Must Read–Democrats lay impeachment trap, but will the president step into it?

ed note–keep in mind that those ‘Committee chairmen’ which our esteemed ‘Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University’ references in his piece are all deeply, DEEPLY pro-Israel Jews who function as the gears of Benjamin Netanyahu’s political machine and whose EVERY move, word, and action is done not only with Netanyahu’s blessings, but indeed, under his direction.

Jonathan Turley, thehill.com

Certain common aphorisms were never meant to be taken literally. “What doesn’t kill you only makes you stronger” is a particularly risky principle by which to live. A watched pot will indeed boil. Time does not heal all wounds. “Slow and steady” does not always win the race. President Trump added a new — and, for him, potentially dangerous — aphorism on Friday, when asked about impeachment. He said he was not at all concerned because “you can’t impeach somebody that’s doing a great job.”

The president was hopefully making an aspirational, not a literal, point — because a president can be entirely successful in office yet rightfully be impeached for committing “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Indeed, no matter how successful a president may be in various policies, the commission of any impeachable offense means, by definition, that he or she is not doing a “great job.”

Trump’s statement was unnerving not only because he has said it before but because he is entering the most dangerous period of his term so far. With Democrats now controlling the House of Representatives — and some already stating their intentions, intemperately or even profanely like Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) — the White House is about to be hit with a torrent of document demands and subpoenas from a half-dozen committees.

Committee chairmen have promised to demand answers on Trump’s taxes, foreign business dealings, family charity and other areas beyond the still-ongoing Russia investigation. These moves reflect a strategy that not only targets Trump but is counting on Trump to be successful. They are relying on Trump’s self-description as a “counterpuncher” to supply the grounds of his removal. Yes, a president can counterpunch himself into impeachment.

Despite the filing of articles of impeachment on the first day of House Democratic control, there is not a strong basis for a single article at this time. Thus far, the strongest basis is the money paid to two women to silence them about alleged affairs with Trump before the election. Yet, while highly damaging, these allegations can be difficult to prosecute and occurred before Trump took office. An in-kind campaign contribution simply is not a strong stand-alone issue for impeachment.

Likewise, there still is no compelling basis to allege a crime based on obstruction or theories of collusion. That leaves Democrats with a House majority secured, at least in part, on promises of impeachment but without a clear, impeachable act.

Special counsel Robert Mueller could well supply the missing “high crime and misdemeanor,” of course, but the only other possible source is Trump himself. And, as he demonstrated during the James Comey debacle, Trump has the ability to do himself great harm by acting impulsively or angrily.

His firing of Comey as FBI director was not the problem; an array of Democrats and Republicans, as well as career prosecutors, felt Comey deserved to be dismissed. Instead, it was the timing: Rather than firing Comey upon taking office, Trump waited and then fired him after inappropriately questioning him on the Russia investigation and asking for leniency for a former associate, retired general Michael Flynn. Trump also reportedly called for the firing of Mueller, Attorney General Jeff Sessions and Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, only to be deterred by his staff.

Democrats now have the chance to see if they can trigger an impeachable offense by hitting Trump across a broad range of subjects, including his tightly held business and tax records. Hammered by subpoenas and demands, they are hoping that the unpredictable Trump could commit an impulsive and destructive act. Consider just a few possible “scores” that this strategy could produce if President Trump walks into an impeachment trap.

First, firing frenzy. The biggest score would be a frustrated Trump ordering the firing of Mueller. Trump could be faced by not one but multiple special counsel reports in 2019, as well as ongoing litigation against indicted individuals. If reports are correct, he repeatedly has raised the idea of firing Mueller. That would cross a red line for some Republican senators and add “official acts” to an alleged pattern of obstruction.

Second, false statements. Unlike President Bill Clinton, who knowingly lied under oath (and was later found by a federal court to have committed perjury), Trump has not spoken under oath and only given limited answers in writing to a few questions from the special counsel. Now, Congress will be demanding answers not just from Trump but from his son-in-law, Jared Kushner, and others in the White House. Lying to congressional investigators is a crime. If Trump tries to spin facts or gives false information, he would commit an impeachable offense.

Third, witness tampering. Equally dangerous is an allegation of shaping or inducing testimony. Trump has shown a continuing refusal to observe lines of separation from the investigation. Just recently, a report alleged that he called acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker to complain about the New York prosecutors pursuing campaign-finance violations. If he speaks with potential witnesses about their knowledge or accounts, it could be construed as influencing witnesses or even subornation of perjury. Trump’s former lawyer, Michael Cohen, allegedly confessed to false statements and suggested the statements were made with Trump’s knowledge.

Other potential criminal acts relate to the withholding of documents or acts that could constitute contempt of Congress. Of course, this strategy will fail if President Trump maintains simple restraint and leaves congressional and special counsel investigations to his own legal counsel. Congressional demands often raise separation-of-powers issues that can lead to litigation and delay. While Congress may not like it, it is very difficult to convert such constitutional objections into obstruction.

That, however, depends on the proper assertion of privileges. If the president interjects himself into the mix, the rationale — and the defense — can be compromised or lost. The scope and subject matter of these inquiries make for an obvious trap for Trump. This is why an aphorism like “you can’t impeach somebody that’s doing a great job” can be dangerous. Even if true to some degree on a political level, it also is true that a president can do a “great job” of getting himself impeached — if he walks into the world’s most obvious impeachment trap.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He testified on the impeachment standard for Bill Clinton and served as the lead defense counsel in the last impeachment trial in the United States Senate. Follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley