Links - Impeachment Watch

A patriot can dream

Beyond the chaos, trolling, and occasional good deeds, Trump does indeed cross both ethical and legal lines from time to time. So unfortunately this will be a recurring series I suspect.

Obviously impeachment much less removal seems a quite remote possibility. Still, I think it is worthwhile to keep track of notable items that would be grounds for impeachment if for no other reason than to document the transgressions. Make no mistake about it—this exercise could have been done for every modern president.

I’ll start with Patrick Eddington who shows that out of the gate and just two-weeks in Trump was violating the law. In regards to these he writes,

Some have largely symbolic importance. For example, Trump’s executive order mandating flags fly at full staff during “this and all future Inauguration Days,” even during a mourning period for a deceased president when flags are supposed to be at half-staff, is a direct violation of existing law. Other laws Trump is violating are far more consequential.

His “Friday Night Massacre,” which involved the sacking of over a dozen agency or department inspectors general (IGs), violates a current statute enacted in late 2022 by failing to give 30 days’ notice to Congress before firing an IG. As far as political norms are concerned, this is bigger than just ignoring a congressional notification requirement.

He goes on to document more transgressions including pointing out where they parallel his first impeachment. Trump probably doesn’t like hearing that, which might be a problem for me and others saying it since it appears the president thinks he can dictate free speech and the press.

To support that I have a few links from Reason’s Jacob Sullum. The first of these is him explaining why CBS would settle Trump’s groundless lawsuit regarding editing of the 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris.

Paramount, which owns CBS, is reportedly trying to settle a laughable lawsuit that Donald Trump filed last October based on a 60 Minutes interview with Kamala Harris, his Democratic opponent in the 2024 presidential election. The New York Times reports that the company started settlement negotiations because it is keen to avoid regulatory obstacles to its planned merger with Skydance Media.

He goes on to show how ridiculous Trump’s legal claims are before concluding,

Trump can extort that outcome because of the FCC's antiquated and constitutionally dubious authority over the content of broadcast journalism, which the government treats differently from journalism disseminated via print, cable, satellite, the internet, or any other nonbroadcast medium. That is just one of many ways that a president can try to punish or suppress speech he does not like. Other levers of executive power include the Federal Trade Commission, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the IRS, antitrust enforcement by the Justice Department, privacy and financial regulations, and presidential support for new legislation. Trump has even suggested that the Justice Department "should" be policing the press to make sure it is telling the truth, an idea that is legally baseless and starkly at odds with the First Amendment.

Trump and other Republicans rightly complained when the Biden administration persistently pressured social media platforms to suppress speech that federal officials viewed as a threat to public health, democracy, or national security. That pestering, they plausibly argued, violated the First Amendment because it carried an implicit threat of government retaliation against companies that refused to comply. Yet Trump is doing essentially the same thing in this case by pressuring Paramount to assuage his wrath by settling a lawsuit that was bound to fail on its merits.

Following up on that he shows how the full transcript released by CBS “shows the president's complaints about the editing of the interview are not just wildly hyperbolic and legally groundless. They are demonstrably false.”

I seem to remember this sort of thing being derisively called “lawfare” by MAGA. I guess “it’s not wrong if our side does it” strikes again.

Following up to that saga, Sullum shows that Trump is adding on to this pattern by suing The Des Moines Register and pollster Ann Selzer claiming consumer fraud for her poll that predicted a Harris victory over Trump in Iowa.

When you are president of the United States, it turns out, you can intimidate major news outlets simply by suing them, no matter how absurd your legal arguments are. Trump was always rich enough to bankroll lawsuits that imposed costs on people whose speech offended him even when they had not said anything that remotely resembled a tort. Now that his wealth is complemented by the vast powers of the executive branch, he has even less reason to worry that his litigation makes no sense.

So, how’s the show so far? Well, we’re less than two months in and one person’s crime is on the rise. Brace yourselves!