This is from a long ago, April 2017, on abuse of power as a ground for Trump's impeachment.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trumpcast/2017/04/corruption_abuse_of_power_and_undermining_the_rule_of_law_the_case_for_impeaching.html
Abuse of power is anything the president does that he can only do by virtue of being president [like ordering the military around which only the commander-in-chief can do] that threatens the basic freedoms and capacities of other people.
...
If the president does that kind of thing without any evidence, just on a whim, [like for a non-existent crisis] that is an abuse of power, and it’s a perfect of example of the kind of abuse of power that’s distinctive to the presidency and therefore is and should be an impeachable offense.
...
Using the intelligence agencies or the FBI to investigate people for political reasons is an abuse of power.
Absolutely. Just through the size of bully pulpit, the president has enormous capacities to act in ways that would deeply disadvantage many, many of his opponents and enemies. Having an enemies list is itself an abuse of power.
Like this, from two hours ago:
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/trumpcast/2017/04/corruption_abuse_of_power_and_undermining_the_rule_of_law_the_case_for_impeaching.html
Abuse of power is anything the president does that he can only do by virtue of being president [like ordering the military around which only the commander-in-chief can do] that threatens the basic freedoms and capacities of other people.
...
If the president does that kind of thing without any evidence, just on a whim, [like for a non-existent crisis] that is an abuse of power, and it’s a perfect of example of the kind of abuse of power that’s distinctive to the presidency and therefore is and should be an impeachable offense.
...
Using the intelligence agencies or the FBI to investigate people for political reasons is an abuse of power.
Absolutely. Just through the size of bully pulpit, the president has enormous capacities to act in ways that would deeply disadvantage many, many of his opponents and enemies. Having an enemies list is itself an abuse of power.
Like this, from two hours ago:
Trump Wanted to Order Justice Dept. to Prosecute Comey and Clinton
...Trump told the White House counsel in the spring that he wanted to order the Justice Department to prosecute two of his political adversaries: his 2016 challenger, Hillary Clinton, and the former F.B.I. director James B. Comey, according to two people familiar with the conversation.
The lawyer, Donald F. McGahn II, rebuffed the president, saying that he had no authority to order a prosecution. Mr. McGahn said that while he could request an investigation, that too could prompt accusations of abuse of power. To underscore his point, Mr. McGahn had White House lawyers write a memo for Mr. Trump warning that if he asked law enforcement to investigate his rivals, he could face a range of consequences, including possible impeachment.
...one of the most blatant examples yet of how Mr. Trump views the typically independent Justice Department as a tool to be wielded against his political enemies.
...
He has accused Mr. Comey, without evidence, [like, on a whim] of illegally having classified information shared with The New York Times in a memo that Mr. Comey wrote about his interactions with the president. The document contained no classified information.
...
...Trump’s lawyers also privately asked the Justice Department last year to investigate Mr. Comey for mishandling sensitive government information and for his role in the Clinton email investigation. Law enforcement officials declined their requests.
Back to the Slate article:
Don’t we have to draw a distinction between president who talks shit and the abuse of power?
...the president can talk shit in a way that an ordinary politician can’t because of the consequences of what he has to say. So the allegation of criminality, which is a great example, just doesn’t fit into that category once you’re president. So candidate Donald Trump could say to Hillary Clinton, You ought to be in jail, but let’s imagine that he’s running for re-election and he says, “I believe that you’re guilty of crimes.” That could trigger an investigation of the person. That means that the exact statement with the same exact words have a different effect—I would say an unconstitutional effect—because they’re said by a person who is in fact the president at the time. That’s where I would draw the line very, very clearly.
...
Under impeachment, no one’s going to put the president in jail for what he said, but when it comes to removing the president from office, he can’t say, Well, that was just me exercising my free speech. Free speech says that Congress can’t make a law punishing you for speaking, but it doesn’t say that it can’t impeach him for things that he’s said. He’s not immune from impeachment. I think that’s sort of the punchline. The president is never immune from impeachment.
That is the punchline. Very good, thoughtful analysis by Noah Feldman, Harvard Law prof.
I think we got him. With Professor Feldman's cogent explanation Trump is going to get impeached on at least two counts of abuse of power.
