Trump's latest DOJ tweet is cause for impeachment

Donald_Trump_by_Gage_Skidmore_5.jpg

Presented, for your approval (or disgust), a High Misdemeanor from The Twilight Zone:

Well, I wish it was fiction (and I briefly thought it was—there’s a website where anyone can create fake tweets from President Trump, and my friends and I amuse ourselves by e-mailing our creations around; "Pumpkin Latte is back at Starbucks and Hallowe’en’s coming! #TotalWitchHunt!”)

But that tweet’s real—and that’s a real problem.

The president is referring here to the recent indictments of two of his early supporters: Reps. Chris Collins R-NY, and Duncan Hunter R-CA. In condemning Sessions for bringing the charges against the two Congressmen right before the midterms, Trump is suggesting is that the Attorney General should be using his position at the Department of Justice to suppress investigations and prosecutions of members of the governing party for political gain.

Thankfully, others disagree, including Sen. Ben Sasse (R-NE):

But I’m here to argue that what President Trump has done with this tweet is High Misdemeanor- that is, an impeachable offense. You might think it’s ridiculous to impeach somebody over a Tweet, whether or not said Tweet is an official White House policy statement (even though the White House and DOJ say they are.)

If this was a one-off utterance, I’d be overreacting. But it’s a pattern. Long before Trump tried to interfere in the Manafort trial (which Shanin Specter wrote about here) and long before the Russia probe began, Trump was leading chants at his campaign rallies of “Lock Her Up!" That is, Trump has long thought that his political enemies should be behind bars—and now he states that he wants his political allies to skate free.

This behavior needs to be condemned with the highest possible rebuke from Congress: impeachment.

What is a High Misdemeanor exactly? Nobody knows—while the Constitution says that treason and bribery are forms of a High Misdemeanor, the document purposefully does not define the term. Concurring in Jacobellis vs. Ohio (1964) Justice Potter Stewart declined to define hard-core pornography but claimed he knew it when he saw it. We know High Misdemeanor when we see it—and this is hard-core stuff before our very eyes.

Critical ThinkingShawn Young