Abuse of power may not be a crime, but it is impeachable

If this line of defense proves the best that the White House has, President Trump ought to begin packing his bags now. For the sake of the nation, let’s hope that these talking points from Matt Whitaker came from his own idiocy and not any member of the administration:

I’m a former prosecutor and what I know is this is a perfect time for a preliminary hearing, where you would say, “Show us your evidence. What evidence of a crime do you have?” I mean, the Constitution, you know, sort of — abuse of power is not a crime. Let’s fundamentally boil it down to — you know, the Constitution is very clear that this has to be some pretty egregious behavior, and they cannot tell the American people what this case is even about.


Whitaker, who made the remarks to Laura Ingraham on Fox News last night, is correct that evidence is key. And unlike in the Russia farce, the charge of Trump’s attempt to initiate a quid pro quo using his presidential powers to advance his own personal gain with Ukraine is backed by a disturbing amount of evidence.

The initial transcript of the call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky did show him requesting that Ukraine investigate his domestic political foes in form of the Bidens and Burisma. That ask, while inappropriate and perhaps rendering the president unelectable, was not accompanied with an explicit threat constituting a quid pro quo. The testimony of Ukrainian Ambassador William Taylor, however, makes clear that not only did the Trump administration withhold Congress-approved aid to Ukraine in the hopes of leveraging dirt on the Bidens, but also that Ukraine had some understanding that such a quid pro quo was in the works and that Zelensky wanted no part of it.

If Taylor, a career diplomat who served both Republicans and Democrats, maintains his credibility, his assertion that Ukrainian official Oleksandr Danyliuk told him that Zelensky “did not want to be used as a pawn in a U.S. re-elections campaign” proves that Trump was abusing his presidential power for personal gain, putting his own interests over that of the people he was elected to serve, and that the new Ukrainian administration understood that it was being extorted.

Obviously, this investigation is still in its infancy. It’s possible that Taylor will be discredited or that further exculpatory evidence will emerge. But right now, the evidence indicates that Trump abused his power as president. That’s not a crime in any criminal court, but it’s surely an impeachable one in a political trial.

Abuse of power comprised one of the four original articles of impeachment brought up against President Clinton, but Democratic recalcitrance rendered that and one other article a failure. The House Judiciary Committee approved abuse of power as the second article of impeachment against President Nixon, but he resigned before the House as a whole could vote. Alexander Hamilton clearly delineated in Federalist 65 that impeachment constitutes appropriate recourse for “the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” The entire basis of impeachment originated from British Parliament punishing public officials for abuses of power in the Middle Ages.

So no, even if the quid pro quo is proven true, Trump may not be guilty of anything he could be convicted of in a court. But abuse of power is still an impeachable offense, and the White House ought to start sending out smarter surrogates, or else Trump may bite the dust.

Related Content