The list is pretty ridiculous and stretching it but I googled and found this
https://www.needtoimpeach.com/impeachable-offenses/
Donald Trump's 10 Impeachable Offenses
At least some of that looks like it's really struggling to join the dots. Without specifically looking to verify the truth of the claims behind them all, my thoughts were"
1. If he has interfered in a judicial process that's really not good. That said the investigation into Russia has been going on for two years now and despite endless press reports that this person or that person is "talking" there still seems to be nothing tangible coming from it.
2. I'm not familiar with the wording of the "foreign emoluments" clause although there is clearly a large difference between accepting something as a gift from a foreign official and accepting payment for services rendered. Perhaps the wording of the constitution does technically render receiving payment for servces rendered unacceptable just because it happened to be from a foreign government official but unless there are claims that a foreign official staying in a hotel and paying the going rate is somehow an unusual process this seems like clutching at straws.
3. A big mix-n-match of loosely related things that don't support each other. Being invited to a meeting isn't the same as soliciting something of value. If a meeting offering the dirt on Hillary Clinton is considered to be "something of value" perhaps the bigger problem is the amount of dirt on Clinton, rather than Trump's son accepting an invite to discuss it.
4. Encouraging the police to rough up suspects is bad. Without seeing the "anti-Muslim" content it's hard to comment - something that genuinely calls anyone who worships Allah a terrorist is obviously a very different proposition from wanting to be careful we don't let Islamic terrorists slip into the country on the pretense of being tourists or refugees.
5. The third paragraph talks of "allowing" rather than "requiring" issuing and enforcing, so on that basis use of a pardon doesn't seem like a violation. Bad form perhaps, but not a clear violation.
6. Little more than an opinion piece. On the face of it his little Twitter-spat with Kim Jong-un seemed provocative but it's not as if he's the child throwing rocks at the battalion of tanks. He's the one with the power to annihilate the other, and he's the one who got Kim Jong-un to the negotiating table unlike many of his predecessors.
7. Given the concerns about Hillary Clinton's private email server and the potential to have stored highly classified material in an insecure manner it's not as clear-cut as a simple claim his motives were political. Maybe there were motivated in part by politics but given the admissions by the investigators (Comey? I forget) it seems like her being cleared was a coverup on a much larger scale than anything Trump is accused of doing.
8. These days it's all but impossible to gather what is fake news and what is genuine. If you look at CNN and Fox you'd wonder whether they are talking about the same things but apparently they are. Saying that critical articles are untrue doesn't seem like grounds for impeachment. I'm not sure you can sensibly get from the claims in (8) to a reasonable argument that the constitution is under threat.
9. Separating children from their
bona fide parents seems excessive. But let's not forget that an adult coming to the country illegally made a choice to break the law and it doesn't necessarily follow that the child is their child. Perhaps people would be happier if the children were locked up in adult facilities, even if the "parent" was an adult trying to traffic the child into a prostitution ring or something. Or should children be given a free pass where breaking the law is concerned, just because they didn't make an active decision? If we're going there, does the child who grew up wealthy because Daddy was a drug lord get to keep their lifestyle when Daddy goes to prison and has his assets seized?
10. If he truly committed a felony then by all means have at it. Personally I'd have thought such clear-cut evidence would be used early on rather than being left at the bottom of a list somewhere behind allegations, investigations and things that drag on for so long the public memory has all but forgotten stuff.
As you say, it's a pretty lame list.
hnoes:
