[bg_collapse view=”button-orange” color=”#4a4949″ expand_text=”Show More” collapse_text=”Show Less” ]
Sources:
United States v. Robinson- https://bit.ly/38DJAau
Whren v. United States- https://bit.ly/3gX0kyJ
Yick Wo v. Hopkins- https://bit.ly/38NBVXY
Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney- https://bit.ly/3kwePdc
Illinois v. Caballes- https://bit.ly/3aYrksV
Rodriguez v. United States- https://bit.ly/2LS1sqc
Michigan v. Defillippo- https://bit.ly/3ycKfNU
Kolender v. Lawson- https://bit.ly/3F5ep7j
Florida v. Harris- https://bit.ly/3y315Pk
Efficacy of drug detection by fully-trained police dogs- https://bit.ly/39yEFez
Court Records (2018-TR-123713-A-O)- https://bit.ly/3FfATm3
Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByoL5…
Real World Police’s channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChaE…
Comments:
Look at the zeal with which he seeks to find suspicion in an ordinary person’s response to being approached with his level of aggression. Look at how thoroughly his desire to enforce drug busts—which are both profitable and valuable to him as a career move—corrupts his ability to to do his job properly. This entire situation is a ruse to bust someone for drugs. It has no legitimate traffic-enforcement purpose.
On top of that, there’s no actual complaint or meaningful indication of drug activity. This cop just pulled over some guy for a common, minor traffic thing and decided to turn his day into a nightmare, on the excuse that he reacted in a totally reasonable way (nervousness, invoking his rights) to a trap the cops manufactured to go fishing. The truth is that it wouldn’t matter how he reacted. They’d find an excuse to run the dog either way. This young man did exactly the right thing by invoking his rights.
On the cop’s own word, he doesn’t care about the traffic offenses in the least—even though he should, as traffic control is an important function that protects the public. He also doesn’t care about the rights of private citizens—arguably the most important function of his job—as evidenced by his willingness to play out this pretext to bully people into vehicle searches that contravene the spirit of the Fourth Amendment.
I know it sounds extreme, but if the justice system itself won’t fix problems like this, our only peaceful option as individual citizens is to document the abuses and then avoid cities with police like this at all costs. It’s a slow bleed, but it will work. Starve them of taxes, tourism, and fines. Pressure the local government to fix the problem or watch itself gradually turn into a ghost town.
- As a law abiding citizen, I’ve always resented that fact that I feel intimidated every time I see the police, LEO’s need to learn that their job is to protect and serve, it seems these days they’re more concerned with being sneaky and trying to shaft anyone they can because they noticed your brake light burned out before u could.
“Get me your license and registration sir.” reaches for documents “What are you reaching around for? You got guns? Turn off your vehicle!” reaches for key “Why are you reaching around? Undo your seatbelt!” reaches for seatbelt “Stop reaching around!”
- I hate seeing this happen to people. I have been pulled over a few times in my life and each time I get extremely nervous and get a bad adrenaline rush. So much so that isn’t visible to the officers and I have been asked “why are you so nervous” it’s one of the most terrifying questions I have ever been asked by a police officer and even though I didn’t have anything to hide I still couldn’t explain to an officer why I was freaking out so bad, and IM WHITE, and I grew up with a father for a cop. If this is how I feel during a traffic stop then I can’t even begin to image how people of minorities, or other races feel during police interactions. My heart goes out to you and I truly hope that the police in this country get a serious reconstruction because this system is messed up.
- “Roll your window updown.” “You got your license and registration? Why you reaching around all crazy?” Can’t even go 15 seconds into the encounter without cops doing things to intentionally confuse the citizen so they can make a mountain out of a molehill.
- “You’re making me nervous” -the fully armed and armored person with another identically outfitted guy on his side talking to the unarmed guy he just detained for “reaching around” after being asked for his registration.
- this encounter hasn’t “tainted his view towards police officers”. It has set it straight, once and for all.
@kareem Spaulding I’m so sorry you went through this, but I know I not alone in my admiration of you; the way you handled these fucks – and especially the way you handled yourself – would take some serious strength, self-control, and a calm and knowledgeable mind.
- Don’t forget that the cop (I’ll edit the timestamp in) admitted that Spalding’s refusal to answer questions played a part in his decision to search the car. That’s a violation of his fifth amendment rights.
- @Tom Orr Dude do you fucking live in the same world we do? As soon as those cops got out and approached from both sides at once I was terrified for this man. They behaved like predators from zero, escalating at every opportunity until they had him out of the car and on the sidewalk.
“Fruits of the Poisonous Tree”
As a retired Police Officer, I can tell you that the speeding citation will be tossed. I don’t care about his “well calibrated” Police cruiser, because you’re still required to pace the speeding vehicle at least one mile without losing or gaining distance. I heard a Judge once ask a state Trooper who tried to pull this stunt,;
“you’re telling the court…. with your calibrated eyeballs you clocked him at this rate of speed?!”From the aggressive bullying by these officers, I’m fairly sure that the pacing did not happen. Improper Lane change in the intersection? Their PC for stopping this man is suspect at best.
This foolishness of pulling people over just because you can is dangerous! This traffic stop is pregnant for a disaster. He could have shot them or vice-versa.
Wow, they are intentionally escalating everything they possibly can. They are playing, I’m the Good Guy, and I’m Your Friend. Neither is true. This is a guy with power, and he knows how to use it, so he’s going to twist everything he can, to get what he wants. You have no rights while this guy is near you, and I would imagine police hq would agree with that, and with everything he does.
The driver has every reason to be scared of these guys, and yes, they have guns, and it’s takes a second to have that gun out, and killing you. So, the fact that it isn’t in their hand means nothing at all. Just the fact that cops are still acting like this, after everything that has happened in the last few years, is really a problem.
They are actually using the fact, that anyone would be nervous of cops as reason to invade your privacy, and do what they want, in the guise of your being suspicious, because your nervous. Like anyone can really stay completely calm around cops acting like they are. It’s a really shady way to do justice.
The ones actually acting suspicious, are the cops. They are screaming, Don’t Trust Us!!!
This was a fishing expedition, like most police stops like this. They do their best to Escalate anything they can, to give you a ticket, or take you to jail. Either way, they want you feeding money into the system, to fight the system. They want to get you in front of a judge. Nothing else matters, because police do no wrongs, and they never lie.
Sadly, talking to lawyers this is EXTREMELY common. Where cops will try to delay something as much as possible to get a drug dog out there to harass someone.
What they told me is if something like that happens. Tell the officer “am I free to go”, and “I do not consent to stay here longer than a reasonable time for you to do your investigation.” Another is if they say you’re not free to go, say “please tell me when I’m free to go so I can leave. Thank you” Basically, it shows you didn’t voluntary stay there longer than needed for a normal traffic stop. It is likely, if he brought it to court with this body cam and a good lawyer. He wouldn’t have to pay a dime, and he could’ve sued for the extended time being stuck there.From what they told me, if they pull a I smell x. You say, “can you prove in court that you smell x?” They might get PO, but basically it signals that won’t fly in court. They will most likely try to pull a drug dog, and mention “your lawyer will pull up the record of the drug dog training, and all officers involved.” Like they and others will pull BS that saying that forces them to do it. But in reality, by the time they are pulling a stunt with a drug dog or threatening it. They are going to do it no matter what you say, and fear of it not being held up in court is the only way to get them to back down.
#1: I’ll help you- the young Black man (that’s what this is all about) gets an A+++ as he did what a Judge (a relative of mine) told us to do: keep your hands on the wheel or up in plain sight, no movements unless asked to do so, simply ask why you’re being stopped, try to remain calm, let the cops know you’re going to exercise your rights, & that you don’t consent to any searches or seizures. Despite clearly doing this, he is assaulted, handcuffed, harassed, & subject to numerous rights violations during this course of racial profiling.
#2: This is the modus operandi for these cops (seen it & been thru it enough myself) and they clearly stated what their real intentions where while they used the plethora of tricks afforded them by the Courts.
#3: I thought this was going to be another young Black man murdered by cops during a traffic stop for nothing. IF you couldn’t tell, the young man was literally frightened for his life. He was confused by what they really wanted from him/their actions. Their approach, tone, & attitude let him know that “road piracy” wasn’t what this was all about. He did NOT know if he would survive this encounter.
#4: He probably can’t afford a $750/hour attorney (if he could find one) & how many of us can? He paid the ticket as he wanted to be through with this system as much as anything else. Besides, the Courts ain’t gonna listen to him even if these 2 regularly planted drugs on innocent citizens. Period.
#5: He is permanently scarred by this treatment from “those sworn to serve and protect” & will do his best to avoid them forever.Oh, but the system loses as well. He will return to his community & add his fear and humiliation to that of his community which will continue to not trust law enforcement (exactly why should they?).
So, forget about expecting virtually any cooperation when law enforcement needs help from them.
- Why anyone would believe that this type of “law enforcement” is either fair, okay, or sustainable is beyond me. People are beyond tired of this crap…..
- I find it disappointing that when a person doesn’t jump through their hoops in assisting the officers in finding evidence to arrest them on, and politely says they won’t answer questions: the officers assume he’s some “extremist sovern citizen”.
- I’ve encountered cops talking to me like that, too, except for the narcotics stuff.
- Cop “Your acting all nervous, reaching around, rolling up your windows..” Later same cop “You’re making me nervous.”
- This video just infuriates me….this is THE definition of a pre textual stop…..this driver was absolutely mistreated and the only reason the cop didn’t catch an a$$ whoopin is because he IS a cop…..disgusting law enforcement overreach
- The footage is from the bodycam footage of the cops, which was continuously edited, as the breaks are clearly noticeable… The footage did not show the driver’s actual violation, as would have been captured on the cop’s car dashcam… There is not any footage showing anything to the claimed traffic violation… Clearly there is a lawsuit in play, being that we are seeing this on Audit the Audit… The cops violated an array of the driver’s rights, creating false narratives and outright lying… The crooked and racist courts of that jurisdiction will drag the lawsuit… This is police gang behavior, at the expense of taxpayers.
I get a laugh out of the cops that say, “you’re shaking. Why are you nervous?” Idk, maybe because ARMED men are escalating what should be a routine traffic stop for no other reason to try and pin an actual crime on me.
Seriously, cops like this drive me insane. For the record, I’m a law-abiding citizen and even I’ll admit that I get nervous during traffic stops, even though I know I’m not doing anything wrong. Why? Just because you’re innocent doesn’t mean a cop won’t try anything funny, like planting evidence. It does happen and I actually fear the long-term repercussions of such an action more so than the “in the moment.”
There’s also one more factor to consider. It was very obvious from the search that the “suspect” drives for Uber. I can say this as a former Uber driver. I have had clientele accidentally leave and spill drugs in my vehicle that I didn’t see until the end of the day when I was done driving. What would happen if I was pulled over and they ended up calling a K-9 unit? I would get in trouble for my own clientele’s illegal behavior. I did get pulled over once while driving for Uber and it was an absolute baloney stop. Officer claimed I failed to yield at a stop sign at a right turn and I called him out on it because I HAD to stop. There was oncoming traffic coming from the left and I had to wait for that vehicle to pass through the intersection. Cop let me off with a warning but honestly, if he did site me, I would’ve FOIA’d the dash cam footage and taken it to traffic court. The cop had absolutely nothing. I had a passenger at the time too and she actually felt bad for me because she knew I didn’t do anything wrong either.
[/bg_collapse]
War on Drugs creates public distrust, racial profiling, lies, and pretextual detentions
[bg_collapse view=”button-orange” color=”#4a4949″ expand_text=”Show More” collapse_text=”Show Less” ]
Sources:
United States v. Robinson- https://bit.ly/38DJAau
Whren v. United States- https://bit.ly/3gX0kyJ
Yick Wo v. Hopkins- https://bit.ly/38NBVXY
Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney- https://bit.ly/3kwePdc
Illinois v. Caballes- https://bit.ly/3aYrksV
Rodriguez v. United States- https://bit.ly/2LS1sqc
Michigan v. Defillippo- https://bit.ly/3ycKfNU
Kolender v. Lawson- https://bit.ly/3F5ep7j
Florida v. Harris- https://bit.ly/3y315Pk
Efficacy of drug detection by fully-trained police dogs- https://bit.ly/39yEFez
Court Records (2018-TR-123713-A-O)- https://bit.ly/3FfATm3
Original video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ByoL5…
Real World Police’s channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UChaE…
Comments:
Look at the zeal with which he seeks to find suspicion in an ordinary person’s response to being approached with his level of aggression. Look at how thoroughly his desire to enforce drug busts—which are both profitable and valuable to him as a career move—corrupts his ability to to do his job properly. This entire situation is a ruse to bust someone for drugs. It has no legitimate traffic-enforcement purpose.
On top of that, there’s no actual complaint or meaningful indication of drug activity. This cop just pulled over some guy for a common, minor traffic thing and decided to turn his day into a nightmare, on the excuse that he reacted in a totally reasonable way (nervousness, invoking his rights) to a trap the cops manufactured to go fishing. The truth is that it wouldn’t matter how he reacted. They’d find an excuse to run the dog either way. This young man did exactly the right thing by invoking his rights.
On the cop’s own word, he doesn’t care about the traffic offenses in the least—even though he should, as traffic control is an important function that protects the public. He also doesn’t care about the rights of private citizens—arguably the most important function of his job—as evidenced by his willingness to play out this pretext to bully people into vehicle searches that contravene the spirit of the Fourth Amendment.
I know it sounds extreme, but if the justice system itself won’t fix problems like this, our only peaceful option as individual citizens is to document the abuses and then avoid cities with police like this at all costs. It’s a slow bleed, but it will work. Starve them of taxes, tourism, and fines. Pressure the local government to fix the problem or watch itself gradually turn into a ghost town.
- As a law abiding citizen, I’ve always resented that fact that I feel intimidated every time I see the police, LEO’s need to learn that their job is to protect and serve, it seems these days they’re more concerned with being sneaky and trying to shaft anyone they can because they noticed your brake light burned out before u could.
“Get me your license and registration sir.” reaches for documents “What are you reaching around for? You got guns? Turn off your vehicle!” reaches for key “Why are you reaching around? Undo your seatbelt!” reaches for seatbelt “Stop reaching around!”
- I hate seeing this happen to people. I have been pulled over a few times in my life and each time I get extremely nervous and get a bad adrenaline rush. So much so that isn’t visible to the officers and I have been asked “why are you so nervous” it’s one of the most terrifying questions I have ever been asked by a police officer and even though I didn’t have anything to hide I still couldn’t explain to an officer why I was freaking out so bad, and IM WHITE, and I grew up with a father for a cop. If this is how I feel during a traffic stop then I can’t even begin to image how people of minorities, or other races feel during police interactions. My heart goes out to you and I truly hope that the police in this country get a serious reconstruction because this system is messed up.
- “Roll your window updown.” “You got your license and registration? Why you reaching around all crazy?” Can’t even go 15 seconds into the encounter without cops doing things to intentionally confuse the citizen so they can make a mountain out of a molehill.
- “You’re making me nervous” -the fully armed and armored person with another identically outfitted guy on his side talking to the unarmed guy he just detained for “reaching around” after being asked for his registration.
- this encounter hasn’t “tainted his view towards police officers”. It has set it straight, once and for all.
@kareem Spaulding I’m so sorry you went through this, but I know I not alone in my admiration of you; the way you handled these fucks – and especially the way you handled yourself – would take some serious strength, self-control, and a calm and knowledgeable mind.
- Don’t forget that the cop (I’ll edit the timestamp in) admitted that Spalding’s refusal to answer questions played a part in his decision to search the car. That’s a violation of his fifth amendment rights.
- @Tom Orr Dude do you fucking live in the same world we do? As soon as those cops got out and approached from both sides at once I was terrified for this man. They behaved like predators from zero, escalating at every opportunity until they had him out of the car and on the sidewalk.
“Fruits of the Poisonous Tree”
As a retired Police Officer, I can tell you that the speeding citation will be tossed. I don’t care about his “well calibrated” Police cruiser, because you’re still required to pace the speeding vehicle at least one mile without losing or gaining distance. I heard a Judge once ask a state Trooper who tried to pull this stunt,;
“you’re telling the court…. with your calibrated eyeballs you clocked him at this rate of speed?!”From the aggressive bullying by these officers, I’m fairly sure that the pacing did not happen. Improper Lane change in the intersection? Their PC for stopping this man is suspect at best.
This foolishness of pulling people over just because you can is dangerous! This traffic stop is pregnant for a disaster. He could have shot them or vice-versa.
Wow, they are intentionally escalating everything they possibly can. They are playing, I’m the Good Guy, and I’m Your Friend. Neither is true. This is a guy with power, and he knows how to use it, so he’s going to twist everything he can, to get what he wants. You have no rights while this guy is near you, and I would imagine police hq would agree with that, and with everything he does.
The driver has every reason to be scared of these guys, and yes, they have guns, and it’s takes a second to have that gun out, and killing you. So, the fact that it isn’t in their hand means nothing at all. Just the fact that cops are still acting like this, after everything that has happened in the last few years, is really a problem.
They are actually using the fact, that anyone would be nervous of cops as reason to invade your privacy, and do what they want, in the guise of your being suspicious, because your nervous. Like anyone can really stay completely calm around cops acting like they are. It’s a really shady way to do justice.
The ones actually acting suspicious, are the cops. They are screaming, Don’t Trust Us!!!
This was a fishing expedition, like most police stops like this. They do their best to Escalate anything they can, to give you a ticket, or take you to jail. Either way, they want you feeding money into the system, to fight the system. They want to get you in front of a judge. Nothing else matters, because police do no wrongs, and they never lie.
Sadly, talking to lawyers this is EXTREMELY common. Where cops will try to delay something as much as possible to get a drug dog out there to harass someone.
What they told me is if something like that happens. Tell the officer “am I free to go”, and “I do not consent to stay here longer than a reasonable time for you to do your investigation.” Another is if they say you’re not free to go, say “please tell me when I’m free to go so I can leave. Thank you” Basically, it shows you didn’t voluntary stay there longer than needed for a normal traffic stop. It is likely, if he brought it to court with this body cam and a good lawyer. He wouldn’t have to pay a dime, and he could’ve sued for the extended time being stuck there.From what they told me, if they pull a I smell x. You say, “can you prove in court that you smell x?” They might get PO, but basically it signals that won’t fly in court. They will most likely try to pull a drug dog, and mention “your lawyer will pull up the record of the drug dog training, and all officers involved.” Like they and others will pull BS that saying that forces them to do it. But in reality, by the time they are pulling a stunt with a drug dog or threatening it. They are going to do it no matter what you say, and fear of it not being held up in court is the only way to get them to back down.
#1: I’ll help you- the young Black man (that’s what this is all about) gets an A+++ as he did what a Judge (a relative of mine) told us to do: keep your hands on the wheel or up in plain sight, no movements unless asked to do so, simply ask why you’re being stopped, try to remain calm, let the cops know you’re going to exercise your rights, & that you don’t consent to any searches or seizures. Despite clearly doing this, he is assaulted, handcuffed, harassed, & subject to numerous rights violations during this course of racial profiling.
#2: This is the modus operandi for these cops (seen it & been thru it enough myself) and they clearly stated what their real intentions where while they used the plethora of tricks afforded them by the Courts.
#3: I thought this was going to be another young Black man murdered by cops during a traffic stop for nothing. IF you couldn’t tell, the young man was literally frightened for his life. He was confused by what they really wanted from him/their actions. Their approach, tone, & attitude let him know that “road piracy” wasn’t what this was all about. He did NOT know if he would survive this encounter.
#4: He probably can’t afford a $750/hour attorney (if he could find one) & how many of us can? He paid the ticket as he wanted to be through with this system as much as anything else. Besides, the Courts ain’t gonna listen to him even if these 2 regularly planted drugs on innocent citizens. Period.
#5: He is permanently scarred by this treatment from “those sworn to serve and protect” & will do his best to avoid them forever.Oh, but the system loses as well. He will return to his community & add his fear and humiliation to that of his community which will continue to not trust law enforcement (exactly why should they?).
So, forget about expecting virtually any cooperation when law enforcement needs help from them.
- Why anyone would believe that this type of “law enforcement” is either fair, okay, or sustainable is beyond me. People are beyond tired of this crap…..
- I find it disappointing that when a person doesn’t jump through their hoops in assisting the officers in finding evidence to arrest them on, and politely says they won’t answer questions: the officers assume he’s some “extremist sovern citizen”.
- I’ve encountered cops talking to me like that, too, except for the narcotics stuff.
- Cop “Your acting all nervous, reaching around, rolling up your windows..” Later same cop “You’re making me nervous.”
- This video just infuriates me….this is THE definition of a pre textual stop…..this driver was absolutely mistreated and the only reason the cop didn’t catch an a$$ whoopin is because he IS a cop…..disgusting law enforcement overreach
- The footage is from the bodycam footage of the cops, which was continuously edited, as the breaks are clearly noticeable… The footage did not show the driver’s actual violation, as would have been captured on the cop’s car dashcam… There is not any footage showing anything to the claimed traffic violation… Clearly there is a lawsuit in play, being that we are seeing this on Audit the Audit… The cops violated an array of the driver’s rights, creating false narratives and outright lying… The crooked and racist courts of that jurisdiction will drag the lawsuit… This is police gang behavior, at the expense of taxpayers.
I get a laugh out of the cops that say, “you’re shaking. Why are you nervous?” Idk, maybe because ARMED men are escalating what should be a routine traffic stop for no other reason to try and pin an actual crime on me.
Seriously, cops like this drive me insane. For the record, I’m a law-abiding citizen and even I’ll admit that I get nervous during traffic stops, even though I know I’m not doing anything wrong. Why? Just because you’re innocent doesn’t mean a cop won’t try anything funny, like planting evidence. It does happen and I actually fear the long-term repercussions of such an action more so than the “in the moment.”
There’s also one more factor to consider. It was very obvious from the search that the “suspect” drives for Uber. I can say this as a former Uber driver. I have had clientele accidentally leave and spill drugs in my vehicle that I didn’t see until the end of the day when I was done driving. What would happen if I was pulled over and they ended up calling a K-9 unit? I would get in trouble for my own clientele’s illegal behavior. I did get pulled over once while driving for Uber and it was an absolute baloney stop. Officer claimed I failed to yield at a stop sign at a right turn and I called him out on it because I HAD to stop. There was oncoming traffic coming from the left and I had to wait for that vehicle to pass through the intersection. Cop let me off with a warning but honestly, if he did site me, I would’ve FOIA’d the dash cam footage and taken it to traffic court. The cop had absolutely nothing. I had a passenger at the time too and she actually felt bad for me because she knew I didn’t do anything wrong either.
[/bg_collapse]
The People vs. Donald J. Trump
He is demonstrably unfit for office. What are we waiting for?
The presidential oath of office contains 35 words and one core promise: to “preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Since virtually the moment Donald J. Trump took that oath two years ago, he has been violating it. He has
- repeatedly put his own interests above those of the country. He has
- used the presidency to promote his businesses. He has accepted financial gifts from foreign countries. He has
- lied to the American people about his relationship with a hostile foreign government. He has
- tolerated cabinet officials who use their position to enrich themselves.
To shield himself from accountability for all of this — and for his unscrupulous presidential campaign — he has
- set out to undermine the American system of checks and balances. He has
- called for the prosecution of his political enemies and the protection of his allies. He has
- attempted to obstruct justice. He has
- tried to shake the public’s confidence in one democratic institution after another, including
- the press,
- federal law enforcement and the
- federal judiciary.
The unrelenting chaos that Trump creates can sometimes obscure the big picture. But the big picture is simple: The United States has never had a president as demonstrably unfit for the office as Trump. And it’s becoming clear that 2019 is likely to be dominated by a single question: What are we going to do about it?
The easy answer is to wait — to allow the various investigations of Trump to run their course and ask voters to deliver a verdict in 2020. That answer has one great advantage. It would avoid the national trauma of overturning an election result. Ultimately, however, waiting is too dangerous. The cost of removing a president from office is smaller than the cost of allowing this president to remain.
He has already shown, repeatedly, that
- he will hurt the country in order to help himself. He will damage American interests around the world and
- damage vital parts of our constitutional system at home.
The risks that he will cause much more harm are growing.
Some of the biggest moderating influences have recently left the administration. The
- defense secretary who defended our alliances with NATO and South Korea is gone. So is
- the attorney general who refused to let Trump subvert a federal investigation into himself. The administration is increasingly filled with lackeys and enablers. Trump has become freer to turn his whims into policy — like, say, shutting down the government on the advice of Fox News hosts or pulling troops from Syria on the advice of a Turkish autocrat.
The biggest risk may be that an external emergency — a war, a terrorist attack, a financial crisis, an immense natural disaster — will arise. By then, it will be too late to pretend that he is anything other than manifestly unfit to lead.
For the country’s sake, there is only one acceptable outcome, just as there was after Americans realized in 1974 that a criminal was occupying the Oval Office. The president must go.
Since the midterm election showed the political costs that Trump inflicts on Republicans, this criticism seems to be growing. They have broken with him on foreign policy (in Saudi Arabia, Yemen and Syria) and are anxious about the government shutdown. Trump is vulnerable to any erosion in his already weak approval rating, be it from an economic downturn, more Russia revelations or simply the defection of a few key allies. When support for an unpopular leader starts to crack, it can crumble.
Before we get to the how of Trump’s removal, though, I want to spend a little more time on the why — because even talking about the ouster of an elected president should happen only under extreme circumstances. Unfortunately, the country is now so polarized that such talk instead occurs with every president. Both George W. Bush and Barack Obama were subjected to reckless calls for their impeachment, from members of Congress no less.
So let’s be clear. Trump’s ideology is not an impeachable offense. However much you may disagree with Trump’s tax policy — and I disagree vehemently — it is not a reason to remove him from office. Nor are his efforts to cut government health insurance or to deport undocumented immigrants. Such issues, among others, are legitimate matters of democratic struggle, to be decided by elections, legislative debates, protests and the other normal tools of democracy. These issues are not the “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors” that the founders intended impeachment to address.
Yet the founders also did not intend for the removal of a president to be impossible. They insisted on including an impeachment clause in the Constitution because they understood that an incompetent or corrupt person was nonetheless likely to attain high office every so often. And they understood how much harm such a person could do. The country needed a way to address what Alexander Hamilton called “the abuse or violation of some public trust” and James Madison called the “incapacity, negligence or perfidy” of a president.
The negligence and perfidy of President Trump — his high crimes and misdemeanors — can be separated into four categories. This list is conservative. It does not include the possibility that his campaign coordinated strategy with Russia, which remains uncertain. It also does not include his lazy approach to the job, like his refusal to read briefing books or the many empty hours on his schedule. It instead focuses on demonstrable ways that he has broken the law or violated his constitutional oath.
Trump has used the presidency for personal enrichment.
Regardless of party, Trump’s predecessors took elaborate steps to separate their personal financial interests from their governing responsibilities. They released their tax returns, so that any potential conflicts would be public. They placed their assets in a blind trust, to avoid knowing how their policies might affect their own investments.
Trump has instead treated the presidency as a branding opportunity. He has continued to own and promote the Trump Organization. He has spent more than 200 days at one of his properties and billed taxpayers for hundreds of thousands of dollars.
If this pattern were merely petty corruption, without damage to the national interest, it might not warrant removal from office. But Trump’s focus on personal profit certainly appears to be affecting policy. Most worrisome, foreign officials and others have realized they can curry favor with the president by spending money at one of his properties.
Then, of course, there is Russia. Even before Robert Mueller, the special counsel, completes his investigation, the known facts are damning enough in at least one way. Trump lied to the American people during the 2016 campaign about business negotiations between his company and Vladimir Putin’s government. As president, Trump has taken steps — in Europe and Syria — that benefit Putin. To put it succinctly:
The president of the United States lied to the country about his commercial relationship with a hostile foreign government toward which he has a strangely accommodating policy.
Combine Trump’s actions with his tolerance for unethical cabinet officials — including ones who have made shady stock trades, accepted lavish perks or used government to promote their own companies or those of their friends — and the Trump administration is almost certainly the most corrupt in American history. It makes Warren G. Harding’s Teapot Dome scandal look like, well, a tempest in a teapot.
Trump has violated campaign finance law.
A Watergate grand jury famously described Richard Nixon as “an unindicted co-conspirator.” Trump now has his own indictment tag: “Individual-1.”
Federal prosecutors in New York filed papers last month alleging that Trump — identified as Individual-1 — directed a criminal plan to evade campaign finance laws. It happened during the final weeks of the 2016 campaign, when he instructed his lawyer, Michael Cohen, to pay a combined $280,000 in hush money to two women with whom Trump evidently had affairs. Trump and his campaign did not disclose these payments, as required by law. In the two years since, Trump has lied publicly about them — initially saying he did not know about the payments, only to change his story later.
It’s worth acknowledging that most campaign finance violations do not warrant removal from office. But these payments were not most campaign finance violations. They involved large, secret payoffs in the final weeks of a presidential campaign that, prosecutors said, “deceived the voting public.” The seriousness of the deception is presumably the reason that the prosecutors filed criminal charges against Cohen, rather than the more common penalty of civil fines for campaign finance violations.
What should happen to a president who won office with help from criminal behavior? The founders specifically considered this possibility during their debates at the Constitutional Convention. The most direct answer came from George Mason: A president who “practiced corruption and by that means procured his appointment in the first instance” should be subject to impeachment.
Trump has obstructed justice.
Whatever Mueller ultimately reveals about the relationship between the Trump campaign and Russia, Trump has obstructed justice to keep Mueller — and others — from getting to the truth.
Again and again, Trump has interfered with the investigation in ways that may violate the law and clearly do violate decades-old standards of presidential conduct. He
- pressured James Comey, then the F.B.I. director, to let up on the Russia investigation, as a political favor. When Comey refused, Trump fired him. Trump also repeatedly
- pressured Jeff Sessions, the attorney general, to halt the investigation and ultimately forced Sessions to resign for not doing so. Trump has also
- publicly hounded several of the government’s top experts on Russian organized crime, including Andrew McCabe and Bruce Orr.
And Trump has repeatedly lied to the American people.
- He has claimed, outrageously, that the Justice Department tells witnesses to lie in exchange for leniency. He has
- rejected, with no factual basis, the findings of multiple intelligence agencies about Russia’s role in the 2016 campaign. He reportedly
- helped his son Donald Trump Jr. draft a false statement about a 2016 meeting with a Russian lawyer.
Obstruction of justice is certainly grounds for the removal of a president. It was the subject of the first Nixon article of impeachment passed by the House Judiciary Committee. Among other things, that article accused him of making “false or misleading public statements for the purpose of deceiving the people of the United States.”
Trump has subverted democracy.
The Constitution that Trump swore to uphold revolves around checks and balances. It depends on the idea that the president is not a monarch. He is a citizen to whom, like all other citizens, the country’s laws apply. Trump rejects this principle. He has instead tried to undermine the credibility of any independent source of power or information that does not serve his interests.
It’s much more than just the Russia investigation. He has
- tried to delegitimize federal judges based on their ethnicity or on the president who appointed them, drawing a rare rebuke from Chief Justice John Roberts. Trump has
- criticized the Justice Department for indicting Republican politicians during an election year. He has
- called for Comey, Hillary Clinton and other political opponents of his to be jailed. Trump has .
- described journalists as “the enemy of the people” — an insult usually leveled by autocrats. He has
- rejected basic factual findings from the
- C.I.A., the
- Congressional Budget Office,
- research scientists and
- others.
- He has told bald lies about election fraud.
Individually, these sins may not seem to deserve removal from office. Collectively, though, they exact a terrible toll on American society. They cause people to lose the faith on which a democracy depends — faith in elections, in the justice system, in the basic notion of truth.
No other president since Nixon has engaged in behavior remotely like Trump’s. To accept it without sanction is ultimately to endorse it. Unpleasant though it is to remove a president, the costs and the risks of a continued Trump presidency are worse.
What now?
The most relevant precedent for the removal of Trump is Nixon, the only American president to be forced from office because of his conduct. And two aspects of Nixon’s departure tend to get overlooked today. One, he was never impeached. Two, most Republicans — both voters and elites — stuck by him until almost the very end. His approval rating among Republicans was still about 50 percent when, realizing in the summer of 1974 that he was doomed, he resigned.
The current political dynamics have some similarities. Whether the House of Representatives, under Democratic control, impeaches Trump is not the big question. The question is whether he loses the support of a meaningful slice of Republicans.
I know that many of Trump’s critics have given up hoping that he ever will. They assume that Republican senators will go on occasionally criticizing him without confronting him. But it is a mistake to give up. The stakes are too large — and the chances of success are too real.
Consider the following descriptions of Trump:
- “terribly unfit;”
- “erratic;”
- “reckless;”
- “impetuous;”
- “unstable;”
- “a pathological liar;”
- “dangerous to a democracy;”
- a concern to “anyone who cares about our nation.”
Every one of these descriptions comes from a Republican member of Congress or of Trump’s own administration.
They know. They know he is unfit for office. They do not need to be persuaded of the truth. They need to be persuaded to act on it.
.. Democrats won’t persuade them by impeaching Trump. Doing so would probably rally the president’s supporters. It would shift the focus from Trump’s behavior toward a group of Democratic leaders whom Republicans are never going to like. A smarter approach is a series of sober-minded hearings to highlight Trump’s misconduct.
Democrats should focus on easily understandable issues most likely to bother Trump’s supporters, like corruption.
If this approach works at all — or if Mueller’s findings shift opinion, or if a separate problem arises, like the economy — Trump’s Republican allies will find themselves in a very difficult spot. At his current approval rating of about 40 percent, Republicans were thumped in the midterms. Were his rating to fall further, a significant number of congressional Republicans would be facing long re-election odds in 2020.
Two examples are Cory Gardner of Colorado and Susan Collins of Maine, senators who, not coincidentally, have shown tentative signs of breaking with Trump on the government shutdown. The recent criticism from Mitt Romney — who alternates between critical and sycophantic, depending on his own political interests — is another sign of Trump’s weakness.
For now, most Republicans worry that a full break with Trump will cause them to lose a primary, and it might. But sticking by him is no free lunch. Just ask the 27 Republican incumbents who were defeated last year and are now former members of Congress. By wide margins, suburban voters and younger voters find Trump abhorrent. The Republican Party needs to hold its own among these voters, starting in 2020.
It’s not only that Trump is unfit to be president and that Republicans know it. It also may be the case that they will soon have a political self-interest in abandoning him. If they did, the end could come swiftly. The House could then impeach Trump, knowing the Senate might act to convict. Or negotiations could begin over whether Trump deserves to trade resignation for some version of immunity.
Finally, there is the hope — naïve though it may seem — that some Republicans will choose to act on principle. There now exists a small club of former Trump administration officials who were widely respected before joining the administration and whom Trump has sullied, to greater or lesser degrees. It includes
- Rex Tillerson,
- Gary Cohn,
- H.R. McMaster and
- Jim Mattis.
Imagine if one of them gave a television interview and told the truth about Trump. Doing so would be a service to their country at a time of national need. It would be an illustration of duty.
Throughout his career, Trump has worked hard to invent his own reality, and largely succeeded. It has made him very rich and, against all odds, elected him president. But whatever happens in 2019, his false version of reality will not survive history, just as Nixon’s did not. Which side of that history do today’s Republicans want to be on?