“The ... phrase ... ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ ... was a historical term of art, derived from impeachments in the British Parliament. ... [T]he framers ... knew what it meant. It meant, as Alexander Hamilton later phrased it, ‘the abuse or violation of some public trust.’”
“[T]he framers viewed the president as a fiduciary, the government of the United States as a sacred trust and the people of the United States as the beneficiaries of that trust.”
”They believed that a president would break his oath if he engaged in self-dealing — if he used his powers to put his own interests above the nation’s. That would be the paradigmatic case for impeachment.”
“That’s exactly what appears to be at issue today. ... [I]t appears that the president might have used his official powers ... to leverage a foreign government into helping him defeat a potential political opponent in the United States.”
“If Trump did that, it would be the ultimate impeachable act. Trump has already done more than enough to warrant impeachment ... with his relentless attempts ... to sabotage the [Mueller] investigation ....”
“The president’s efforts were impeachable because, in committing those obstructive acts, he put his personal interests above the nation’s: He tried to stop an investigation into whether a hostile foreign power, Russia, ....”
“... tried to interfere with our democracy — ... because he [found] it personally embarrassing. Trump breached his dut[ies] ... not only because he likely broke the law but also because, through his disregard for the law, he put his self-interest first.”
“The current whistleblowing allegations ... are even worse. Unlike the allegations of conspiracy with Russia [in] 2016 ..., these concern Trump’s actions as president ... and his exercise of presidential powers over foreign policy ....”
“It is high time for Congress to do its duty .... Given how Trump seems ... bent on putting himself above the law, something like what might have happened [with] Ukraine — abusing presidential authority for personal benefit — was almost inevitable.”
“Yet if that is what occurred, part of the responsibility lies with Congress, which has failed to act on the blatant obstruction ... detailed months ago.
“Congressional procrastination has probably emboldened Trump, ....”
“... and it risks emboldening future presidents who might turn out to be of his sorry ilk. To borrow John Dean’s ... metaphor once again, there is a cancer on the presidency, and cancers, if not removed, only grow.”
“As Elbridge Gerry put it at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, ‘A good magistrate will not fear [impeachments]. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.’ By now, Congress should know which one Trump is.”
By @judgeluttig: "The clear and present danger to our democracy now is that former President Donald Trump and his political allies appear prepared to exploit the Electoral Count Act of 1887 ... to seize the presidency in 2024 if Trump or his anointed candidate is not elected."
"He confirmed as much in a twisted admission of both his past and future intent earlier this month, claiming that congressional efforts to reform the Electoral Count Act actually prove that Mike Pence had the power to overturn the 2020 presidential election."
"Mr. Trump and his allies insist that the 2020 election was 'stolen,' a product of fraudulent voting and certifications of electors who were not properly selected. Over a year after the election, they ... demand[] that the rest of the G.O.P. embrace their lies."
After reading tonight's order from the Supreme Court and rereading Judge Millett's opinion for the D.C. Circuit, I'm not sure it's possible to overstate how thorough and brutal a defeat this short-lived litigation was for Trump and his allies.
To put a fine point on it, the way that the Supreme Court cut back on the Court of Appeals' opinion—by saying it didn't matter that Trump is a former president—places even greater weight on the Court of Appeals' evisceration of the substance of Trump's claims of privilege and ...
... on the vital importance of the legislative purposes being served by the Jan. 6 select committee's investigation.
Garland's speech was a call for patience — and a promise of full justice. He explained how massive, complex investigations proceed—from the bottom up, from the small fry to the big fish.
Above all, he pledged that DOJ has "no higher priority," would do "whatever it takes for justice to be done," and would hold "all January 6th perpetrators, at any level, accountable under law—whether they were present that day" at the Capitol or not.
Just as Chris Cuomo had no right to avoid testifying about his advisory communications with his brother's staff, Hannity has no First Amendment or shield law privilege here. ag.ny.gov/sites/default/…
Not even a broad shield law like New York's that probably goes beyond what the 1A provides (a SCOTUS majority never having actually recognized such a journalistic privilege) would help Hannity even if it could be invoked against a congressional subpoena (which it can't).
"I’ve also noticed a naïveté about some of the commentary on Afghanistan. It presumes that there was a clean solution for the U.S., if only the Biden administration (and, to a lesser extent, the Trump administration) had executed it."
"The fundamental choice, as my colleague Helene Cooper told me, was between a permanent, low-level U.S. war in Afghanistan — a version of what John McCain once called a 100-year war — and a messy exit."
"For 20 years, at a cost of 2,448 American lives and more than 1 trillion taxpayer dollars, we attempted to do what the shopkeeper knew we could not: outlast the Taliban. We built schools and hospitals; we trained, paid and supplied the Afghan military."
"In exchange, we got an Afghan army that laid down its weapons and government leadership that fled the country. By pursuing this full-scale nation-building effort, rather than a small-scale counterterror operation, we gave up what little advantage we ever had over the Taliban."