zero," then I've got a beautiful ocean-front golf course in North Dakota I'd like to sell you.
4
I would love to read a column by Mr. Blackman were it President Obama orchestrating the months-long Ukraine extortion expedition solely for the purpose of damaging his political rival in an upcoming election.
4
GAO declared he committed a crime by withholding Ukraine defense funds (our tax dollars) ... a crime you decided not to mention ... do you equate normal politics to include $400M crimes ?
3
So, Josh, withholding military aid to Ukraine breaks the law but is not an impeachable offense. Really? Your examples of Indiana troops leaving the front to vote and LBJ's scheme to get Thurgood Marshall on the Supreme Court while controversial are not criminal. Smearing an ambassador to please an Ukrainian thug, running foreign policy outside of diplomatic channels with persons not confirmed by the Senate is shady, and requesting favors like investigating US political opponents in order to visit the White House and receive Congressionally designated military aid is criminal. What part of the Constitution disappears by providing "political benefit", upholding the nation's laws? defending the Constitution? protecting national security? Why would the National Security Lawyer receive 2 or 3 alerts from those White House staffers who were alarmed by the "perfect call"?
3
Correction: Trump acts like a dishonest politician. That must be an impeachable offense.
2
This argument does not hold up at all, as our able and insightful readers here have shown. I'm having trouble understanding why this piece was even published. I know it's "opinion", but this falls into the category of those false arguments being put forth by the GOP and twisted news outlets for digestion by those who do not have the facts at hand.
3
"The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son. That Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it"
Either VP Biden was carrying out US policy or he was a rogue actor protecting his son. The place to start investigating that is the DOJ under the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. The FBI has an office in Kiev and we have a cooperation treaty with Ukraine. It's obvious that you can't get to the bottom of his motives unless you understand the US side. Yet, Barr has said there is no investigation into Biden and treats Giuliani like a leper. I don't know what kind of Olympic-level mental gymnastics this author has to go through to avoid these facts in his reasoning.
3
Getting Ukraine to investigate Biden was legal, but it was in practice a lie, meant to smear a political opponent.
There was also mention of the Crowdstrike server in Trumps' phone call, also a total fiction. If Trump had asked the Ukrainians to look for a multicolored unicorn somewhere in eastern Ukraine, that would have been legal too.
2
Well, when you said he was "acting" you got that right.
1
ah. i get it now. the professor and his co-writer discussed their book "100 supreme court cases" at the heritage foundation last year. heritage foundation, federalist society, whatever. all the same conservative drivel.
2
The predicate of Trump’s actions is to infect the ether with disinformation. Trump put a cloak over the actions and blocked as many avenues as possible for the people’s house to exercise oversight
The opine is a weak exercise in whataboutism; the professor merits an F
4
Neither Lincoln or LBJ sought out falsehoods from a country known to be rife with corruption. Referring to that euphemistically as “Being concerned about the next election” is an attempt to seal up the rot in Tupperware so we can’t smell it. It fails, largely because we can all see it.
3
This is laughably bad. I’d be mortified to have my name attached to it.
3
Rubbish. This wasn't pursuit of public policy, it was using the power of the office for political gain by conspiring with a foreign power at the expense of the geopolitical interests of the United States. Not to mention the questionable methods. Torpedoing ones own ambassador, for example, isn't justified by saying, "he's just acting like a politician."
3
I think I get it. Mr. Blackman is either vying for a cabinet seat or a SCOTUS appointment.
Nothing else explains this cognitive dissonance multiplied by its aggressive ignorance.
3
Mr. Blackman is correct on all counts. The Democrats have incompetently ginned up this show trial as an irresponsible political stunt, for which they failed in the most basic of political calculations— they did not gather adequate political support *before* proceeding. This shows that they have become a party of dangerous fools.
1
What a ludicrous argument. "Politicians routinely promote their understanding of the general welfare..."? How can anyone still think Trump cares about the "general welfare"? He cares about nothing and no one but himself. This argument is nothing but a list of false equivalencies...none of his arguments are remotely similar to a president withholding funds lawfully set aside for an ally to pressure that ally to assist them through an investigation of a political rival, and indeed, not even an actual investigation, but just the announcement of one, in order to manipulate an upcoming election in his favor. Sad to see this is a "constitutional law professor" spouting this nonsense. Right up there with Dershowitz, twisting reality to promote an agenda.
2
Russia / Putin wanted Trump to be elected and worked toward that end. As the senate debases itself and moves toward acquitting an obviously guilty Trump, Putin is he getting what he wanted: the destruction of the United States. We have lost our credibility because we elected Trump. We have lost any legitimate claim to the moral high ground. Putin wanted this. And he got it. Trump is helping Putin. McConell is helping Putin. Putin is a ruthless dictator. Is this what US citizens want?
1
trump acts like a politician.
A lying deceiving Republican politician, to be clear.
2
I very much appreciate this well thought out argument. However, after reading many of the comments below, I’ve come to the conclusion that reason and logic will not convince anyone that hyperventilates at the mere mention of Trump’s name. These people still believe that Trump colluded with Russia. They think he actually put babies in cages. They think he an ignorant criminal mastermind elected by 46 million deplorable Americans. If he kills an Iranian general responsible for the deaths hundreds of American soldiers, they sided with our enemies and bombard Trump with demands to justify his actions. If he engages in renegotiating trade agreements, they blame him for weakening our economy. If he builds a border wall, they scream out that he is a racist.
I get it, Trump provokes people with his tweets. He speaks his mind and his statements are completely unfiltered. You don’t like him? Don’t vote for him. But this impeachment process and trial is a corruption of our constitution that weakens our democracy. This impeachment will forever be Pelosi’s shame, not Trump’s.
1
This is not “acting like a politician”. This is acting like a traitor. The benefit to Vladimir Putin was probably only a secondary motivation to Mr. Trump, but given his amazing and shameful history there is every. Reason to believe that it played a role.
3
Mr. Blackman is correct on all counts. The Democrats have incompetently ginned up this show trial as an irresponsible political stunt, for which they failed in the most basic of political calculations— they did not gather adequate political support *before* proceeding. This shows that they have become a party of dangerous fools.
1
Insane. What did you miss about this guy? When a person or a legal team lies once during a trial, that will degrade all of there future testimony. Trump's legal team has gone whole-hog here.
Throwing around lies like a hurricane of nonsense. I can imagine what else will come out of their mouths. Their strategy has nothing to do with defending the president's actions but rather to distract the public with chew toys.
1
The NYT ought to investigate what exactly would the consequences be for Trump, should he be impeached or not re-elected.
1
Deep down, politicians are certainly seeking personal gain and satisfaction, but they don’t all do it with the heaviest most selfish hand, such as Trump.
His style, slick and stinking of cheap cologne takes the cake.
1
As a former Marine officer who swore an oath to the Constitution and served three combat tours in Vietnam, and later as a contractor served 7 months in Iraq and 12 months in Afghanistan, I applaud the actions of the House Managers and unequivocally support them and the public servants who came forth and testifies and prosecute Trump’s illegal actions. This ignorant, Fox News-fueled talk about the "deep state" and "rogue elements in the FBI and CIA is nothing more than Goebbels-type propaganda from the wrong doers. So many lazy minds on the right who apparently don't understand or embody the concepts of integrity, honor, truthfulness, empathy and just good common sense about what is right and what is wrong. Four government officials of impeccable character and long service testified to the wrong doings of Trump, a man who never misses a chance to stuff his pockets with taxpayer money and who uses the military as a prop for his disconnected ramblings. You Trump supporters ask yourself, "Is this the kind of person I would want my children to emulate? Is this the code of honor that I live by? Has he made the life of struggling Americans, not millionaires, better" If you answer is yes, I feel sorry for you as you have lost your moral compass. My point was do you want your children growing with the values such as morality, integrity, honesty, service, truthfulness and duty to country that is so lacking in the individual who is now in the White House.
4
How is it possible that you could rise to a position where you have a column on the front page of nyt.com and not know that there was no request for an investigation?
The only request (demand) was to ANNOUNCE an investigation.
They had zero desire to learn anything. They just needed a "Lock him up" chant for the rallies. That's it.
When you realize that...the whole column is kinda moot, no?
2
What hogwash. How much did the Trump Campaign deposit in your offshore account this morning? That Republicans are unable to admit that Trump has torn up our Constitution, a document he has clearly never read, is the biggest charade of modern times. Obama was attacked relentlessly by these same band of hypocrites for the Affordable Care Act, a piece of legislation. But, nary a peep from the choir of sycophants when Trump threatens our national security goals to try to game the next election. This will be in the textbooks. One wonders how Chief Justice Roberts explains "staying out of politics" when the same institution had no trouble deciding the 2000 election.
1
With due respect, it takes someone living on Mars not to see the harm that Trump is doing to this democracy, in just about any move he makes, self-serving, and in total disregard to the public's well-being, and to the country's security. This child-man, so insecure and immature, has become a disgrace not only to these United States but to the world. He remains a clear and present danger...even if he himself is unaware of it (as a true narcissist), given he has been a cheater all his life, and remains a pathological liar, challenging all evidence, and going against reason and common sense. For the good of the country, he must be removed from office. And if impeachment is the most expeditious way, so be it. Trump is unhinged and capricious to no measure. Un-presidential, don't you think?
1
Mr. Blackman: Are you looking for a new job in the Trump administration? I note that their turnover is quite astonishing by any standards.
2
So let me see if I get this right, on 7/24/19 Robert Mueller delivers his report to Congress saying that the Russians interfered in our elections in a "sweeping & systematic" way to help Trump.
Don Jr has a meeting at the Trump Tower meeting with Russians who were promising to deliver "dirt on Hillary", but was not charged with a crime because they couldn't be certain they could prove that he knew about our election laws as it relates to receiving "something of value" from a foreign entity.
Then Mueller lays out 10 instances of "obstruction of justice" but can't charge the President with a crime because of the Office of White Counsel precedent saying a sitting President can't be charged with a crime.
The very next day (7/25/19), in a phone call with the President of Ukraine, he asks him to investigate these debunked claims:
1. Ukraine, not Russia, hacked the DNC server & released the emails - then took "the server" to Ukraine to hide it.
2. Joe Biden, for his personal benefit, had a Ukrainian prosecutor fired (in a quid pro quo) to protect his son & the company he sat on the board of.
Behind the scene's Trump's personal attorney (& his henchmen) are trying to remove the US Ambassador in a smear campaign & telling the President of Ukraine's staff that unless he complies with the President's request:
1. He won't get a White House meeting
2. US military aid will be held-up
WOW - nothing to see here?
2
The author is an incompetent law professor. Who with any degree of legal intelligence would make these arguments? The commenters are more astute than the alleged distinguished professor.
1
Michael Cohen, Paul Manafort, Roger Stone, etc. all acted like politicians too. And now they are in prison, or heading there.
914
Trump did not "ask for an investigation."
Trump threatened to withhold military aid, unless a foreign leader agreed to produce dirt on an American citizen, who had already been investigated, in order to undercut a political rival. He actually DID withhold the aid, right up until he was caught.
He did not use the aid to forward the good of the citizenry, or to do anything other than enhance his own personal goals. THAT'S the problem.
Sure we play politics all the time. We just can't play with federal policy, military aid, for personal gain.
We can argue that Hunter Biden was really in a corrupt situation, more corrupt, somehow, than the position of the President's own offspring, and that the situation was not a conspiracy spun out of wishes, trumped up - what a marvelous verb our President is - for expediency. We could argue it, but we'd be wrong.
I am tired of pro-Trump advocates ignoring the underlying facts. It was the extortion using government funds and the cover-up that got Trump impeached.
The President has not been impeached for being political, but for being corrupt.
3706
@Cathy Trump evidently didn't even want a real investigation. He just wanted an announcement of one so he could use it to smear Biden. If this is the sort of politics people in Texas want to bless, then heaven help the republic.
148
It just won't fly that because Joe Biden was/is a potential political opponent he was/is immune from investigation, including investigation instigated by and encouraged by a sitting president, when evidence screams that such an investigation is warranted, particularly in the case of international corruption. You have to stand on your head to think otherwise.
156
@Ken Except that the pro-Kremlin prosecutor that Joe Biden required the Ukranians to fire was fired well before Hunter Biden accepted the board position at Burisma, and the incident has been investigated more than once with no evidence of corruption found. I read that Nikki Haley gets a million a year on the board of Exxon, and I'm sure she's no energy expert either. I suspect it is difficult for ordinary people to comprehend the scale at which the 1% live, and when ordinary people become politicians that is the world they are thrust into.
315
@Ken "Evidence screams that such an investigation is warranted"? Just curious what "evidence" you're referring to there.
255
@Ken If that were the case, the Bidens should be investigated under the FCPA—you know, the one Trump wants repealed because he thinks American companies are hampered in their deal-making because it’s illegal for Americans to bribe foreign officials. Furthermore, the congressionally-approved funds should have been released without regard to whether Ukraine turned up dubious practices by the Bidens.
359
I would think that a law professor would understand that people should be convinced by a fair presentation of the facts and the legal arguments that pertain. This column is so one-sided in its presentation that you’d think Mr. Blackman had Fox News as a co-author.
The danger, Mr. Blackman, is not that future Congresses will impeach Presidents for trivial actions. The danger—actually, the certainty—is that allowing President Trump to get away with this will embolden him even further. Remember, he attempted to bribe the Ukraine to game the upcoming election just hours after the dismissal of the Mueller Report—which proved to any objective mind that Trump tried to game the past election.
And does your constitutional law background tell you that the Executive and Judiciary branches are the sole determiners of what Congress is allowed to see or hear in an impeachment case? You left out that article of impeachment completely in your “analysis”.
940
Its just this cynical perspective of politics that is at issue. Trump and Republicans want corruption to become the "norm". Do we?
33
This article alleges he broke no laws. He broke the Impoundment Control Act.
29
An argument Republicans would be making to fire up their faithful of it were not so prone to firing up everyone else:
When Trump acts in his re-electoral interest he act in the national interest because his re-election is in the national interest. Here we have a true case for supporting Trump against Democratic accusations of abuse. It's a nice complement to such other grounds for Trump support as putting judicial breaks on the "baby holocaust" and sustaining and augmenting big tax windfalls for the economic elite.
2
Man, this argument is weak to the point of non-existent.
5
Professor, you won’t receive much love by the readers of this paper but kudos to you and the Times for publishing the counter-argument. I would like to see more.
And how about Obama blaming the attack on the Ben Ghazi embassy on a cartoon, to deflect from its real cause on the eve of an American election - a terrorists attack on the anniversary of 9/11, which should have been expected as they were warned.
Any more examples?
2
Oh counselor you left out an important adjective: Trump acted like a CORRUPT politician.
And are you, good sir, behaving like an ordinary law professor, or like a law professor eager to be in the good graces of Trump and all those swell politicians in Texas who cave to his every wish?
[By the way, since Bill Clinton acted like an ordinary politician when he messed with a young person under his command, was his impeachment trial unwarranted? After all, he did nothing illegal, only something patently immoral. Bless us with your deep wisdom, professor, please!]
2
Sometimes I wonder why the NYT publishes this type of opinion. To illustrate the absurd intellectual positions Trump’s apologists are willing to take? The author of this nonsense willfully ignores the transgression of withholding the congressionally approved aid to Ukraine. Yes, of course Trump is behaving like a politician but there is a profound difference between a savvy politician seeking reelection and a corrupt politician exploiting his position of power, harming international relations and America’s national interest in the process.
4
It does amount to the abuse of power when you involve a foreign government or foreign national. The only thing that makes what trump did against the law is the fact that he used, or tried to use a foreign government to help him in his election. Please, can you do us a favor and stop trying to make this into a nothing burger. This type of behavior is not acceptable for a president never mind a human being. When a person has total control over what you want and dangles that in front of your face and says can you do us a favor, that is unpresidential and unacceptable no mater where you live. Every" godfather" is proud of trump. This type of behavior is not what America is about. In America" it is not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country," REMEMBER!!!!!!
1
Would you argue, Mr. Blackman, with the same verve and defensive rationale IF, all else being equal, this were President Obama on trial for "impeachable offenses"?
Yes, I know, "all else being equal" (criminal, misogynist, unintelligent) Barack Obama would not have even gotten the nomination but try to imagine such a scenario. If you are successful you'll know just how ludicrous your opinion sounds to decent citizens.
1
I take difference with Dr. Blackman. The solicited political benefit was soliciting a bribe for favor. It is a crime in 37 states. Know you laws, sir.
2
Title should read like this:
Trump is a corrupt politician, and that's not an impeachable offense in the dystopian autocratic dictatorship we are attempting to create and nurture.
4
Seems to me like this “constitutional scholar” needs to take a few refresher courses.
4
Does he ever get around to the part where the president illegally withheld congressionally-approved financial aid? I admit, I couldn't make it all the way through, but ctrl-f isn't turning up anything.
The crime was not asking for Biden to be investigated. The crime was making "I want you to do us a favor" part of something he had no right to withhold in the first place.
3
Total "la la land." The law professor overlooks the most obvious and compelling information in the impeachment: the attempt to involve a foreign government in our elections, and then obstructing the investigation. Is this the best you got??
I'm speechless.
1
This is a ridiculous argument.
The Constitution allows Congress considerable discretion to decide what is impeachable, not law professors.
It is very clear to me that Mr. Trump has abused his powers of office and obstructed Congress.
I wonder what the dear professor would say if this was the trial of a Democratic president.
This opoinion, like the republican’s defense Mr. Trump, is meant to obfuscate the truth, confuse the citizen, and debase and demean our nation and its Constitution.
MB
4
Insisting on it does. Hey -- if you can't do any better,
just join the Republic crowd: what's good about law,
order, reason and common sense, if it means you lose
power!
Win, place or show ,#45 will be in the history books as an impeached POTUSA.
Unhappy?
Vote on November 3rd.
Don't vote, don't cry on November 4th.
Professor Blackman,
"Thanks" for this disingenuous opinion piece. Trump has been impeached for acting contrary to American interests -- as determined by both houses of Congress -- by withholding military and other aid to Ukraine in order to advance his personal interest. The point is not that he was thinking of how to improve his chance of winning the next election, but that he subverted U.S. foreign policy considerations -- and the will of Congress -- as the central pillar of his scheme. Imagine if Trump had invited a foreign power to undermine the national elections by hacking into his political rival's computers. Oh wait, that's been done, too. Well, then imagine if he undermined the Constitution by disregarding lawfully issued Congressional subpoenas and actively preventing Congress from fulfilling its role as watchdog of the Executive branch of government. Oh wait, he did that, too. Well, then imagine if he fundamentally undermined basic principles of democracy by insisting that he was above the law in literally everything he does while in the White House. Oh yeah, that too.
We are literally witnesses to history and to the demise of the American Republic, and folks like you can do no better than to engage in sophistry. Shame on you.
3
Trump crossed the line using Congressionally approved tax payer dollars to his own political advantage.
Then Trump put lives at risk.
Then Trump aided the Russians in their war.
Then Trump lied about all of it and turned around and bragged about it on the White House lawn.
Trump deserves to be impeached and removed from office.
1
He extorted a foreign government.
The author omits this salient point.
2
As the song goes "This country's made for you and me" and its MY missile's that were voted on by congress to be given to the Ukraine in order to further the USA's national security. And it was
Trump that illegally withheld my missiles. And it was Trump that refused to give a plausible alibi or documents. So whats not to impeach???
1
There is enough dirt on the trump family worldwide to put all of them in prison for life.
If trump gets away with this crime, it should be open season on him and his family when a democratic president takes office.
1
Wow. And this passes for careful legal analysis. Just wow.
1
There is nothing, nothing not criminal about Donald Trump.
Every thing he says is a blatant lie and everything he does or did before and after being elected is a crime.
Senator McConnell is taring a page from the playbook of totalitarian regimes.
This pretend trial by the Senate is in the best tradition of the Stalinist show trials.
Josh Blackman be careful where you place your apologies.
Please Josh, nothing about Trump is business as usual.
If normal politics is a misdemeanor then Trump is a capital offence
Really?
What disingenuous piffle.Trump broke the law by withholding aid, wanted only the announcement of an investigation instead of an actual investigation, then tried to cover it up by obstructing Congress. None of this is normal.
2
It is easy to make a case look weak when you leave out half of it. This isn’t Fox News, it’s the nytimes, so we actually know the facts. Trump was, at the same time, withholding 400 mil in congressionally approved aid for that little political favor.
Maybe you should read up on this case more before submitting an editorial.
1
This piece alone justifies every lawyer joke I’ve ever heard.
4
In other words, “We do it all the time- Get over it.....”
The Mulvaney Defense
And that is what this country has been whittled down to. SAD!
1
What a bunch of pseudo twisted legalistic hooey and in the great words of the junior Senator from Arizona, what “a political hack”.
2
So strange. In reading Mr. Blackmans article it's like the withholding of government aide never happened.
Why did you not mention the significance in the foreign aide being withheld Mr Blackman? I assume because it devastates your argument.
2
Associate Professor Blackman’s other credentials aren’t mentioned by the Times, likely in an effort to avoid seeming partisan. Blackman’s current affiliations include an adjunct scholar position at the Cato Institute and an active speaker for the Federalist Society. With all his right-wing think-tank obligations it’s astounding he has time to teach. Perhaps it’s less surprising that he seems to have only read half the story on the Ukraine call.
3
Josh (may I call you Josh, since you presume such a folksy reference to the younger Mr. Biden, but not, oddly, in the same sentence, to Mr. Trump --"Mr. Trump wanted to learn about potential financial corruption concerning Hunter..."), Josh, as I was about to say, you seem to have forgotten to factor in the cost, not merely political but existential and mortal, to the Ukrainians of Mr. Trump's, as you suggest, "business as usual" actions toward the Ukraine.
Oopsy!
2
" President Trump did not stand to receive any money or property from the Ukrainian president. "
"But receiving a “personal political benefit” does not transform an otherwise legal action — requesting an investigation — into impeachable conduct."
US Law: "11 CFR § 110.20 - Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510).
Subhead (g), which reads (g)Solicitation, acceptance, or receipt of contributions and donations from foreign nationals. No person shall knowingly solicit, accept, or receive from a foreign national any contribution or donation prohibited by paragraphs (b) through (d) of this section.
The acceptance of “any thing of value” to the campaign is clearly a violation of US law, and the solicitation of those things is likewise illegal.
2
I know these incendiary opinion pieces attract a lot of wanted attention to the newspaper but if you could at least find some reality-based writers, it would not debase your brand so much.
Of course, I assume that there must be some decent, intelligence people somewhere that support Trump and my mistake may be assuming that you were too lazy to find them. Whereas the truth may be that they don’t exist.
Now that is a story I would find interesting. This I will skip. We have enough division already in this country.
1
For a constitutional scholar Josh Blackman displays a shocking obtuseness regarding Article II, Section 1 of the U.S. Constitution, which tasks the president with preserving, protecting, and defending the Constitution of the United States.
3
Trump doesn't "act like a politician", he acts like an entirely corrupt politician; there we go, corrected the headline.
The corruption that hallmarked his business practices became part and parcel of the charlatan he is, and he brought all of it with him to the Presidency, corrupting the highest office in our land, exporting it near and far, beginning with his Republican partners and drawing foreign governments into this infernal circle.
He has severely damaged our entire governmental apparatus, and regardless whether he loses his push for a second term, his reign will have left a fraught and divided nation in his wake.
1
Sure. The innocence of not "moving beyond a threshold of personal political gain" is why Trump sent Giuliani all over creation, as some sort of unappointed (and unconfirmed) cowboy diplomat chasing unicorns at the bidding of corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs. It's why Parnas bribed John Cornyn. It's why the honest and professional Ambassador Yovanovitch was tailed by some of Rudy's henchmen and then removed from office under false charges by Trump (who then booted highly respected Bill Taylor out the door). It's why John Bolton declared that Rudy (and his activities at Trump's behest) were a "hand grenade" threatening to blow up our foreign policy.
Nothing to see here, just a normal politician acting like a mob boss, happens all the time. Congress should just let it go, it's not like Trump's going to destroy our international reputation or our rule of law.
Well, he had me at "constitutional parachute" and "republic in free fall." I submit that's exactly where we are. Trying to rationalize Donald Trump as a normal politician engaged in normal politics is like saying the mafia is a conventional business enterprise. Withholding military aid to a beleaguered foreign ally in order to get a sham announcement to use as propaganda against a political opponent is not "just politics." And while we're at it, let's discuss abuse of power: discrediting your own intelligence services, weaponizing the Justice Department, gutting the State Department and disparaging its employees, implying you're going to stay in office beyond a second term, telling Virginians that their government is going to take away their guns, encouraging race and religious bigotry, gutting environmental regulations while willfully repeating the dangerous idiocy that climate change is a hoax. This IS a man putting the republic in free fall, and the more he gets away with the more encouraged he is. This is a venal, spreading virus of corruption.This is why there is an impeachment clause. He has to be stopped before it's too late for all of us.
Strange: Mr. Blackman never mentions that Trump threatened to withhold military aid to Ukraine and that the GAO found his actions to be unlawful.
Blackman evidently expects that no one will notice the way he jumps from 'receiving a political benefit from an act undertaken for some higher purpose is not impeachable' to 'abusing the office of the President for the exclusive purpose of soliciting a foreign power to influence the US election is therefore also not impeachable.'
Hmmm, so this is kind of like the "When you're a star they let you do that." defense...
1
Josh Blackman is wrong. Not only did Trump invite the Russian government to interfere in the 2016 election, and not only did Trump enthusiastically accept the Russian efforts on his behalf, but in regard to Ukraine, he attempted to strong-arm the anti-corruption president Zelensky to investigate Trump’s political opponent, Joe Biden, for the benefit of only one thing - Trump’s re-election....... Blackman’s analogies are simply not on point.
1
Totally disagree.
You say the first article of impeachment turns solely on Trump’s request that Zelensky investigate Hunter Biden’s role with Burisma. You note that because elected officials almost always consider the effect their conduct may have on the next election, and because Trump didn’t stand to receive any money or property from Zelensky, Trump did nothing wrong .
You are wrong in principle and on the facts.
The first article states that Trump conditioned his release of the $391 million to Ukraine in exchange for dirt on Biden. Why do you leave that fact out of your analysis?
On a bipartisan basis, the U.S. Congress appropriated $391 million of United States taxpayer funds for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression. Trump withheld those appropriated funds from a country with its back to the wall so he could get dirt on Biden.
Next week, republican senators will acquit Trump without any witness testimony or any review of key documents.
By doing so, Republicans will tell Trump he is free to demand foreign interference in our 2020 election by withholding Congressionally-appropriated money; and Trump is free to force other countries to launch criminal investigations of any American citizen for any reason, without any evidence.
That is abominable.
Shame on you for misstating the facts.
Shame on all Republicans for supporting this unfounded, unprincipled, unconstitutional position.
1
It’s not ok to cheat to win- whoever does it.
1
Wow, this is off the charts confusion of issues. Making an executive policy decision with a view to one's constituency and /or political standing is one thing, and comes with the job. Covertly and illegally subverting a legal obligation to spend congressionally mandated funds not for policy reasons but for strictly opportunity of dirt, and not policty, but conseqientially countering long established US policy with casual indiffetence, and lying about it, and blocking all avenues of understanding, explanation or investigation, yes sir, that most definitely IS abuse of office and most certainly is impeachable ! The GOP is revolting in its utter bad faith and anandonment of principles and decency.
2
He did not receive this "benefit." He coerced it by illegally intercepting and withholding hundreds of millions of Congressionally allocated defense dollars from an ally. And that ally is defending itself from an ongoing Russian invasion. And those Russians have been found guilty of interfering with the 2016 presidential election, and are already interfering with the upcoming 2020 election.
Happens all the time, right? What country do you live in?
1
Trump is angry about the 2016 election and he should be. An attempt was undertaken to take him out of the election and the traces linger today. I hope he exposes all the wrong-doers and all of them go to jail—including Hillary Clinton.
Let's keep pretending that this is the only and the worst thing this person has done to the office of the Presidency, and instead obsess over this desperate but very necessary attempt to prevent more damage to the republic.
This is preposterous. The author never once mentions the nearly $400 billion that Trump was holding over the Ukrainian president to coerce him into announcing this investigation.. This is disingenuous at best. I have no problem with the publishing of alternative viewpoints, but they should at least address what is at issue here, which is the president's massive corruption.
1
It was the contingency on investigation of a political enemy that made it a quid pro quo.
Withholding aid is normal. Withholding aid until someone investigates your enemies is not okay.
Does that make sense?
How does this not make sense? I feel like we're living in bizarro world.
"But our Constitution does not allow Congress to take a vote of “no confidence” for a president who pursues legal policies..." - Trump's action to withhold the aid was deemed illegal by the GAO. How many Ukrainian fighters died at the hands of Russian proxies/regulars as a result of the aid being withheld?
1
The answer is so obvious and you do not have to be a constitutional law professor to see it: in his pursuit to rig an election, Trump has put our national security at risk. This is what separates Trump's behavior with past examples that Blackman points out. Blackman also conveniently ignores the larger picture of a corrupt president who arrogantly and blatantly puts personal ambition before the needs of our country. Weakest argument I have seen in the Times in a long time.
1
Even from individuals I don't agree with, most articles in the NY Times are well thought out and make fairly reasonable points. Your's is one of the few that doesn't because of the flaw in it's basic premise, that it is fine to ask a foreign government to interfere in our elections for personal gain. The idea that President Trump gains nothing tangible from the request is ludicrous! He businesses, such as his hotel in Washington, have already profited from his being in office. His name (Brand), which is what he sells for a living, already profits from his being President. It assumes it would fine for President Trump to ask Vladimir Putin to sabotage our election to help put him in office. Oh, I forgot, that has already happened!
2
So Mr Trump asks a foreign government to help him win a domestic election. Let me say that again. He asks a foreign government. So if that dirty little secret was never revealed, he would have been compromised whilst in office. "OK Mr President, we need your help or else we'll blab about what you asked us to do." Never have I seen an American president so brazenly court foreign powers (including Russia) to help him gain a domestic political advantage. Doesn't this worry the Republicans?
1
Add Mr. Blackman to the list of once respected politicians, scholars and lawyers who have stained their reputations forever in the service of Donald Trump.
1
The plain fact is , Mr. Blackman, if Trump had anything but personal gain on his mind to cheat in the 2020 election, he would have taken his complaint on behalf of the country to the FBI. One does not seek help from a foreign government to investigate a political rival. Especially when the action called simply for an "announcement" rather than a real investigation of an already debunked charge. You can dress up, twist, and otherwise present "others did it" arguments in defense of his actions, but in this case impeachable abuse of power, walks, sounds, and looks like a duck.
1
“Politicians pursue public policy, as they see it, coupled with a concern about their own political future. Otherwise legal conduct, even when plainly politically motivated — but without moving beyond a threshold of personal political gain — does not amount to an impeachable “abuse of power.” The House’s shortsighted standard will fail to knock out Mr. Trump but, if taken seriously, threatens to put virtually every elected official in peril.”
The key phrase here is: ...without moving beyond a threshold of personal political gain. — does not amount to an impeachable ‘abuse of power’
What Mr. Blackman neglects to tell us is ‘had it _not_ been due to the Whistleblower’s action, the threshold would have been breached’
(And to think, this author is a constitutional law scholar!)
Trump should be impeached. All Republicans should be recalled for putting Party above Country.
1
Some mob bosses are also politicians. That doesn't mean they aren't still mob bosses.
1
A politician? Sure. Why not.
A president? No way.
You don’t lead a country or govern via twitter.
You don’t lead a country by committing crimes. Yes. Criminal activity beyond what the impeachment is about.
You don’t show world leadership by countermanding laws that protect the earth and the environment.
Leadership is getting the people behind and getting congress to agree on laws that benefit the country. That might not mean everybody, but surely a majority. Not ruling by fiat with executive orders. Not by pardoning war criminals who are subject to a military code of justice administered by superior officers.
If what he’s doing is being a politician, that makes it a curse.
Got part way through this article and wondered 'who is this guy?' According to Wikipedia, Mr Blackman:
"... is an active speaker for the Federalist Society, an adjunct scholar at the Cato Institute, and has regular media appearances to discuss constitutional law in the United States."
Okay, so now I have some context. Republicans used to rail against moral relativism and situational ethics. Now, we have conservative judicial relativism - if a conservative does it, it's okay.
Trump acts far more like a classic gangster than he does a politician -- and it isn't an act. Making excuses, blocking witnesses and derailing investigations are called aiding and abetting.
Trump could have obtained political gain by boasting that the aid would defend our ally Ukraine from a Russian invasion. Instead, he put a gun to our ally's existence and demanded they fabricate a story in order to muddy a political opponent. The word for this is not merely "political gain".... it is EXTORTION!
Not so. This was as much about subverting American foreign policy as it was about personal gain. As such, it is an abuse of power and despite the nonsense from Dershowitz is an impeachable offense.
Whether Trump is a "politician" or not, is also besides the point. If he is incompetent in the ability to performance the responsibilities of his office, that should be a basis to remove him from office.
Trump bribed Ukraine for a personal, political benefit. A crime under the Constitution and what our framers most feared. Impeachment is the remedy.
Criminal conspiracy and extortion ARE CRIMES. Not politics. Withholding aid to the Ukrainians was like holding a gun to their heads and not in the best interest of the people of the United States.
269
What's amazing to me is nowhere in this op-ed does the author mention the withholding of $391M in military aid to the Ukraine, which the GAO deems against the law. Fine - ask Zelensky to do you a favor, but don't withhold crucial military aid to an ally of the United State of America. Asking for Ukraine to investigate Biden is unto itself not as problematic as withholding millions of dollars in aid where people's lives are at stake in exchange for doing you tht favor. The author has seemingly lost the plot somewhere along the road.
8
What about the G.A.O's assessment? 45's own agency says he broke a law. Last time I checked, breaking a law would count as "high crimes and misdemeanors."
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/16/us/politics/gao-trump-ukraine.html
But oh wait. We can't add anything to the testimony or call any witnesses. We are frozen in time before the G.A.O released their results.
5
Acting like a politician is not to be confused with acting like a corrupt, venal and dangerous politician.
7
The cool thing about having studied at Trump U is that the "graduate" can always be counted on to provide an "alternative" "legal" opinion.
5
The author very conveniently forgets to address the illegally withheld $400 million in military aid that was designed to pressure the Ukrainians into complying with Trump's "ask." This was no simple politically motivated request as portrayed by the author.
Trump's administration stinks of corruption on a daily basis. I sure don't believe Trump suddenly cares about rooting out corruption in foreign lands any more than he cares about cleaning up his own cesspool.
5
True, Trump acts like some politicians - venal, corrupt, ignorant politicians. There are lots of those. Though I believe Trump is essentially unique as far as these "metrics" go.
Violating public office to insure re-election and then obstructing attempts to discover that fact is most definitely impeachable - those are primarily the reasons the founding fathers included an impeachment clause.
It is beyond bizarre that anyone could fail to recognize that such a creature should not be our president.
For many of us this was obvious and inevitable from the beginning. And just because we (there were LOTS of us) saw the 'writing on the wall' regarding Trump's once and future corruption, doesn't mean that we should relinquish our rights to judge him NOW for specific corrupt behavior while in office.
4
Davos just isn't the same with a scarlet letter.
Trump distrusts our own institutions so much that he simply prefers to use foreign intelligence services to do his political dirty work. And if he has to hold up military aid for leverage, then it doesn't matter that congress has approved it because our own institutions are so appallingly bad at what they do. Who could blame him?
1
He's a criminal on every level. This is one where he was caught. All this intellectual back pedaling is nonsense.
He is destroying American on multiple dimensions and could be impeached on multiple fronts - tough to get that done when the two-faced AG swats everything think away with "well, he's the president, so nothing can be done".
Come on, people. And God Bless Adam Schiff!
1
Yes Mr. Blackman, Trump did not try to bribe Zelensky, he merely tried to coerce him by withholding aid.
Coercion is what thugs use, businessmen use bribes. Coercion is threat base, bribery is voluntary enticement.
3
This argument is absurdist. This is not a case of 'Presidential malpractice'; this a case of a President acting like a tin-pot dictator. Simply relying on the ballot box to solve all ills is a cruel joke. It's the job of Congress!
And frankly, I don't believe we know the half of what went on because the WH refuses to cooperate. Some day we will - after Trump has left - and it will be SHOCKING!
Finally, imagine a murder trial where the accused gets to decide what evidence the jury is allowed to see. Not only, the jury isn't his peers, it's his cronies and co-conspirators. Well, that's what we have...
1
So the charges Trump faces are merely occupational hazards?
What about when he acts like a mafia don? An executioner? A polluter? A thief? A jury tamperer?
I could go on and on, but there are other things I need to do with my day.
1
Trump was seeking Zelensky's announcement of starting an investigation even more than the investigation itself. To equivocate this PR smear strategy with Johnson's Supreme Court orchestrations (or Lincoln's voting gamble) is pretty silly.
1
There is a glaring divide between Democratic morals and republican greed. republicans refuse, yes refuse, to accept that Tя☭mp's use of tax payer funds was a cheat to America's democratic election process. The cheat was a drawn out conspiracy over the course of several months. The 25 July phone call was but the tip of the ice burg. The House Managers are delivering a compelling case proving that this POTUS is a crook. We all know he is a liar. People like Rand Paul, Mitch McConnell, et al, that refuse to listen to the facts are not worthy of their positions. They will rationalize without shame.
1
Sheer nonsense. The President tried to use $391 million of taxpayer funds to try to smear a potential opponent in the 2020 elections. The examples are ridiculously false equivalencies. What Trump did is exactly why impeachment was included in the Constitution.
3
Trump does not act like a politician. Politicians, at least those at the level of President of the United States, have some detectable measure of dignity, judgement and maturity. Trump acts like a spiteful, often-malevolent, insult-spewing 8-year-old child trapped in a perpetual tantrum.
1
Josh makes a sophomoric argument that even high school students can effectively counter.
For example, what about the obstruction of justice charge...?
What about the unlawful stopping of funds approved by Congress...?
I could go on but I think you see my point.
Professor, I give your article a grade of D.
Please revise and re-submit.
4
What if the “favor” he asked for were approval of a Trump hotel in Ukraine. That’s far less a threat to our democracy, but OK with Mr. Blackman?
1
Another right-wing Texan revising history for us.
Slander vs Debate.
One side threatens, bullies and slanders.
The other tries to Debate the Facts.
One side doesn't like Truth, and makes up all sorts of rationalized reasons to Lie, Cheat, and generally be Corrupt.
Remember: A $25 million dollar fine for the fraud called Trump U.; and a second $2 million dollar fine for the fraud called the Trump Foundation.
Evangelical minds often seem incapable of reasoned thought.
But they sure love to make stuff up.
The Republican National Party has executed a Soft-Coup, a second rising of the Confederate South.
They are traitors. We want our Country back.
2
Trump is very scared. He abused and misused the presidency, committing whatever crimes he felt like along the way. Besides that, he is just a very odd person who seems to find no joy in life, except when insulting others or amassing earthly riches. Now it is his turn to pay the piper. He can’t hide behind McConnell”s and Graham’s skirts forever.
1
“President Trump did not stand to receive any money or property from the Ukrainian president.”
Maybe not, but don’t forget the $400 million the Ukrainian president stood to lose if he didn’t play ball.
2
Trump acts like a crooked, unethical politician at best. It would be one thing if he REALLY was interested in corruption, however at this juncture the corruption issues in Ukraine were by all accounts at an all time low. He had no interest in actual corruption, he targeted a political opponent trying to strong arm a foreign government to make up dirt and create a phony investigation of one person he sees as a threat to his re-election. As Sondlund testified, all he really wanted was a TV interview of an investigation--since the Biden angle in Ukraine was cleared years ago--in order to damage his opponent. This was amplified when Trump continued on to publicly excoriate China and Russia to also find political dirt he could use. His second demand from Ukraine for the DNC server is ludicrous. This is merely a continuation of his obstruction of the investigation into Russian meddling in our elections to throw the blame on Ukraine. Putin must be so pleased. Trump was a corrupt businessman, you can't tell me he gives a hoot about any real corruption. If his actions are considered to be in any way acceptable to any of us, then our country needs to be investigated for its corruption, because they certainly should not be.
1
Tired arguing what is constitutionally valid regarding the President's behavior. What he has done and doing is wrong.
How about offering an amendment to include his feckless and dangerous behavior.
Wait a minute, was there are threat (direct or implied) by Lincoln to, say, withhold General Sherman's congressionally funded pay if he didn't allow the troops to go home and vote or was there, in the case of Johnson, ANY THREAT WHATSOEVER to get Justice Clark to resign.
In other words, in attempting to draw parallels with Trump's conduct, this author is being either disingenuous, downright deceitful of just plain ignorant.
3
What utter balderdash!
To think, wearing a tan suit was once enough for Republicans to accuse a Democrat of disrespecting the office of the Presidency. To paraphrase Michelle Obama: "When they go low, expect them to go ever lower."
3
Silly comparison.
Stark difference between soliciting political support from foreign ally under fire whom we promised to support against Russian aggression by withholding aid and allowing Americans soldiers leave to vote. Serious?
This is like arguing that a man shouldn't be convicted of murder because, well, he was at a shooting range and shot a gun, and of course you can shoot a gun at a shooting range -- while ignoring the fact that he pointed the gun at a person and not a target.
The impeachment case is not an abstraction about whether the president can behave politically or craft policies that help him politically. It's about a particular set of facts, acts, and motives and whether they constitute abuses of power and office.
Holy moly this piece is dumb. Honestly, how does something like this even get considered for publication? I am about as anti-Trump as a person could be, but I could defend him better than this.
2
How can anyone think what Trump did is ok? Smear the proceedings, find obscure precedent and look away from his actions. The Republicans and their related talking heads should be ashamed.
1
This is ridiculous. Trump is not being impeached because he 'requested an investigation', much as Republicans would like to say that's the abuse of power.
When Congress appropriates money, the President does not have the right to say ... eh, I don't feel like it. Unless, of course, there's something in it for me?
He also does not have the right to use all the levers of executive power to extort this 'political benefit' and then hide all evidence of having done so when legally asked for information by Congress.
Finally, the idea that there was any other reason EXCEPT political benefit is sheer fantasy.
And the sickly complaint that Trump 'did not stand to receive any money' doesn't pass the laugh test. "Political benefit" is expensive, Mr. Blackman.
4
Shocked to see such a reactionary ill conceived argument presented in the NYT. There’s a limit to both sides-ism. This paper’s reputation ends up giving weight to pernicious ideas legitimating corruption. Our democracy is at stake these days.
1
Texas, which had once defied the Federal government and asserted sovereignty over offshore oil drilling rights all the way to the national offshore boundary [United States v. Texas, 339 U.S. 707 (1950)], claiming it had entered the US as the free and independent Lone Star Republic and thus is entitled to all the national boundary includes, has ever been the home of marginal legal thought. Evidently, it has now provided a home to Mr. (one hesitates to call him professor) Blackman, who reduces the case against Mr. Trump to prosecution of merely "insufficiently publicly spirited" actions. And yet, it seems clear, the President attempted to use the public purse to purchase a political favor. Would it have been alright if he had used his own money instead? Certainly not! How then could dangling Congressionally appropriated funds for the same purpose not be worse? Of course it is!! This is not hard to understand, only to refute. Perhaps that explains the wind-baggy periphrasis of this argument. Mr. Blackman, a graduate of the risibly named Anotonin Scalia School of Law, is certainly free to circulate (and, sadly, now teach) the ideologies promulgated and subsidized by the Federalist Society and its dark web of donors, who hide their identities behind interlocking networks of 501 C(4)'s.But that doesn't mean that The New York Times should make itself a stage for the auditions of the next unqualified, thirty-five year old dogmatist to be nominated to the Federal Bench.
1
Nice try, but this is nonsense. Trump, his administration and the Republican Party are corrupt. They have an opportunity to give evidence to support their case but refuse to do so. Why? There is no evidence.
1
It is totally baffling to me how anyone can argue Trump's behavior wasn't and isn't a high crime. Look at the evidence presented by people of honor in the Mueller Report, the House hearings and yesterday the House managers in the Senate. Trump is a criminal of long standing. He is not a person of moral character and no one, not his lawyers and not even this author, is arguing he was motivated by high principles in the best interest of America. If withholding legally authorized dollars for personal benefit leading to a betrayal of an ally, the tax payers and the voters of American, what the heck behavior is impeachable Mr. Blackman?
2
Please stop your nonsense. There is a clear line regarding the validity of the President's actions. He (and his cohort) are responsible for illegal actions. They are impeachable. He has been impeached. What we now face is whether the Republican Party is more concerned about its power or about the country. To be honest, that ship has sailed (look at the "purity tests" required for their support of one sort or another). The Republican Party, and all that it now represents, needs to be dismantled. And the Republican leadership knows it is in a fight for their continued existence, so it is resorting to gerrymandering, limiting voting by fraudulent arguments, loading the judicial system with extreme rightwing views, etc., in an attempt to maintain some voice. Again, your self-serving arguments are nonsense. Really.
1
Trump acts like a thug rather than the usual politician. The author of this poor excuse for an opinion piece seems unaware of the difference. The failure of so many Trump supporters to see this difference places the Republic at grave risk.
This is simply a rehash of the argument that a violation of a criminal statute is a prerequisite to impeachment. It’s silly.
Moreover the point of an office is the repose of trust to use discretion and power for our benefit. Trump has the absolute power to nuke Iran and pardon crimes. But using that power for political gain at the expense of our country is not impeachable? Really? We have to wait to see if he stumbles and gets a parking ticket?
I’m reminded of the quote from the movie Animal House; “You messed up! You trusted us!”
1
Trump abused his position for personal gain.
He might as well as put a gun to the head of the Ukranian President when he asked for his "favor".
And outright asked other countries to fix the 2020 election.
He boasts about withholding information and evidence.
Time for the Congress to wake up and rein him in and to do that properly is to remove him from office.
Any regular person would be in prison for the stuff he's pulled.
1
So, you’re saying that maybe if he hadn’t simultaneously withheld funds appropriated by Congress for Ukraine, there would not be grounds for impeachment?
Yes. It’s that simple.
This article was obviously written my a classic GOP thinker to whom "facts don't matter. So many other great comments here that any further comment by me would be redundant. The President's base will love it.
1
You have got to be kidding.
In the first place, Trump didn’t, “consider the political effect.” He said gimme, me personally, and I’m witholding apportioned money and that White House visit your country needs until you do.
Second, there was—and is—no evidence, none at all, that Joe Biden or his kid did a blessed thing that was illegal, or that threatened our national security in any way at all. There was no basis in fact for these clever, “double,” purposes, where the prof argues that hey, all pols help the nation by helping themselves. There was just Trump, and what he did DAMAGED national security.
Third, this guy edited out the threats to the Ambassador, the lying, the coverups that stashed info in classified servers.
Fourth: oh really? So this means that if, say, Trump’s kids trade on daddy’s position for loans, deals, and intellectual prop rights—as they have—that’s okay too.
Fifth: Lincoln’s suspension of habeas wasn’t wrong for ANY of the reasons cited here. It was wrong because it’s a direct flouting of the Constitution. And his getting soldiers released to vote is a) a DOMESTIC issue, and b) getting votes, not slanders.
Remind me to stay far from the South Texas school of law, if this is an example of their very best legal reasoning.
You might as well say, “Well yeah, I took the fat bribe, but hey, the school got built for the kids, huh?” Or maybe, “Yeah, I killed the guy who got in my way, but geez, the streets are the better for it.”
1
The key point that Mr Blackman is missing is that if Mr Trump's request for an investigation into Biden was legitimate, it would have been the DOJ and State Department, as part of government anti-corruption policy, who would have advocated for it and not his personal lawyer and his cronies after a political hit job on the American Ambassador to Ukraine at the time. Heck when Obama was president, Republicans were all up in arms when the IRS targeted conservative religious institutions on taxation (a part of government policy) and called it a political hit job. The bar is soooo much lower in this case. Congress approved tax payers money to support Ukraine's defence as part of US national security strategy, Trump dangled it infront of Ukraine's president and said in paraphrase: "I will give it to you as soon as you help me get re-elected." Aside from obstructing the will of Congress without a legitimate policy justification, since when do public officials get to use taxpayers money to support their re-elections? If that is ok then the US should get ready to become an authoritarian state with a president in office for life enriching themselves off of the public purse. Congress would become a tool of the president's political and economic power (Senate and House Republicans you are well on your way on that front)....How can Mr Blackman fail to see this?
2
This isn’t an opinion piece; it’s an application to be on Trump’s legal team.
3
Sophistry never ends in this impeachment . The Republicans are twisting themselves into pretzels as they give names to Trumps behaviors that just may sound as though the impeachment is not deserved. How utterly ridiculous. Shame on the author.
1
Prof. Blackman should take an IQ test and a sanity test.
What Trump did was to use secrecy and US money to bribe.
Trump is destroying democracy, encouraging dictatorship, daily.
Now, it is up to the Democrats to further a new democracy wave.
Democrats need better arguments, and an end game of the US.
I suggest Democrats have idea contests to defeat Trump insanity.
For example, they might use the "Democracy" song of L.Cohen.
"Democracy is coming to the USA"
I hope the NY Times encourages idea contests to beat Trump.
"Democracy is coming to the USA"
1
Let us thank NYT for providing us with a view of the best of what Trump’s defenders have to offer, pitiful as that may be.
1
so extortion is now legal? good to know.. can't wait to get on jury duty again
2
Your justifications for the “president’s” actions is blatantly biased. If the Republicans feel their grifter-in-chief has done nothing wrong, why the desperate and deliberate ommison of any evidence, witness, and testimony at the impeachment trial? Those with nothing to hide, hide nothing. You’re on the wrong side of history on this.
1
Drumpf has acknowledged obstruction of justice when he admitted on national television that he"fired Comey over the Russian thing". He asked Russia to "look into Hillary's emails" another example of asking a foreign country to get involved in our elections. The GAO stated that he broke the law when he withheld aid to the Ukraine that Congress had appropriated.
Comparing this narcissistic sociopath to Lincoln is absurd.
1
Impeachment, if I understand it correctly, was a safety valve provided by founding fathers who knew self government was an experiment and they wanted the people to be able to get rid of a President if the 4 year term they provided proved too long to tolerate a despot or simply a fool.
If this is true, then impeachment today is insupportable because the people have the opportunity to rid themselves of a bad actor by the end of the year.
On the other hand, using the process to illuminate just how bad it is to have a Tony Soprano Mafia Don in office is legitimate.
If the majority of voters believe it's just fine to have a Tony Soprano or a Michael Corleone in office, then so be it.
Soliciting a bribe is not ok.
1
Oh, yes, Mr. Blackman, Trump is a president who is only thinking about the greater good. He is being massively maligned and we should all just leave him alone. But let's look at one other aspect of this, Mr. Blackman. Not the deed, but the man. If we were talking about Barack Obama doing the exact same thing Trump did, the veins in your temples would be exploding with rage at making sure he was removed from office. Don't sit there and tell me Trump is some misunderstood guy, no different from any other president in history. This IS a guy who would shoot someone on Fifth Ave. And you are the guy, like all the others, who look at that as appropriate behavior. Not because it is, but because he tells you so. You have decided from the time he became the nominee to excuse and defend every thing he does. For once he knows you will let him shoot someone on Fifth Ave., he won't stop at that. He won't say "Whew, that was a close call, better lay low for a while". No, this is a guy who will reload his weapon before they have even cleaned up the mess. And think nothing of it, because no matter how many times he pulls the trigger, he knows you will say "Fine by me".
2
This guy teaches law? Shame on his employer.
2
illegally withholding military funding approved by congress is a crime.
3
I am so happy not to be paying tuition to South Texas College of Law where I might be instructed by Prof. Blackman.
Here are the felonies committed by Trump et. al. in their Ukraine scheme:
Bribery - withholding the funds to Ukraine unless Zelenskyy pays with an announcement of an investigation against Biden;
Wire Fraud - using the Oval Office phone to commit the crime;
Conspiracy to commit bribery - using Giuliani, Pence, Mulvaney, Pompeo, Perry, Sondland, Parnas et. al. to further the crime;
Violation of Foreign Corrupt Practices Act - soliciting a bribe or extorting a foreign official, or attempting illegally to influence their actions;
Conspiracy to violate the above Act;
Violation of Congressional & Budget Approp. Act of 1974 - withholding funds appropriated lawfully by Congress;
Conspiracy to violate the above Act;
Obstruction of Justice/Congress - thwarting the investigation by withholding evidence and witnesses illegally (don't try to argue executive privilege; it doesn't apply to protect criminal acts);
Violation of campaign finance law - with Ukraine and previously, with the hush money paid to 2 women; Trump was named as a co-conspirator in the case which sent Michael Cohen to prison;
Conspiracy to violate the above act;
Violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). The law Giuliani used in the 1980s to prosecute the Mafia.
Your examples cite US-sited incidents; you ignore laws meant to police dealings with foreigners.
4
This is one of the lamest op-ed pieces I've ever read, Mr. Blackman. Mr. Trump's actions subverted the State Department, the Justice Department, undermined well established American policy in the Ukraine by authorizing his 'personal attorney' to undermine the duly appointed Ambassador with a smear campaign based on lies from discredited Russian propaganda. It was illegal for the president to hold foreign aid allocated by Congress without informing Congress for the reason of the hold. It's an abuse of power that is detrimental to American national security.
2
I am at my limit of seeing the Times give weight to such terribly considered claptrap. Losing one subscription is not going to affect the editorial board's views. But others reading this need to think how much lower the judgement of this paper will go, and if their subscription revenues should support their journey.
To wit, it is using half a billion dollars in public money as leverage for the investigation request that is the abuse of power. Professor Blackman omits that.
1
Mr Blackman apparently believes it would have been perfectly OK for President Obama to have helped his reelection chances by bribing and extorting the president of France to produce dirt on Romney's time as a Mormon missionary there and then issuing a blanket order that every federal agency stonewall any investigation by Congress.
Sorry, but this doesn't pass the laugh test.
1
Prof. Blackman's credentials are underwhelming.
1
That we have come to this kind of mental gymnastics to justify our own weakness in being unable to remove this crook is sickening.
1
The best part of the two examples you write about is that they have nothing to do with the current situation. Number one, neither takes into account the totality of their respective presidencies, which I realize is not the point of your article and possibly not a consideration of the current impeachment, though it should play a part. Lincoln allowing soldiers to return to their state to vote obviously predated the technology with have today for absentee voting, but what else was available? It was simply the right thing to do. So, that example we can put in the garbage. Johnson's was moving our country in a positive direction, regardless of any effect it would have on his political standing. The current president's actions are specifically to benefit him in the upcoming presidential election and have nothing to do with benefitting our country, regardless of the effect on public opinion.
Your last sentence, "Presidents who take such actions with an eye toward the ballot box should be judged by the voters at the ballot box, is basically telling me to throw up my hands and say, "Let the guy affect the election any way he wants and let's see if my vote has any sway on Election Day." Nuts to that. You are very lucky that the New York Times is fair minded enough to publish this. If it wasn't written by someone with your background, I would shrug it off as naive.
Plus, in some way you are playing that very annoying lawyer game of "getting your client off on a technicality."
Finally something rational and not hysterical in the NYT. Next step would be an article in defense of Bernie Sanders who is a decent human being and tireless public servant who is being smeared simply because some Democrats think he can’t win. In addition, the NYT recent dismissal of Biden and Sanders as “too old” is ageism at its worst. There is still time for NYT to regain its reputation.
The latest legal theory based on "whataboutism"!
What about the Republicans impeaching Clinton for lying to Congress?
All Presidents lie to Congress once in a while (unlike Trump) so by your theory Mr. Blackman Clinton never should have been impeached.
Maybe Trump will negate Clinton's impeachment and give him a pardon?
1
So what legitimate policy purpose does it serve to withhold US aid from Ukraine until the invesitgation was announced?
1
From over here in the UK, not knowing much about the Presidential election system, I had never heard of Trump. Having spent a month or so, researching his life, and learning of his career as a money launderer, a guy who has 3,500 lawsuits, with various scams, and probably tax evasion, I thought, why?
Don't you vet Presidential candidates? Out of all the people in the USA, this is the 'best' you can do?
What did you people think would happen, that this guy, who has never ever, been held to account, rather, praised for being a Tee Vee Star, and squeezing money from anyone and any place, was suddenly going to be a humble public servant?
After his election, and more research, it turns out that the guy is at best an abuser, of wives, women, laws, and all right and moral thinking.
He has no idea how to work with a team, refuses to work woth people who say, no, refuses to work with experts, unless they agree with him.
What did you think would happen?
1
Some background on the author:
https://abovethelaw.com/2019/01/federalist-society-law-prof-uses-conlaw-exam-to-troll-the-libs/
“Those who are unfamiliar with libertarian gaslighting on this issue might miss what’s going on here. The “Lincoln was a tyrant” angle is surprisingly popular among this set of legal thinkers. I think they think it makes them sound “hardcore” in their commitment to limited executive powers. They don’t get — or again, don’t care — that it also makes them sound “hardcore” in their commitment to slavery and oppression so long as their pet legal theories are protected. It’s not a coincidence that the people who think the government “taking” property to build a library is a violation of the social compact that sets us back to a state of nature, are the same people who think that Lincoln unilaterally emancipating slaves — also “property” according to good people on both sides! — is a tyrannical use of executive power.”
5
Absolute immunity, anyone?
1
Did anyone notice that the author didn’t mention “withholding of $400mm”? THAT is the abuse of power.
2
Did LBJ use outside mercenaries to obtain Justice Clarke’s retirement? Or did Lincoln imply he would withhold money from Sherman if he didn’t abide by his wishes? The Trump administration and Republicans support so many bad policies regarding health of the planet that this is just a blip on their disgraceful record. If this Senate won’t do the right thing for a future let’s send them packing in November. Vote the bums out! Vote for Mother Earth!
2
Way to just wave your hand over the “legitimate policy purpose” aspect of your argument. You may be a constitutional scholar, but you write a pretty poor article. Not surprising as it strains all reasonable thinking to see any legitimate policy purpose in what the president did and how he did it.
I appreciate the Times's attempt to offer opposing views, but still waiting to read any that make any sense.
1
Soliciting anything of value from foreign nationals is violates Federal campaign finance law. You call yourself a "constitutional law professor," yet you seem to not understand a basic Federal Statute:
https://www.fec.gov/regulations/110-20/2019-annual-110
1
Trump wasn’t thinking about how this whole mess was going to affect him “in the back of his mind” while pursuing a noble grand national interest objective. If you watched the hearings what you saw was pretty much the entire Ukraine foreign policy team worried sick about how these actions would hurt the stated goals of US Ukraine policy.
So really this is a republican lawyer contorting himself to come up with reasons to keep the tax cuts and deregulation’s coming.
Gross.
4
Yes, it does. When it comes from a foreign power. When it is in exchange for something of value. When it has to do with our elections (as opposed to the official business of the entire government/country.)
Have you never watched to Godfather? ("... I will call upon you to do a service for me.")
2
Mr. Blackman neglects to mention the illegal withholding of congressionally-approved military aid to an ally.
7
Trump interested in combating corruption? The same guy who wants to make it legal for US companies to bribe foreign officials?
Trump had *zero* interest in corruption in Ukraine. There is no evidence he even cared about an investigation into the Bidens. All he wanted was a *public announcement* of such an investigation - in order to smear a likely political opponent.
This was a purely self-interested act with no discernible "public welfare" component whatever. That's why it had to be done secretly, outside the usual diplomatic channels. And it's why Yavonovich - a fierce anti-corruption campaigner - had to be gotten out of the way. These apologetics from Blackman do not fit with the facts.
3
Without arguing the impeachability of either Lincoln or Johnson, the fact that someone else gets away with murder, doesn't justify a defendant who murders someone of being acquitted. "Members of the jury, of course my client shot the victim. But just last year, Mr. Smith committed a similar murder and was found not guilty. Ergo, my client is not guilty." Acquit my client because Mr. Smith got away with murder too. It's absurd, but it is also the way attorneys create doubt.
Sticking with my murder analogy...a man is shot in broad daylight with a dozen witnesses. The assassin and his attorney, Josh Blackman say, "oh you are mistaken. That's not murder." It is repeated time and again by friends and relatives of the murderer. An ignorant and ill informed public, or a portion thereof, sees, "It's not murder," in the headlines often enough and start to believe it's not murder! "Oh, and by the way, the victim deserved to die, he disagreed with me."
This strategy, carried out by an entire political party should frighten everyone.
STOP ALREADY WITH ALTERNATIVE REALITY!
Footnote: The assassin was previously heard in open conversation saying, ‘I could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn’t lose any voters.’
1
Your attempt to equate Lincoln and Johnson to Trump fails miserably. Trump asked a foreign government for a "favor" that benefited his political ambitions.
4
This column is so comically stuffed with straw men it is hard to take seriously. No one is arguing that “considering the next election” while performing executive office duties is an impeachable offense. There is no harm in acting in political self interest as long as the underlying purpose serves the national interest. I would like to see a serious argument that Trump’s actions were in the national interest. What other cases of Ukrainian corruption was Trump looking into? Since when have Republicans considered making obscene sums of money for no visible work corrupt?
Soliciting foreign interference in the presidential election is illegal and corrupt. Trump has done this repeatedly, on tape, with Russia and China. It is obvious to any unbiased observer that Trump was doing more of the same in Ukraine.
The House should have charged Trump soliciting a bribe—you give me dirt on my political opponent, I release $400 million in military aid. “Money and property” are not the only forms of payment. Political oppo research has tremendous value.
Lastly, the argument that impeachment should be tabled in light of the upcoming election is hogwash. The issue at a hand is precisely the integrity of that election. Furthermore—taking that argument to an extreme—what recourse would there be if Trump now ordered the assassination of his political enemies? Would there be no way to stop him until the next election?
1
Spare us. Acting like a President would mean that Trump would use words of unity, instead of divisiveness. Acting like a President would mean that Trump wouldn't bully and harass women. Acting like a President would mean that Trump would be concerned for the future, and protect our environment. Acting like a President would mean strengthening the bonds with allies, instead of taunting and belittling them. Acting like a President would mean that Trump would have to do something he is utterly incapable of - leading a nation that is diverse in a manner that is respectful of every individual. There is only one person who thinks that Trump acts like a President - and that is Trump.
2
I keep waiting for the NY Times to send a full-court-press investigative team to Ukraine to uncover what a wonderful executive Hunter Biden was and another team to China to determine the executive brilliance of Hunter Biden that justified his securing over $1 billion to invest on behalf of a Chinese bank.
Once it's revealed that everything was on the up-and-up, criticism of President Trump will be fully warranted.
Please announce the date of the departure of the two investigative teams to Ukraine and China. Readers will look forward to their daily reports.
1
Not much comes out of Houston anymore. Just cheating baseball, oil corporation fraud, and convenient argument such as this. Indeed the many more better angels will take care of Trump and his swamp in November.
I strongly disagree. As an Independent I do not donate to any political party, and resent my tax dollars being hijacked by a president, any president, for their own personal political goals in an election! Furthermore, what you're suggesting is it is acceptable for politicians to put their personal goals, and political party before our country's security and needs. And I liked to point out a few other discrepancies in this Ukraine situation- why would our "leader" ask a country to investigate an American citizen if he believes that country's corruption is so invasive? Not to mention, investigations of our citizens are to be by our own law enforcement agencies, FBI, CIA, NSA, etc. regardless of their standing in society. America does not outsource such investigations to other countries or to one's personal attorney! Additionally, what our "leader" has accused J. Biden of having done for his son, he, TRUMP, IS DOING WITH HIS ENTIRE FAMILY! Stop the hypocrisy! That has lead to more divisions among us, citizens!
1
What a cynical opinion. We don't have to be 'taught' that politicians act like politicians. What an arrogant and insulting point of view. The issue is how far can that behavior go. Trump wants there to be no guardrails as long as there is potential personal advantage, even if that action is devoid of any benefit for Americans. The constitution demands that each action be connected to the greatest interest for citizens, even if an element of personal advantage exists.
Mr Blackman's hypothesis is a blueprint for how the constitution can be undermined in the interest of political agendas.
1
It isn't hard to imagine what would happen if a Democratic president was accused of the things Trump has done. The Senate would be moving toward conviction and removal. The hypocrisy of the Trump party is bottomless.
1
Typical conservative gaslighting.
Mr. Trump did not merely seek personal political personal advantage. He sought to HARM THE USA. He sought to undermine our very elections. And he cared nothing about undermining our national security. He EXTORTED a foreign leader, NOT to investigate anything, but merely to ANNOUNCE an investigation into a political rival on American television. And he illegally withheld money allocated by congress in order to do so. (See the GAO's report on that little tidbit.) Ukrainians in Crimea likely died as a result.
And he made his "perfect phone call' literally one day after Mueller testified in front of Congress undisputed evidence of Russian interference in our previous election, and attesting to its ongoing efforts to interfere in the upcoming one. Trump's entire efforts were to legitimize RUSSIA'S propaganda and take advantage of its efforts - again - to undermine THIS YEAR'S election.
This isn't politics as usual, no matter how willfully, selectively blind and nakedly partisan Mr. Blackman is. Does the author have any respect AT ALL for the inviolability of our elections, the bedrock of our democracy and the very reason for our war of liberation against King George?
Our founding fathers' spirits must be weeping about such traitorous, hypocritical sophistry.
3
This is all about the fundamental right of leading Democratic politicians and candidates to be rotten corrupt, especially by receiving foreign money to their foundations or families.
How do you think a president Biden would negotiate with China since we now know that China put a billion and a half in a fund they gave to Hunter (the $3 million from Ukraine was only a tip.)
You don't have to think much, he said it on video, "C'mon folks, China is not a danger for us".
A mother who votes for such politicians dreams of making her children into corrupt politicians when they grow up. How well would that education work if the corrupt politicians keep losing, like in 2016?
1
Trump did not « ask a foreign leader », he tried to blackmailed a foreign leader by withholding money appropriated by Congress to further the US’ foreign policy goals. Not quite the same and not very intellectually honest.
2
Oh please. Had President Obama even considered asking a foreign government to ‘look into’ Mitt Romney’s foreign investments and business deals, Paul Ryan would have had multiple impeachment articles passed within days, complete with sanctimonious speeches about how we needed to protect the Constitution from Obama’s corruption. Here we have actual, pervasive corruption (bribery, extortion and foreign election interference) and this GOP hack brushes them away as normal presidential politics. I try to read ‘both sides’ to stay informed and open-minded, but this article was a total waste of time.
1
I’m guessing you are probably okay with our businesses paying bribes to do business in other countries. That is Trump’s next step. The man-child is corrupt and crooked. Always was and always will be. The word “fair” to him means does he benefit. The question is do we want our government to be like that or not.
Nonsense, this is excusable behavior because Trump is just acting like a politician? He is the most powerful person in the world. If every politician went around “acting like a politician” with that amount of power it would be treacherous for our country. And most importantly, Trump is not just a politician, he is the President of the United States and if he can’t constrain his impulses and do what’s best for this country, and not just for himself and the people who voted for him, he needs to go !
1
Blackman's initial argument that Trump's withholding military aid from Ukraine is legal is wrong from the start. The Government Accounting Office (GAO) recently ruled that Trump's action withholding the spending of military aid approved by Congress and approved by the respective federal agencies State Department and Defense Department violated the federal impoundment law. It requires the president spend funds properly approved by Congress UNLESS Congress agrees to change the appropriation. So Trump clearly violated at least one law.
The rest of Blackman's argument is thus nonsense. Trump violated a federal law directed at the president's disbursement of funds from Congress. Congress needs to impeach him.
1
The difference between acting for political gain and abuse of power is precisely the issue at hand. Using the levers of power to push for your supporters positions, and enact them when you can, is the intention of a democratic republic. Perverting your privilege to undermine, override, or circumvent the balance of power for which the framers fought is abuse. The problem in this drama is that the representatives from the modern Republican Party repeatedly implement and condone precisely the latter in a cynical, hypocritical strategy that challenges anyone to stop them. Expecting elected officials who tilt the playing field through voter suppression, turn a blind eye to foreign government interference in our elections, and welcome propaganda masquerading as news and daily intimidation of a free press to quash any legitimate debate to stop this president from acting as an autocrat is a fool’s errand. For them, he’s no aberration; he’s the way.
1
Except that trumps actions eere not legal.. and were also unethical. That alone is cause for removal. Politicians are in prison for doing less.
3
Trump is not being impeached for acting like a politician. He used public money (specifically, the threat of withholding it) which the congress had voted to use for a public purpose, in furtherance of a political aim. If he truly believed that H and/or J Biden were corrupt (I lose track) then he should have furnished that evidence to FBI (or blown the whistle, if you prefer) and asked them to get on with it.
Unfortunately he cannot be impeached or removed from office for sheer incompetence. So those of us who wish to see the back of him (even at the cost of a President Pence heading into November - the mind, indeed the whole body, shudders) have to hang their hopes on this Ukraine thing which, IMHO, is nowhere near the top of the list of grossly foolish - that's the most charitable word I can think of - things he has done.
Donald Trump : Ukraine : : Al Capone : Income Tax
Works for me.
Mr. Blackman - Attend: Trump illegally froze the aid immediately after a "perfect call," with Zelensky seemingly acceding to do Trump's "favor."
Q: Why freeze the aid 90 minutes later? No overt reason existed, and the Pentagon already had certified that Ukraine was meeting anti-corruption goals.
A: (1) Trump had just personally confirmed that Zelensky wanted the Javelins badly. (2) Trump had just name-dropped "Biden" specifically, and (3) told Zelensky to talk to (attorney/client-protected) Giuliani, whose message we clearly know was all about (4) getting Zelensky to tie the words "Biden" and "corruption investigation" into a public soundbite ("a public box)." (5) Telling Zelensky to talk directly to (attorney/client-protected) Giuliani ensured Zelensky would get the unmistakable quid pro quo message (if not already through several other channels), especially after Trump had asked for "a favor," with (6) a sudden, mysterious hold on the military aid after a supposedly "perfect" chat. Zelensky's conclusion will have been obvious. The crime-boss innuendo will have been clear, and Z almost delivered.
Coda: Bolton likened Trump's pressure on Zelensky to a "drug deal," telling Fiona Hill to specifically inform White House counsel of his distance. As we know, drug deals are illegal transactions. Why did Bolton liken Trump's behavior to a transactional crime (GAO now confirms its illegality)?
This was not "receiving" political benefit. It was solicitation of a bribe.
1
The trump age mantra .
Tearing down others is easier and better than building up yourself .
Mr. Blackman's argument appears based on the idea that if Trump was not personally enriched, than he must be OK, regardless of the damage done to others. Further, Blackman's invocations of Lincoln and Johnson are as laughable as his silence regarding obstruction.
1
The normal ickiness of politics is already grandfathered in. We notice it but our hair doesn't stand on end because of it. It may occasionally make us cover our eyes, but not daily as we do now. This president is not a politician. He is a crooked businessman, or at least a slimy one. For me his worst flaw is that he does not understand the US Constitution or he simply disrespects it by ignoring it. He is not typical; he is changing the balance of power in our republic and without consulting anyone except the Republican Party which was already using obstruction to bring government to a halt and make government small, whether we the people want small government or not. And they have done it by cheating. Fundamentalists cheated for them by violating their 501 c status.
1
Mr. Blackman seems to have approached his thesis that lets DJT off the hook just because he’s good a playing the “role” as a politician; and as a reality-star actor, is doing a decent at that, according to him. This Opinion piece is a fine example of the END justifies the MEANS, put forth by the current Republican Party.
Written with the END in mind, the author then did his research to find examples that would justify his thinking. And, no disrespect to the state where he practices these theories, it seems his logic falls in the “Sidewinder” category to me. Mr. Blackman needs to pay greater attention to the power grab at play, not to mention the GAO’s conclusion that Trump’s action to withhold military aid to the Ukraine, against a common foe (Russia) for MONTHS while using bribery and extortion to get “dirt” on a potential political opponent, is ILLEGAL, I.e., AGAINST THE LAW. Trump signed this bi-partisan bill into law, then started playing “politics” with the newly elected President Zelensky. What he did is called cheating. Just because Trump was caught red-handed and admitted he was involved with this scheme does not mean it was a good political maneuver. I suggest Mr. Blackman, back off this idea, THEN take a longer and harder look through the legal perspective of the American Constitution.
2
Funny guy. Dems are the ones who have damaged impeachment, not republicans who impeached a president for lying about a sexual affair.
Next this 'lawyer' tells of domestic attempts to win elections, which does happen all the time, but when you try to bride a nation under attack by your enemy, in order to help your election chances, it is not domestic. I guess it's ok with the TX lawyer if trump called putin to investigate Bernie Sanders because he thinks Bernie is anti American.
Additionally,trump broke the law by withholding aid. GAO said trump broke the law. “Faithful execution of the law does not permit the president to substitute his own policy priorities for those that Congress has enacted into law,” Of course there is nothing faithful about trump except his lying.
trump also has a history of asking other nations, including Russia, China and now Ukraine to interfere in American domestic policy for the benefit of king trump's election chances.
Seems this lawyer is trying to get on the good side of trump in order to get an appeals court or supreme court nomination. With this glowing support of his trump, this TX lawyer is well on his way to senate confirmation. SAD!
I guess I am a genius; I have no legal background whatsoever but I have been saying you would need a comparative study of every similar politically motivated action by previous presidents, including arguably going to war, for context to make a meaningful judgement, for months.
Now, finally, an esteemed constitutional scholar makes the exact same point.
Of course, a fifth grader would understand the dynamic, but the news media and our “political leadership” by and large aren’t interested in such baseline fairness anymore; they would generally rather just stir the base into a frothy mob.
Continuing to do so will likely have severe consequences. Look at the repeated, seemingly sincere misuse of quasi-official sounding terms like “abuse of power,” “illegal,” “quid pro quo,” and “collusion.” People think these words mean something or use them hoping they do. Politicians and the news seek to muddy, by and large, not clarify.
The scary part to me is that if the Senate was Democratic, they would likely do it: They would likely remove a sitting President for essentially made-up charges, with no context.
We may dodge this bullet, but we won’t keep dodging them forever.
Terrifying times. Creating mobs is far easy than controlling them, and the other side eventually fights back.
1
It’s really quite simple; Mr. Blackman, like the G.O.P., does not know the difference between right and wrong. Democracy weeps.
12
I'll go with Lawrence Tribe's point of view (from his Wash. Post OpEd): "Trump’s lawyers shouldn’t be allowed to use bogus legal arguments on impeachment" whose opinion suggests that Alan Dershowitz and this author are not lawyers he'd consider a serious constitutional scholars. Here's an excerpt:
The argument that only criminal offenses are impeachable has died a thousand deaths in the writings of all the experts on the subject, but it staggers on like a vengeful zombie. In fact, there is no evidence that the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was understood in the 1780s to mean indictable crimes.
On the contrary, with virtually no federal criminal law in place when the Constitution was written in 1787, any such understanding would have been inconceivable. Moreover, on July 20, 1787, Edmund Randolph, Virginia’s governor, urged the inclusion of an impeachment power specifically because the “Executive will have great opportunitys of abusing his power.” Even more famously, Alexander Hamilton in Federalist 65 defined “high crimes and misdemeanors” as “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”
The related suggestion that, even if some noncriminal offenses might be impeachable, “abuse of power” is not among them is particularly strange. No serious constitutional scholar has ever agreed with it. The suggestion turns the impeachment power on its head.
2
***the House of Representatives has transformed presidential impeachment from a constitutional parachute — an emergency measure to save the Republic in free-fall***
In my opinion the House Democrats ARE using an emergency measure to save our Republic, which has been in free fall since Mr Trump was elected.
He isnt acting as a politician should - more like a cheap used car salesman, a bad one at that.
Should the Senate Republicans do what is expected which is nothing in regards to this impeachment, all the guardrails will be off and Mr Trump will do what he has stated (as he thinks "Article 2" of the Constitution can be interpreted) - ANYTHING he wants.
As has been written previously in the Times, if what Mr Trump has done does not warrant impeachment and removal from office, then noting does. With the Republican members of congress doing a political version of Stepford wives, God help us.
5
Asking a foreign government to smear a political rival is cheating to win an election. He used taxpayer money to bribe Zelensky. How can this next election possibly be fair when no one any longer agrees that it is wrong to cheat? This is outrageous.
8
The GAO said that Trump broke Federal Law by his actions...and acting like a corrupt politician is not a defense.
5
That's my tax money, mate. No President can deliberate use that tax money for his own personal reelection campaign. Sorry.
6
A statute of the Federal Elections Commission (§ 110.20 Prohibition on contributions, donations, expenditures, independent expenditures, and disbursements by foreign nationals (52 U.S.C. 30121, 36 U.S.C. 510)) states that foreign nationals may not contribute to candidates. Likewise, candidates may not receive contributions from foreign nationals. We've been over this before. Did the laws change?
4
Readers are not going to like this but this is the first informed opinion I’ve read that makes any sense. This has looked like politics as usual from the start. Vote in November, impeachment is a dead horse and, it appears, rightfully so.
2
You can place a rotten apple in front of some people and they will proclaim that it's not rotten, it's just that the light's reflecting on it in an unflattering way. Or is it that they know it's rotten but it's the only apple they've got.
"Politicians pursue public policy, as they see it..."
--------
The evidence clearly demonstrates that Trump was not pursuing public policy.
"Mr. Trump wanted to learn about potential financial corruption concerning Hunter."
--------
Is Mr. Blackman seriously taking the position that covertly withholding the aid was the legal and appropriate way to launch an investigation of an American citizen?
“elected officials almost always consider the effect that their conduct might have on the next election.”
--------
The evidence clearly demonstrates that Trump was concerned about concealing his conduct because it was illicit, not over concern of public opinion about U.S policy decisions.
"But receiving a “personal political benefit” does not transform an otherwise legal action — requesting an investigation — into impeachable conduct."
--------
Alexander Hamilton can better address this preposterous opinion then I...
"A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust."
2
These "rational - lies" can be turned around by Democrats.
(Prof. Blackman, are you sure? Did you go to law school?)
And what about the obstruction of Congress concern?
How can Trump withhold witnesses and documents?
How can Senate Republicans vote to reject such evidence?
No, Trump, by his impeachable actions, attacks democracy, itself.
Democracy is at stake, if he gets away this this and wins in 2020.
If Trump attacks democracy, dictatorship may follow, worldwide.
The US sets an example for the world, with its democracy.
Heaven, help US!
Heaven, help US!
1
Malarkey! -- any deep dive would show the fallacy in his arguments. In fact any person who reads this who has a modicum of critical thinking skills would see the gaping holes in this argument and what it is -- the creation false equivalencies and a shocking disregard for the facts. The action described both had some legitimate purposes -- Trump's actions were not. Assuming the facts to be true, the fact that Trump was willing to accept a statement there would be an investigation rather than an investigation -- eviscerates any legitimate argument. Also, this is just stating the obvious and shoehorn Trumps actions into it. Yes, political decisions are motivated for many reasons including the political future of the actor -- that is shockingly true. However, stating that as a novel idea and then using that as springboard to make your irrational arguments seem rational -- is brilliant gaslighting. I appreciate the Times in its willingness to help us understand the other viewpoints -- but nonsense is still nonsense -- and this is still a work of a troll -- though one adept in making well-written though vacuous arguments.
2
Soliciting foreigners to interfere in the US elections is perfectly fine. Even when it is done publicly, and multiple times. Not a problem. Who thought it was?
Again, they prove that they simple have no rules at all when it comes to The Chosen One.
1
Comparing Lincoln and Johnson to Trump is silly - and, unfortunately, misleading.
Lincoln did not ask Sherman to furlough soldiers to vote in the federal election, but in a state election. His letter to Sherman is here: https://civilwarhome.com/vote.html. Other accounts suggest the soldiers who did get furloughed were sick and wounded, and so couldn't fight in battle in any event (https://civilwartalk.com/threads/1864-indiana-voting-furloughs-morton-lincoln-sherman.83006/). It is misleading to suggest the furlough of soldiers was done for Lincoln's personal benefit.
Neither Lincoln nor Johnson asked a foreign government to interfere in a domestic election.
You imply Supreme Court Justice Clark retired because his son was nominated attorney general. This interview from an author who studied both Tom and Ramsey Clark suggests the father retired so that his son could become attorney general (https://www.scotusblog.com/2013/05/ask-the-author-alex-wohl-on-tom-and-ramsey-clark-and-the-constitution/).
Mr. Blackman didn't count on being fact-checked, obviously.
3
Stunningly absent from this article is any mention of Trump’s withholding the military aid from Ukraine in order to extort the investigation into the Bidens. Probably because even this author realized that he had no way to spin it into legitimacy.
1
Your argument isn't a good one, but it's good enough to convince people who don't pay attention or those who benefit from believing it.
Trump asked a foreign government to interfere in our election. There was quid pro quo. If that's not an abuse of power, nothing is. Arguments that ignore part of this example in order to make his actions seem "reasonable" are intellectually dishonest.
2
Which politician does he act like most?
In one sense he's like Eisenhower, except that instead of leading an army of liberators he leads an army of trolls.
In another, he's like JFK, who once swam injured for miles to safety while towing another injured man, which is something tRump surely would have done if not for those darn heel spurs.
Maybe it's Reagan, except that wanting to see a wall torn down wants to build one.
I will say he influences people like no potus before him; everyone who works closely with him either gets corrupted or repulsed.
2
Under such a standard, does bribery ever exist?
1
Did you not listen to and think about the presentation on Wednesday, particularly the closing? In this very dangerous nuclear era we need allies like the new Ukraine. It's insane to defile the good name of the U.S.A. by attempting to extort support for your politics and kill the goodwill that maybe essential when the Russian Bear roars against us again. We need another Reagan who says to Russia, "Tear down your wall" not a tin pot politician like Trump whose politics only serve his personal desires to blacken Obama's name and to personally benefit financially.
1
I think Nadler and Schiff should continue to tell GOP senators that they swill be committing treachery, treason and all sorts of hate crimes against civilization by not voting for Trump's removal. It's a winning strategy to go after the character of your opponents. Just ask Hillary.
Except withholding the Congressionally appointed funds wasnt legal. Period. So, oh well, there goes this op-ed defense. What is next - 'the dog eats every President's homework?'
1
Illegally withholding aid that puts Putin in a better position, remember that.
1
Let’s be clear, President Trump IS the head of the Department of Justice and every other department in the U.S. government. He’s the Commander in Chief and the chief law enforcement officer.
He can start any investigation he wants and he can ask for information of anybody he wants. He doesn’t have to demure in this capacity to anybody. If he asked Netanyahu for information regarding Joe Shmoe, is he committing an impeachable offense? No. He is merely engaging with his peer to discuss a matter at the highest levels. If he asked Macron to investigate a French national whom he suspected of terrorisim, is that impeachable? If he personally asked Macron to investigate an American citizen whom he suspected of accepting a bribe from a French business, is that impeachable?
If Trump had asked the Justice Department to investigate Joe Biden’s actions in Ukraine the Democrats would still be saying Trump was somehow engaging a foreign government to affect the 2020 election.
Also, none of this would be public if not for the whistle blower and the Democrats. Trump didn’t make this public nor did Ukraine. There is no direct evidence Trump asked anybody to do anything other than what was specifically in the transcript.
There is no impeachable act. What we see now is the poisonous hatred that exists for Trump from the Democrats. We see THEIR hysterical rantings, we see a Biden coverup, but we see little else.
2
It's interesting that this piece of misleading comparisons and outright lies is the best that Trump defenders can come up with.
1
No, Trump acts like a criminal, and should be removed and then subject to legal consequences. Selling out the country on behalf of enemies of America and thwarting the democratic election process aren't how normal politicians act.
1
What a bunch of Republican baloney. Mr. Blackman fails to mention 1) the President withheld money that had been legally appropriated - that is illegal in itself 2) one does not have to receive money or property for it to be illegal - anything material 3) just because Lincoln was not called out for his "abuse of power" does not change the fact that President Trump committed one 4) President Trump will be acquitted not because there was nothing wrong with his act but for the Republicans selling their souls and conscience.
1
No mention in the article whatsoever of the aid being withheld? It’s a massive component of the whole situation; the author does himself a major disservice by picking and choosing—-and leaving out such a key fact.
2
DJT is not a politician. He is a self-serving “businessman” without scruples contained in a bubble of ignorance. The total shame of his actions rests within the corrupted Republican Party. He needs to be fired.
2
Mr. Constitutional Law Professor: if you running short of hairs to split I still have a few left I can donate to your "lost cause" of defending the indefensible.
1
Trump withheld for months, millions of dollars of already approved Congressional funding to an ally in order to pressure the newly elected leader of that country to announce that there would be an investigation of his rival's son. That might not only be impeachable, but also illegal.
For a moment ... just a moment, imagine if Obama had done that.
I've stated this in response to other op-ed pieces published by the Times recently, but it seems like it needs to be stated again: Being committed to a "diversity of voices" is great, but publishing far-right propaganda in the guise of an opinion piece is simply conferring on the extreme right an aura of legitimacy they do not deserve and for the sake of our constitutional system of government, they should not have. It's very concerning when the forces which seek to undermine our government and replace it with an authoritarian, fascist regime, one in which authority is solely invested in a supreme leader and supported by a pliant legislature and judiciary, are simply presented as other "voices" in a range of opinion.
10
Weaker than Dunkin’ Donuts coffee
2
Unlike in the Lincoln example, Trump had no good faith "policy" reason to act (illegally) to seek the investigation.
If Lincoln told Sherman to send soldiers home only from certain counties, then sorry, President Hamlin it is.
The President of the United States solicited a foreign government to interfere in a federal election.
Yes, a political act. And also a criminal one.
9
Sophistry, Mr. Blackman.
Like the argument of the beard.
Mr. Orange’s behavior rises to the level of abuse of power and reason for impeachment.
Playful horsing around and felony assault are at two ends of a continuum, too, but we know which is which.
2