Impeachment for Dummies

A. General
Donald Trump as President is obligated to serve the public's interests and not to use the Presidential office and powers to serve his private interests ahead of the public's interests.

This obligation is under the United States constitution and is enforced by means of the separation of powers, and checks and balances, provided by the constitution, including Congressional oversight of the Executive Branch.

Americans are learning that the  crux of the Trump impeachment is that Trump has abused his public position and wrongfully used his powers to serve his private interests and failed to serve the public interest in numerous ways.

The public or national interests that Trump has failed to properly serve have been various.

Regarding the Ukraine abuse of power, the national and public interests that Trump failed to serve properly are the extremely important interests of national security and the integrity of our elections.

In other instances,  the consequences of Trump putting personal interest ahead of public interest have been less significant individually, but are cumulative in considering the case for impeachment

As indicated in public discussions of the coming articles of impeachment, there has been a pattern of Trump abusing his powers by putting personal interest ahead of public interest, and this did not suddenly start with Ukraine.

In the impeachment, the American people will likely become aware about how much this has happened from the start of Trump's Presidency.

B. Special factors
There are special factors that have contributed to Trump's abusing his powers so extensively that it has resulted in his impeachment.

1.Trump's extreme narcissism

A narcissist sees everything through the lens of him or herself and tends to view things that are contrary to him or herself as evil and wrong, and tends to view things that favors the narcissist as right and good. In doing this mentally, the narcissist is unable to tolerate facts and reality that are contrary to him and the narcissist endeavors to create his own reality and facts. Trump has exhibited the foregoing characteristics of narcissism in a monumental way as President of the United States.

The foregoing means that a narcissist such as Trump who is in public office cannot or will not discern and understand that he has private interests that are different from the public's interests. and he needs to separate them in his mind and subordinate his private interests to the public's interests. Thus, Trump's extreme narcissism is an important causative factor in Trump's pattern of abusing his office to serve his private interests.

2. Trump's business history

Another factor explaining Trump putting personal interest ahead of the public interest is Trump's business history that he was never accountable to anyone, such as a board of directors or shareholders, and Trump did whatever he wanted. The way Trump was in his business history does not comport well with how, as President, there are separation of powers and checks and balances.

Trump's business history would seem to be a contributing factor of Trump, as President, acting in many ways not to be accountable to the American people, and not recognizing the separation of powers and checks and balances, and that Article 2 does not give Trump the power to do whatever he wants (unlike his doing whatever he wanted in his business history).

3. Trump's business conflicts of interest

Another particular factor for Trump that got him started off on the wrong foot was the business conflicts of interest he brought to the Presidency.

Conflicts of interest present a stark choice for whether a public official will serve the public interest or whether the public official will serve his or her personal interest. The mere existence of conflicts of interest can undermine trust in a public official, distract from tending to the public's business if investigations need to done to determine whether the public official is serving his private interests, and otherwise impair the public official's ability to perform his job and particularly, as to the political supporters of the public official, impair the public official's ability to carry out the agenda that such supporters voted for the public official to carry out.

Where a public official has conflicts of interest, it takes an assiduous consciousness for the public official to separate in his or her mind his or her private interests from the public interest and make decisions and take actions that the public official can honestly tell himself did not take into account the private interests.

This is especially problematic for an extreme narcissist such as Trump who cannot or will not separate out in his mind his private interests from the public's interests. 

The upshot was that Trump chose to keep his conflicts of interest and to use his Presidential office to benefit his private business interests.

C. Big picture

The instances and ways that Trump, as President, has wrongfully put his personal interests ahead of the public's interests are overwhelming.

Some of the more significant ones may even be debatable, and they should be debated by the American people in the course of the impeachment.

In other instances, there are important unanswered questions about whether Trump has put his personal interests ahead of the public interest.

1.Trump's false or misleading claims

Probably as a result of Trump's extreme narcissism, Trump, on a daily basis, makes false or misleading claims, and a compilation has been made that Trump has made over 13,000 false or misleading claims since becoming President.

These false and misleading claims serve and support Trump's narcissism but are extremely detrimental to the country's governance. 

Trump may contend that his false and misleading claims are not detrimental to the country's governance, and this should be debated by the American people.

2. Trump's extreme behaviors

Trump's extreme insulting, bullying and demeaning behaviors provide narcissistic gratification for Trump, but would seem to be detrimental to the country's good governance and not in the public's interest.

Trump may contend that his extreme insulting, bullying and demeaning behaviors are not detrimental to the country's governance, and this should be debated by the American people.

3. Unanswered Russia questions

Notwithstanding 2-1/2 years of the Russia investigation, the country does not know why Trump acts towards Russia and Putin the way he does.

Perhaps the explanation is connected to the Trump Tower Moscow project. The details of this were hidden from the American people for two years, and information about it, and the consequences from it, are still unfolding.

Perhaps Trump as a candidate was secretly doing and saying things to curry favor with Putin in order to advance his Trump Tower Moscow project, and those things were damaging to the country while Trump was helped personally.

For example, Trump alone in the summer of 2016 was questioning national intelligence about Russian interference in the 2016 election. The country's intelligence apparatus is important for national security, and it is important that the country have a legitimate faith in the apparatus so that actions taken based on the apparatus have the support of the country. If Trump undermined that faith by what he said in the 2016 election in order to serve his private interests, that would be very bad for the country and it would engender huge distrust of Trump if this was found out after he became President.

To the extent Trump was currying favor with Putin before the election, after Trump won, he was potentially compromised and subject to blackmail by Putin by reason of what Trump did before the election.

This then gets immensely exacerbated by Trump getting Cohen to lie to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow project.

In the course of the impeachment, perhaps the country will gain better understanding why Trump acts towards Russia and Putin the way he does and whether it results from Trump serving his private interests to the detriment of the public interest.

4. Obstruction of Mueller investigation

Trump's abuses of power in seeking to obstruct the Mueller investigation may get expressly included in the articles of impeachment.

5. Hollowing out of government

Trump may care so little for the public's interests that he has allowed or promoted the government to be hollowed out, and the American people may have little understanding about how detrimental that is for them.

Trump may contend that the hollowing out of the government is a good thing for the American people, and this should be debated by the American people in the course of the impeachment, based on fuller information provided to them about what  has happened.

D. Significance of Trump saying he did no wrong
In Trump's extreme narcissism, in his mind, everything he does is right, and only others do wrong, and others do wrong whenever they act against Trump.

This narcissism is manifested in the extreme in the Ukraine matter.

Impeachment becomes especially necessary because of Trump so absolutely saying he has done no wrong. This evidences either that Trump does not understand that he cannot use his powers to serve his personal interests, or that he understands but he nonetheless will use his powers serve his private interests as he chooses. In either case, there is grave risk that Trump will continue to abuse his powers and use them to serve his personal interests, and impeachment is needed to stop Trump from continuing to abuse his powers.

E. Conclusion
The totality of the above is why Trump is being impeached.

The totality of the above needs to be considered by the United States Senate and by the American people.

Draft Articles of Impeachment

Draft

RESOLUTION

Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Resolved, That Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors, and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate:

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America, against Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article I - General; abuses of power

In his conduct while President of the United States, Donald John Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has exercised his Presidential powers wrongfully and abusively in numerous ways, regarding which the following is averred:

A. The United States' constitutional republic (the"Republic") is a government determined by the will of the people, and the President, the Congress and judges are servants of the people, who serve under the rule of law. Under the constitution, there is separation of the Legislative, Executive and Judicial powers of government, and there are checks and balances of said powers to assure the powers are properly exercised in service of the people and the Republic and are not used for personal or other wrongful purposes.

B. Some checks and balances on the POTUS are codified in express constitutional provisions (such as the emoluments clause) and in statutory laws (such as prohibitions on bribery and obstruction of justice).

C. In addition to said codifications of checks and balances on the powers of the POTUS, there is ongoing oversight by Congress of the POTUS, and also the Department of Justice and, from time to time, specially created or appointed Special Counsels or Independent Counsels may exercise oversight of the POTUS and whether the POTUS has exercised his Presidential powers in service of the interests of the people and the Republic (the "public interest") and not to serve his or her private interests or other wrongful purposes.

D. Accurate information is necessary for Congress and the people to determine whether the POTUS is properly exercising his or her Presidential powers or is acting wrongfully and abusing his or her Presidential powers.

E. It is important and desirable that the Republic have a POTUS who is of a nature and has the  ability to know when his or her personal interests are different from the public interest and is able to subordinate his or her personal interests to the public interest. It is further important and desirable for the POTUS to  have the trust of of the people regarding the same.

F. Patterns and multiple instances of the POTUS abusing his Presidential powers, and repeated and absolute insistence by the POTUS that he has not done anything wrong when there is widespread consensus that the POTUS has done wrong things, are indicative of risk to the Republic that there will be continued abuse of Presidential power by the POTUS.

G. A Congress that fails to exercise proper oversight over a POTUS, who has failings in fulfilling his or her Presidential duties, encourages such POTUS to commit more failings subsequently.

H.. Donald John Trump has said and done numerous things and that are indicative that he does not understand or is not willing to accept the limitations on POTUS powers and how they are to be properly exercised.

I. In Donald John Trump's personal business history, there was little or no accountability to anyone else, such as a Board of Directors or stockholders, and this should be considered as rendering Donald J. Trump insensitive or unaware that the POTUS is subject to limitations on his powers and their exercise.

J. Before becoming the POTUS, Donald John Trump led an inordinately selfish and narcissistic life of pursuing wealth, glitz, glamour, publicity, and notoriety, and his narcissism should be considered as impairing his ability  to understand and discern when his or her personal interests are different from the public interest and to subordinate his or her personal interests to the public interest,

K. Donald John Trump, after castigating Hillary Clinton for conflicts of interest and corruption, chose to continue his extensive conflicts of interest after he became POTUS, which should be considered as exacerbating the impairment of his ability  to understand and discern when his or her personal interests are different from the public interest and to subordinate his or her personal interests to the public interest,

L. Donald John Trump, possibly due  to his extreme narcissistic nature, has made thousands of false or misleading statements to the American people while he has been POTUS. These have impaired Congress and the people in being able to know whether the POTUS has acted wrongfully. It is wrong and an abuse of power for the POTUS to make false and misleading statements to the American people as Donald John Trump has done.

M.Donald John Trump is an unindicted co-conspirator in a criminal case in which Michael Cohen has plead guilty to having violated campaign finance laws in arranging for a payment to Stormy Daniels for her silence, and Donald John Trump, while POTUS, made payments.

N. Michael Cohen has credibly testified that he lied to Congress in March 2017 about the Trump organization terminating its pursuit of the Trump Tower Moscow project in January 2016, and has credibly tesitfied that he lied because President Donald John Trump wanted Michael Cohen to lie to Congress.

O. Donald John Trump has not given a satisfactory explanation of why he asked Russia to interfere in the 2016 election to help him.

P. Donald John Trump has not given a satisfactory explanation of why he expresses very disparate views about U.S. national intelligence, ranging from his superlative relative to al-Baghdadi mission, to his siding with Putin over U.S. intelligence at Helsinki

Q. The Mueller investigation revealed ten possible acts of obstruction of justice by Donald John Trump. Donald John Trump has repeatedly said he did nothing wrong in said ten possible acts of obstruction of justice.

R. Motives of the POTUS in the exercise of Presidential powers are relevant to whether the powers are being exercised properly or whether the powers are being used wrongfully or corruptly and constitute an abuse of power by the POTUS for which the POTUS may be impeached. There are numerous instances in which Donald John Trump had corrupt motives, including in the firing of James Comey.

WHEREFORE, Donald John Trump, by the totality of such conduct, motives and relevant considerations, and the risk of continuing abuses of power by Donald John Trump, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.


Article II - Ukraine


Article III - Obstruction of Congress

.

Absolute crux of impeachment

Trump's absolutism at crux of impeachment

The crux of Trump's impeachment is Trump claiming absolute rights he has as President, and Trump making absolute claims that he has done nothing wrong and egregious wrongs have been done against him.

The Democrats say that Trump does not have the absolute rights Trump claims, and they are holding Trump accountable for impeachable wrongs he has committed and putting a stop to future wrongs Trump will commit based on his claimed absolute rights.

Trump has made it clear he will fight tooth and nail that he has the absolute rights he claims and he will never acknowledge having done any wrong. The Democrats will not back off, and there is currently a stand off.

In the stand off, the Democrats will draft and file articles of impeachment against Trump.

In the course of House hearings, the Democrats will educate the American people about Trump's absolutism and why Trump needs to be impeached for his absolutism.

Republicans in the House will be called on to defend Trump's absolutism.

The House will vote on and pass articles of impeachment against Trump, which will be referred to the Senate.

In the Senate, the Senate Republicans will in their turn be called on to defend Trump's absolutism

If the Senate does not convict Trump for his absolutism, the American people will have received education about Trump's absolutism and will take that into account in how they vote in November 2020.

The 2020 election will then determine whether the American people, with information about Trump's absolutism, wish for Trump to continue with his absolutism and will accept the consequences  of four more years of Trump's absolutism.

Alternatively, if Trump is not convicted by the Senate, the American people may decide that Trump's absolutism is bad for the United States and Trump will be defeated in the 2020 election.

Trump's claim of absolute right
Yesterday, Trump tweeted

As the President of the United States, I have an absolute right, perhaps even a duty, to investigate, or have investigated, CORRUPTION, and that would include asking, or suggesting, other Countries to help us out!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 4, 2019

Today Trump tweeted

As President I have an obligation to end CORRUPTION, even if that means requesting the help of a foreign country or countries. It is done all the time. This has NOTHING to do with politics or a political campaign against the Bidens. This does have to do with their corruption!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) October 4, 2019

Some of Trump's claims of absolute rights 
During the past 2-1/2 years, Trump has shown that he believes that he has absolute rights to do many questionable things, and that such absolute rights are based on determinations by Trump that the questionable things help Trump serve the country's interests or help Trump carry out his promises to his voters.

Further, Trump has evidenced that the determinations he makes are absolute, the determinations may not be questioned by Congress or anyone else, and Trump may make such explanation, or make no explanation, of his determinations to Congress and the American people as Trump decides in his sole discretion.

Questionable things that Trump  believes that, as the President of the United States, he has an absolute right to do include:

1. He has an absolute right to offer pardons to people in order to induce them not to testify or not to cooperate in investigations that are detrimental to Trump.

2. He had an absolute right to influence Michael Cohen to lie to Congress in March 2017 that the pursuit of the Trump Tower Moscow was ended in January 2016.

3. He had an absolute right to instruct Don McGahan to take steps to get Mueller fired, and an absolute right to request Don McGahan to write a letter for the record that Trump did not instruct Don McGahan to take steps to get Mueller fired.

4. He has an absolute right to tell the American people 12,019 false or misleading statements between January 20, 2017 and August 2019.

5. He has an absolute right to make all the verbal attacks on people that he has made during the past 2-1/2 years, regardless of their truth or falsity, and regardless of whether Trump believes what he says.

6. He has an absolute right to do and say all the things that he has said or done during the past week, or that have been revealed during the past week to have been done,  related to Ukraine matter.

[The foregoing is a partial list of the questionable things Trump believes he has an absolute right to do, based on determinations by Trump in his sole discretion that the questionable thing helps Trump serve the country's interests or helps Trump carry out his promises to his voters.]

Trump's absolutism is contrary to constitution 
Under the constitution and its separation of powers and checks and balances, Trump's absolutism is untenable. Trump's absolutism has gotten progressively worse. Past presidents have had instances when they took actions that exceeded their Article 2 powers and they have been checked by the Supreme Court or Congress. No past president has come anywhere near to Trump in Trump's belief about the absolute powers he claims he has. There are explanations for how Trump has gotten so far away in his claims of absolute powers. This has now been brought to a head with the Democrats on course in the House of Representatives to impeach Trump.

Source and nature of Trump's absolutism 
Trump may not understand the limitations on the President's rights under the constitution and may not understand why his beliefs about his absolute rights do not comport  with the constitution.

In Trump's personal business history, there was little or no accountability to anyone else, such as a Board of Directors or stockholders. This may have rendered Trump insensitive or unaware that the Presidency is subject to limitations and there is accountability.

Before becoming President, Trump led an inordinately selfish and narcissistic life of pursuing  wealth, glitz, glamour, publicity, and notoriety  Trump's grotesque self-centeredness in promoting himself would seem to have left little room for empathy and concern for others, and if hurting other people helped Trump, Trump probably did little subordinating of his interests to the interest and good of others.

Overwhelming self-centeredness and self-promotion easily carry over to a lot of lying. Trump likes superlatives for himself, and it is easy to speculate, in his personal and business life, the pervasiveness and egregiousness of  his lying over 30 years are matched by few other persons. His lying as President probably makes Trump the biggest Presidential liar in history.

A public official has a duty to serve the public interest and not his private interests. A President needs to understand that, be able to discern when the President's personal interests are not the same as  the interests of the American people, and be able to choose to act to serve their interests ahead of his own personal interests. Doing that requires honest introspection, and Trump may not be capable of honest introspection for differentiating what Trump's personal interests are and the country's interests are.

Trump adamantly touts that everything he does serves the interests of the American people or to fulfill his promises to his voters. While Trump says that, Trump has said and done much that evidences that Trump does not do the needed introspection to discern his personal interests versus the country's interests and is is able to choose to  put the interests of the country ahead of his own personal interests or gratifications. At bottom, Trump may be plain dishonest with himself, as well as with the American people.

Consider Trump's over the top personal attacks and disparaging of others. It is clear that Trump gets personal psychological gratifications from doing that. Perhaps Trump would contend that such attacks and disparaging of others aids Trump in advancing the agenda he was elected to carry out. Many would say that Trump would not be honest with himself if he said that, and Trump is putting his own gratifications ahead of the interests of  those who voted for him.

Ukraine offers another example. Trump claims an absolute right to fight corruption, and such fighting of corruption is in the interest of the United States. Many would say Trump is being dishonest about his motive, and his motive has nothing to do with fighting corruption in the interest of the United States but only to achieve political gain for himself.

Trump chose to compound for himself the problem of having personal interests differing from the country's interests, his failing to see the differing interests, not being able to separate them in his mind, and and not being able to subordinate his personal interests to the country's interest. This self chosen compounding of the problem by Trump started at the outset of his Presidency by how Trump chose to keep and pursue the extensive business conflicts of interest after he became President (unlike how previous Presidents dealt with conflicts of interest). For more discussion, see Trump's conflicts in interest problem.

All of the foregoing has contributed to and is manifested in the extreme degree to which Trump sees everything through the lens of whether he is helped or harmed. If something or someone is helpful to him, that is good, right and beautiful. If something or someone is detrimental to Trump, it is corrupt or evil or a disgrace. This lens through which Trump sees things results in Trump conflating in his mind his own interests and the country's interests, so that if something serve his interests he can find a way to label it as serving the country's interests that is ultimately dishonest.

Ukraine exemplifies this by Trump not seeing that he has a personal interest of political gain that is different from the country's interest in fighting corruption, and Trump being dishonest with himself and the country in saying his motive is to serve the country's interest to fight corruption, when in fact his motive is political gain for himself.

This absolute black and white for Trump according to how Trump is helped or harmed contributes to Trump's absolute adamancy that he is always right and never wrong, his claiming excessive credit for himself for favorable events and circumstances, and, if there is an unfavorable event or circumstances, he bears no blame and only others are to blame.

Trump's absolutism is putting enormous strains on the United States political body. Trump's supporters may be fine with Trump's black and white absolutism. Trump's supporters need to be able to see how intolerable Trump's absolutism for those who are not signed up to Trump's cult of personality. Such absolutism of Trump claiming absolute rights and unwillingness to accept limitations on his rights and Congressional oversight of the same brings the country to the stalemate and impeachment crisis.

Trump will not back down in his claims of absolute rights as President, the Democrats will absolutely disagree with Trump having the absolute rights he claims, and the Democrats will impeach Trump to hold Trump accountable for Trump wrongfully acting on the basis of Trump's claimed absolute rights and to stop Trump from further acting wrongfully.

Impeachment by the House 
As stated above, it is certain the House will impeach Trump.

It remains to be seen what will be included in the articles of impeachment and whether the articles will limited, say, to the Ukraine matter, or include other matters.

As to Ukraine, Trump's above tweets set out the argument that Trump and his supporters will put forth to the effect that Trump had an absolute right to ask a foreign government to investigate corruption on the basis of his determination that such investigation serves the interests of the United States and the American people.

The Democrats will disagree, say Trump's asserted purpose to protect the United States against corruption is pretext and in bad faith, say Trump is flat lying about his purpose and Trump's true purpose was only to get Ukraine to do things to help Trump and hurt Biden in the 2020 election, and Trump put his own personal interests ahead of the interests of the United States. The Democrats will say such violates the constitution, and the House, under its impeachment power, may determine what Trump has done is an impeachable offense.

One or more of the ten instances of possible obstruction of justice set out in the Mueller report may be included in the House's articles of impeachment. Trump may contend that he had the absolute right to do the things he did in those instances in order to protect the United States from an coup against the President rooted in wrongful investigations made of him. The Democrats will say Trump had no such absolute right, and that Trump's actions did constitute obstruction of justice, which the House has the power to determine is an impeachable offense.

The American people will hear much from Trump saying he had the absolute right to do various questionable things that are included in the articles of impeachment and from the Democrats explaining that Trump did not have the absolute right to do such questionable things. It is an open question what the American people will think when they are exposed to hearing for weeks or months about the questionable things Trump has done.

What happens after House impeaches
The Republicans will have charge of the trial of Trump in the Senate. The Senate trial may result in the American people hearing more of the same they heard in connection with the House impeachment proceedings.

Alternatively, the Republicans may make the Senate trial very brief, and the American people will not hear a repetition of what they heard in connection with the House proceedings.

Regardless, most American people will not be able to shut their ears to the impeachment proceedings and will not be able to avoid thought along the lines of, "I have heard at length about these questionable things that Trump did that the Democrats say were  to serve Trump's own interests and not the interests of the United States, I have heard about separation of powers, checks and balances and the role of Congressional oversight regarding questionable acts of the President. So what do I really think about all this I have heard?"

It probably cannot be predicted how the Senate Republicans will think about and react to the phenomenon of the American people hearing weeks or months of impeachment proceedings about questionable Trump actions.

If the Senate does not convict, then there will be the 2020 election that will decide whether the United States will continue with Trump's absolutism as President.

Suggested Pelosi statement re impeachment

DRAFT

SUGGESTED STATEMENT OF SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI

ABOUT WHY HOUSE IS IMPEACHING DONALD TRUMP

My fellow Americans,

I wish to explain to you why the United States House of Representatives is impeaching Donald Trump.

It is the constitutional duty of the President of the United States to obey the law and to serve the country's interests and not his personal interests.

Under the constitution, both the voters (through their voting power) and the Congress (under its impeachment power) have oversight power over whether the President is fulfilling his constitutional duty to obey the law and serve the country's interests and not his personal interests.

Deciding whether the President is obeying the law and serving the country's interests or his personal interests requires accurate information about what the President does and has done.

In the 2016 election, Donald Trump had no record as a governmental official for the voters to consider about whether Donald Trump would, as President, obey the law and serve the country's interests and not his personal interests.

In the 2016 election, the voters elected Donald Trump as President.

Donald Trump now has a 2-1/2 year record as President that can be considered for determining whether he has obeyed the law and has served the country's interests and not his personal interests.

In 2020 the voters will possibly have an opportunity to decide whether Donald Trump, as President, obeyed the law and served the country's interests and not his personal interests.

Deciding that, as I have said, depends on having accurate information about what Donald Trump has done as President.

The President has enormous power that he can use to prevent the voters from having accurate information about whether he has obeyed the law and served the country's interests and not his personal interests.

Under its impeachment and oversight powers, the Congress also has great power to get accurate information about whether the President has obeyed the law and has served the country's interests and not his personal interests.

The 2-1/2 year record of Donald Trump as President has raised very serious questions about whether he has obeyed the law and has served the country's interests and not his personal interests and about whether he has used his enormous power to prevent the voters and Congress from obtaining accurate information for deciding about the same.

So serious are the foregoing questions that House of Representatives has decided to is use its impeachment power to get accurate information both for Congress and for the voters.

The House of Representatives believes that it is its constitutional duty to do this.

The foregoing is my explanation, as Speaker of the House of Representatives, why the House is doing what it is doing.

We believe that the people agree that the President must obey the law and serve the country's interests and not his personal interests.

We believe that the people agree, or will agree, that accurate information is needed about whether the Donald Trump has obeyed the law and has served the country's interests and not his personal interests.

We believe that the people will understand the foregoing explanation of why the House of Representatives has decided to impeach Donald Trump.

Why today has destroyed Trump

[Update 11/16/19: Trump is adamant that he has done nothing wrong regarding Ukraine. The insistence by Trump that he has done nothing wrong regarding Ukraine, when there can be no reasonable question that Trump has done something wrong, establishes that there is a significant risk that Trump will continue to do wrongs in the future. The articles of impeachment against Trump should emphasize the risk of future wrongs by Trump and the necessity of impeaching Trump to prevent him from doing more wrongs as President.]

A. General

For three years Donald Trump has acted to set himself above the law.

It will be extremely detrimental to the United States' constitutional form of government of the rule of law and separation of powers if Trump succeeds in being above the law.

The Mueller hearing is a culmination that brings into stark public view Trump's goal of being above the law, and the stark choice for the Democrats that the only way to stop Trump from putting himself above the law  is impeachment plus the 2020 election.

Trump's psychological and personal motivations for wanting to be above the law are not entirely clear. One motivation is probably to protect himself and his family against legal threats.  The full extent of such threats, however, are likely not currently known by the public.

The evidence that Trump has been acting to set himself above the law consists of (i) statements by Trump that effectively say he is above the law, and (ii) numerous actions by Trump that get him closer to being above the law. These statements and actions incrementally gain acceptance by Trump's base that it is ok for Trump to be above the law. So long as Trump has his base, extreme measures are needed to stop Trump in his quest to be above the law.

Statements Trump has made evidencing his belief that he is above the law include recent statements that Article 2 of the constitution allows him to do whatever he wants to, plus categorical statements that he has done nothing wrong, such as Trump's statement after the Mueller hearing that "I did nothing wrong."

There are now three years of Trump wrongfully seeking to set himself above the law, Trump getting away with his wrongful statements and actions getting him closer to being above the law, and Trump being emboldened to go even further to setting himself above the law.

A key component of Trump's gaining acceptance by his base of Trump being above the law is that Trump says whatever he wants, without regard to truth or falsity; his megaphone is the biggest and loudest in the country; he makes summary categorical statements, such as "I did nothing wrong", and he avoids any meaningful challenge of what he says, such as by being required to answer under oath and be cross examined about what he says. In this situation Trump's base believes whatever Trump says, and stopping Trump requires extreme measures to contradict Trump's "I did nothing wrong" that Trump keeps broadcasting through his megaphone, which is the biggest and loudest in the land.

B. Mueller hearing

The Mueller report, and today's hearing and Trump's statements after the hearing, are a significant culmination of three years of Trump's wrongful statements and actions to get himself of the below.,

The hearing and statements are a significant culmination because they they present a stark choice for the Democrats that impeachment is necessary if Trump is to be stopped in his wrongful statements and actions aimed at putting  himself himself above the law.

The 450 page Mueller report, besides detailing Russia's interference in the 2016, sets out extensive wrongdoing by Trump in connection with Russia's interference and Mueller's investigation of the wrongdoing.

As one example, consider that Trump pursued the Trump Tower Moscow project while he ran for President; Trump lied to the voters during the campaign that he had nothing to do with Russia; Trump had Cohen and others support that lie; and, after he was President, Trump directly or indirectly, had Cohen continue the lie in sworn testimony to Congress.

In the mode Trump has built up for three years, Trump, after the hearing, made a categorical statement "I did nothing wrong."

Even though what Trump did was clearly wrong, Trump's base hears Trump's general denial "I did nothing wrong," accepts that general denial uncritically, and does not have to deal with Trump being forced to say specifically,

Yes,  I pursued the Trump Tower Moscow project while I ran for President, I lied to the voters during the campaign that I had nothing to do with Russia, I had Cohen and others support that lie, and, after I was President, I directly or indirectly, had Cohen continue the lie in sworn testimony to Congress.
But it was not wrong that I did that.

Trump's nature and psychology may be that he somehow believes that nothing he does is wrong. As to his action after he was President, Trump may believe that nothing he does as President is "wrong" because he, as President, can do anything he wants and therefore anything he does is not wrong, including being involved with Cohen lying to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow project.

Another example from the Muelller hearing is Trump asking Don McGahn and others to get Mueller fired. Trump either may deny he did that, of if he did, it would not be "wrong." Again Trump's "I did nothing wrong" statement today fairly means that Trump believes he did nothing wrong if  he asked Don McGahn and others to get Mueller fired.

The foregoing examples are two of scores of incidents during the past three years as to which Trump ostensibly expressed belief he did nothing wrong, or he would contend he did nothing wrong when most or almost all would agree Trump did something wrong.

A President who believes Article 2 allows him to do anything he wants, and whose position is that  nothing he has done is "wrong" during the past three years and nothing he does as President is "wrong", and who does things manifesting that belief, is endeavoring to set himself up as above the law.

The Mueller report and the Mueller hearing laid out massive wrongdoing by Trump.

Trump says he has done nothing wrong.

The Mueller hearing brought to the fore that Trump cannot be indicted while he is President, it is problematic whether Trump would be indicted after he is no longer President, and Trump's false statements are not being subjected to challenge by means of Trump being required to testify under oath and cross examined.

C. Trump's "I did nothing wrong" lie

Probably the most dangerous component of Trump's setting himself above the law is Trump's lying, and the willingness of Trump's base to be unaffected by Trump's lying.

After the Mueller hearing Trump was asked whether he should have allowed himself to be interviewed by Mueller. Trump answered by referring to how any slip up in answering questions, including innocuous questions, could result in him being charged with perjury. Trump said he made the right decision to not be interviewed by Mueller.

Consider that every other American is subject to being called to appear and answer questions under oath. Consider that Trump does endless diatribes about lies of various persons such as McCabe, Comey, Cohen, Strzok, and Page, who have been called to appear and testify under oath; and Trump does not himself have to appear and answer questions under oath.

Trump's not being subject to being called to answer questions under oath is an egregious form of Trump being above the law, which allows Trump to continue with his lies, such as his "I did nothing wrong" statement after the Mueller hearing. As discussed above, those lies are accepted uncritically by Trump's base and are a main tool in Trump's his quest to be above the law and not have to tell the truth and be accountable for his wrongs.

D. Democrats have to impeach Trump

The Mueller hearing and Trump's statement "I did nothing wrong" leave the Democrats with no choice but to impeach Trump to hold Trump accountable for his wrongs and to keep him from being above the law.

Mueller has done his job in presenting to the American people the case that Trump has done many wrongs and that the wrongs are leading to Trump placing himself above the law.

Trump is saying, "I did no wrong," even though it is obvious Trump has done many wrongs.

The Mueller report and hearing have made significant headway in getting the truth about Trump's wrongs into the public domain and how Trump is headed to being above the law.

Now it is up to the Democrats to continue from where Mueller has brought the case and beyond which Mueller cannot take the case further.

To carry the case forward to the American people, the Democrats have to impeach Trump and explain the necessity of impeachment for informing the voters in connection with the 2020 election. In other words, tell the voters that one of the issues in the 2020 election is Trump's wrongs, his seeking to be the above the law and why that is extremely detrimental  to the United States' constitutional form of government of the rule of law and separation of powers.

The Senate may not vote to convict, but impeachment is necessary as part of the 2020 election make the case to the American people that Trump will succeed in destroying the rule of law if Trump is not defeated in the 2020 election.

To impeach or not impeach

The sentiment of the Democrats in favor of impeachment is growing in the House of Representatives.

Trump's stonewalling of the Democrats' investigations is a main driver of the growing sentiment for impeachment.

Trump enjoys angering and taunting people and relishes fights.

Trump is goading the Democrats to impeach him.

It is unclear whether the goading is because Trump doesn't care whether he's impeached, or because Trump can't help himself, or because Trump is being strategic.

Congressional Republicans ought to want to know why Trump is goading the Democrats to impeach him.

Speaker Pelosi and many Congressional Democrats are concerned that, taking into account that the Republican controlled Senate would never vote to convict Trump, impeaching Trump could backfire, with Trump campaigning about Presidential harassment preventing him from doing the country's business, and resulting in a backlash against the Democrats and a Trump victory in 2020.

Impeachment or not seems extremely high stakes for the Democrats and for Trump and the Republicans as well.

Probably no one except Trump knows what Trump really thinks about impeachment.

There is no discernible crack in Trump's extreme self-confidence that he always wins, and no one ever beats Trump in the end.

On the other hand, it would seem that not even Trump can know with certainty how the twists and turns of an impeachment would turn out for him.

Yet Trump seems to be doing almost everything he can unnecessarily to bring on an impeachment in the House of Representatives.

Besides uncertainty about what Trump really wants, it would seem uncertain whether the Republicans desire an impeachment in the House of Representatives.

Much bluffing could be going on. Once the impeachment train gets going, there will be little chance of stopping it, and the ultimate unpredictable outcome will be whatever it turns out to be.  Anyone who is bluffing now needs to calculate realistically about their bluff.

I believe Trump is doing extreme damage to the country, and, if Trump wins in 2020, the damage will be even greater.

This means I have to think realistically about the risk of an impeachment backfiring and contributing to a Trump victory in 2020 and four more years of Trump.

My assessment is that the truth about Trump is ugly, and that ugliness will come out in an impeachment of Trump in a way that it would not come out in the 2020 election campaign if there is not an impeachment in the House of Representatives.

If, after the ugly truth about Trump comes out in an impeachment in the House of Representatives, I am willing to take my chances with the American people reelecting Trump in 2020.

As stated, I think another four years of Trump will inflict much more damage on the country, but I will accept the will of the American people after the ugliness of Trump comes out in an impeachment.

My saying the above  puts it to Republicans to be sure they are realistic with what they assess to be the ugly truth (or not ugly truth) about Trump.

I believe the truth about Trump is ugly, and that the Republicans in Alabama (where I live) cannot handle that ugly truth. They would do well to search their souls now about the ugly truth about Trump and take their chances accordingly of what an impeachment will bring.

We will see what happens.

Obama & Trump must testify to Congress

Yesterday Trump charged that the Russia investigation was an "attempted coup, an attempted takedown of the President" and he "knew how illegal the whole thing was."



Trump has been lying his head off for 2-1/2 years without consequence. Trump has gotten away with his lying because he has not been forced to tell the truth under penalties of perjury.

Yesterday's charges by Trump that there was an "attempted coup" against him is as serious charge of criminality, if not treason, that the President could make against his political opposition. Further, millions of Americans believe such charges are true, and this threatens the stability of the country.

The President of the United States is the highest public servant in the United States, and, as such, the President has the greatest public duty and obligation to the American people.

It is intolerable for Trump to be telling lies that millions of Americans believe if the lies threaten the stability of the United States.

The United States House of Representatives has a constitutional duty to protect the United States against a President who is telling lies that millions of Americans believe, which lies threaten the stability of the United States.

To fulfill that duty, the House of Representatives should pass a resolution inviting Trump to come before Congress and testify under penalties of perjury.

Barack Obama previously was the President of the United States and was the highest public servant in the United States, who also had the greatest public duty and obligation to the American people. The resolution inviting Trump to come before Congress to testify should also invite Barack Obama to come before Congress to testify under oath.

If Trump refuses to come before Congress to testify under oath, the House of Representatives should begin impeachment proceedings against Trump.

Reckoning with Trump's past

[Trump's problems consist of wrongdoing from before election and wrongdoing after election. This blog entry discusses Trump's wrongdoing from before election. The blog entry Trump's conflicts of interest problem discusses Trump's wrongdoing after the election.]

Limited vetting in 2016 election of Trump's past history
In the 2016 election, there was widespread voter dissatisfaction with career politicians seeming to serve their own interests, and seeming not to care about a protracted shrinking of the middle class and deterioration in the economic lives of tens of millions of Americans.

This dissatisfaction was charged up by candidates Sanders and Trump making harsh attacks on a "rigged" political system and by Trump being especially vicious in alleging Clinton corruption.

In this political environment, Trump swept into the 2016 Presidential election with a campaign spectacle unlike anything seen before in American politics.

In the campaign Trump trashed Obama and the other Presidents as being stupid incompetents and touted that he Trump, aided by his supreme "art of the deal" business skills, could fix the country's problems that the other Presidents had failed on.

Trump's campaign spectacle was an entertainment tour de force, which received unprecedented news coverage and free advertising for Trump.

In all the publicity he got, Trump avoided serious thinking by the voters about Trump's past history and the possible consequences in their consideration of Trump as a Presidential candidate.

Trump had fame in his previous life, and there were voluminous news stories over 30 years about Trump's business and personal life.

To the extent there were bad things about Trump's past that were not in the public record, Trump knew what those bad things were, and some Trump associates also possibly knew. To the voters, these were unknowns.

In the 2016 Republican primaries, the other Republican candidates, possibly because they were cowed by Trump, did minimal attacking of Trump about his past history.

In the general election, there was also minimal attacking of Trump by Hillary Clinton about Trump's past history.

Any attacking of Trump about bad things in his past history done by the other Republican candidates or by Hillary Clinton could, as indicated, not include things that were not in the public record (or found by "oppo" research).

While Trump's business experience had great appeal to many voters, those voters probably gave little serious thought about the possibility that Trump had done nefarious things in his business career, and those could be a problem if Trump won the election and bad things came to light after Trump took office.

Risk of bad things coming out after election
The 2016 election had potentially serious adverse consequences for Trump, his supporters and the country if there were unknown bad things from Trump's past history, and, if Trump should win, those bad things came to light after the election.

Bad things from Trump's past history coming out after the election could lessen Trump's moral authority to lead the country as President and reduce the country's trust in Trump. This would be exacerbated if Trump lied and tried to cover up to keep bad things from his past coming out.

Bad things from Trump's past could be used by Trump's political opponents to attack him, and those attacks could impair Trump's ability to carry out his agenda. That would negatively affect Trump's supporters, who wanted Trump's agenda to be carried out.

The attacking of Trump by his opponents for Trump's past misdeeds would divert Trump and Congress from carrying out their functions in the operation of the Federal government. Division in the country would also increase from Trump's supporters defending Trump and his past misdeeds, and Trump's opponents attacking Trump for those past misdeeds. This increased division would be especially acute if Trump lied and tried to cover up to keep the bad things from coming out, Trump supporters supported Trump notwithstanding his lying and covering up, and Trump's opponents increased their attack about past misdeeds due to Trump's current lying and trying to cover up.

The foregoing would happen in the environment that there would be immensely more intensive and broad ranging scrutiny of Trump's past history that would be carried out by the media and by Trump's political opponents.

Trump knew of all the bad things in his past that could come to light after the election. Trump further knew of the above potentially serious adverse consequences for Trump, his supporters and the country if those bad things from Trump's past came out. Those were risks that Trump knowingly took for himself. He also took the risks for his supporters but Trump's supporters did not know of the risk that Trump took for them.

Bad things actually coming out
Bad things from Trump's past are now coming out, and the potential adverse consequences described above are now happening.

Trump can be expected to take the position that, no matter what bad things are in his past and no matter what comes out from his past, there is no recourse against him as President except for the voters to vote him out of office in 2020.

It can also be expected that such a position by Trump would be strenuously resisted by Trump's opponents, and the ensuing political battle would be exactly one of the potential adverse consequences resulting from bad things in Trump's past that come to light after the election.

As stated above, Trump, in running for President, knew of whatever bad things there were in his past and Trump further knew of the potentially serious adverse consequences for himself, his supporters and the country if those bad things from Trump's past came out. Those were risks that Trump knowingly took for himself . Trump also took the risks for his supporters and the country, but Trump's supporters and the country did not know of the risk that Trump took for them.

It can be expected that Trump will take the position that, as between himself and the country, it is the country that should bear all the costs and risk of what Trump consciously and knowingly subjected the country to, and that he Trump should be untouched by the harms he has caused for the country by his choice to run for President.

Time will tell how all of the foregoing plays out for the country.

Trump's conflicts of interest problem

[Trump's problems consist of wrongdoing from before election and wrongdoing after election. This blog entry discusses Trump's wrongdoing after the election. The blog entry Reckoning with Trump's past discusses Trump's wrongdoing from before the election.]

General problem of conflicts of interest
There is long standing understanding of the problem of public officials having conflicts of interest and the need for prohibitions, disclosure and other ways for avoiding or lessening the problem. Managing Conflict of Interest in the Public Sector

Public officials are supposed to act for public purposes and not to benefit themselves personally.

If public officials have conflicts of interest, there is a risk that they will make decisions and take actions for their personal benefit in violation of what they are supposed to do.

Further, the mere existence of conflicts of interest engenders distrust of the public official, because the public cannot know with certainty that the public official is acting for public purposes and not for personal benefit. This distrust can metastasize to such an extent a public official does not have trust of the voters needed to make and carry out difficult decisions in his public office.

The best solution to the conflict of interest problem is for there not to be conflicts of interest, which can be done by prohibiting them or insulating them by the use of "blind trusts" so the public official does not know what will benefit himself personally.

Disclosure of conflicts of interest is also a tool, but it is not as good a tool as prohibition.

The worst case is where the public official has conflicts of interest and hides the conflicts of interest.

Exemption of President
18 U.S.C. Section 208 is the general Federal law prohibition on Federal officials having conflicts of interest.

Section 202, however, provides an exemption for the President, the Vice President, any Member of Congress, or a Federal Judge.

Until Donald Trump, U.S. Presidents have been sensitive to, and taken steps to avoid, their having conflicts of interest, and Presidential conflicts of interest have not presented a problem for the country before Donald Trump.

Trump controversially started out his Presidency with an attitude and actions that he legally could have any conflicts of interest he desired, and that he would in fact have and pursue personal benefits  for himself and his family from an extensive set of conflicts of interest.

For news stories and commentary on this, see Brennan Center for Justice, "Strengthening Presidential Ethics Law", by Daniel I. Weiner, December 13, 2017;
Emory Corporate Governance and Accountability Review "Conflicts of Interest and the President: Reviewing the State of Law in the Face of a Trump Presidency" ; POLITICO "Trump owes ethics exemption to George H.W. Bush", by Josh Gerstein, November 23, 2016: and LAW & CRIME,
"Trump is Right, Conflict-of-Interest Rules Don’t Apply to Him",
by Rachel Stockman  November 23, 2016

Past two years
The past two years have evidenced great untoward consequences for the country growing out of Trump's attitudes and actions to keep his conflicts of interest while President and pursue personal benefits for himself and his family from those conflicts of interest.

This has included instances of Trump hiding his conflicts of interest and lying.

Perhaps the leading, most egregious instance to date is the Trump Tower Moscow matter. This was hidden for two years, and information about it, and the consequences from it, are still unfolding.

While Trump had a legal right to pursue his business interests during the time he was running for President, this was a precursor "conflict of interest" that, in the course of two years, morphed into a huge trust problem for Trump and the country.

The precursor "conflict of interest" was that Trump as a candidate may have been secretly doing and saying things to curry favor with Putin in order to advance his Trump Tower Moscow project, and those things were damaging to the country while Trump was helped personally.

For example, Trump alone in the summer of 2016 was questioning national intelligence about Russian interference in the 2016 election. The country's intelligence apparatus is important for national security, and it is important that the country have a legitimate faith in the apparatus so that actions taken based on the apparatus have the support of the country. If Trump undermined that faith by what he said in the 2016 election in order to serve his private interests, that would be very bad for the country and it would engender huge distrust of Trump if this was found out after he became President.

To the extent Trump was currying favor with Putin before the election, after Trump won, he was potentially compromised and subject to blackmail by Putin by reason of what Trump did before the election.

This then gets immensely exacerbated if Trump got Cohen to lie to Congress about the Trump Tower Moscow project.

The upshot of the foregoing is huge damage to the country's trust in Trump, and, if Trump is willing to do the foregoing in service of his private interests and to protect himself, the distrust spills over to many other actions of Trump and what other things Trump may be willing to do to protect himself.

Currently, legitimate questions can arise as to whether Trump's summit with Kim this week is to further U.S. national interest or to distract from Mueller. If Trump is willing to get Cohen to lie to Congress, Trump himself may lie by saying he has removed the North Korea nuclear threat, when in fact it has not been removed.

Kim is presumably aware that Trump is weakened by widespread distrust of Trump in the United States and Kim potentially can take advantage of the distrust in whatever agreement is made at the summit.

During the past two years Trump has had many other conflicts of interest that are harmful to the country in the way described above.

Republican complicity
For two years the Republicans have enabled Trump's conflicts of interest and increased the problem for the country of Trump's conflict of interests.

The Democrats won the House of Representatives in the 2018 election and should endeavor to undue the damage that the Republicans have done in enabling Trump's conflicts of interest for two years.