Trump Bribery thread:
@AlanDersh says impeachment requires a crime on the level "treason" or "bribery."
In one respect, he is clearly wrong, but he has a plausible textual point (more below).
*The main problem is that House has alleged bribery.*
Just read the House Report.
1/
@AlanDersh says impeachment requires a crime on the level "treason" or "bribery."
In one respect, he is clearly wrong, but he has a plausible textual point (more below).
*The main problem is that House has alleged bribery.*
Just read the House Report.
1/
@AlanDersh 2/ How is @AlanDersh clearly wrong?
Anyone paying a minute of attention to the public debate about impeachment knows that the Framers chose the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" from English history because it did not require a statutory felony, but an abuse of power...
Anyone paying a minute of attention to the public debate about impeachment knows that the Framers chose the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" from English history because it did not require a statutory felony, but an abuse of power...
@AlanDersh 3/ I'm not going to repeat all the arguments. I link to my favorite piece that hasn't gotten enough attention:
In @fedsoc, conservative prof Robert Natelson concisely summarizes Rogers & Young on "High Misdemeanors" as fiduciary violations of office:
fedsoc.org/commentary/pub…
In @fedsoc, conservative prof Robert Natelson concisely summarizes Rogers & Young on "High Misdemeanors" as fiduciary violations of office:
fedsoc.org/commentary/pub…
@AlanDersh @FedSoc 4/ But there is a textually valid part of @AlanDersh's argument:
The interpretive canon of Eiusdem Generis ("of the same kinds, class, or nature") tells us to look at the same words in the sentence.
"High crimes and misdemeanors" are clarified by "treason" and "bribery."
The interpretive canon of Eiusdem Generis ("of the same kinds, class, or nature") tells us to look at the same words in the sentence.
"High crimes and misdemeanors" are clarified by "treason" and "bribery."
@AlanDersh @FedSoc 5/ A related canon Noscitur a Sociis ("a word is known by the company it keeps") makes a similar point.
The bottom line is that not all "high crimes and misdemeanors" are felonies, but not all felonies are high crimes and misdemeanors.
They have to be serious abuses of power.
The bottom line is that not all "high crimes and misdemeanors" are felonies, but not all felonies are high crimes and misdemeanors.
They have to be serious abuses of power.
@AlanDersh @FedSoc 6/ For example, tax fraud by Trump a decade ago is probably not a "high crime and misdemeanor" because he was a private citizen, not abusing power.
But if he obstructed justice as president to hide those past crimes, he may have committed high crimes and misdemeanors...
But if he obstructed justice as president to hide those past crimes, he may have committed high crimes and misdemeanors...
@AlanDersh @FedSoc 7/ But as I've been pointing out for a while, the House DID ALLEGE BRIBERY in the House Report (and relatively clearly in Article I):
@AlanDersh @FedSoc 8/ Both constitutional & felony bribery cases are laid out in clear detail, element by element, in the House Judiciary Report, p. 118 to 124 (linked here).
Constitutional bribery: based on the meaning of bribery in 1787.
Felony bribery: the modern statute.
Constitutional bribery: based on the meaning of bribery in 1787.
Felony bribery: the modern statute.
@AlanDersh @FedSoc 9/ Now go back and re-read Impeachment Article I, Abuse of Power, and note how it clearly spells out the elements of felony bribery, step by step:
A "corrupt" quid pro quo, two "official acts" in return for a thing of value (for his "personal political benefit")
A "corrupt" quid pro quo, two "official acts" in return for a thing of value (for his "personal political benefit")
10/ Some of us made these points in @voxdotcom Dec 17.
I explain why I thought the House did not draft an Article titled “bribery.”
In retrospect, I think they should have. And maybe not sent Obstruction of Congress (as I have explained on Twitter).
vox.com/policy-and-pol…
I explain why I thought the House did not draft an Article titled “bribery.”
In retrospect, I think they should have. And maybe not sent Obstruction of Congress (as I have explained on Twitter).
vox.com/policy-and-pol…
11/ But the simple solution is for the House managers to emphasize early & often the bribery felony already spelled out in impeachment.
That’s why it’s important for the a House to choose the best team in con law as well as prosecution experience.
Should have picked @RepRaskin
That’s why it’s important for the a House to choose the best team in con law as well as prosecution experience.
Should have picked @RepRaskin
12/ Co-incidentally my Emoluments amicus co-author @_John_Mikhail also posted a more thorough thread on how “abuse of power” is a core historical example of “high crimes.”
My favorites are the “faithful execution” point and Edmund Burke, but it’s all good:
My favorites are the “faithful execution” point and Edmund Burke, but it’s all good:
