Let us recall that President Trump was impeached on two articles:
1. Obstruction of Congress, covered by:
"Section 1505 of Title 18, United States Code, as amended by the Victim and Witness Protection Act of 1982, forbids anyone from corruptly, or by threats of force or by any threatening communication, influencing, obstructing, or impeding any pending proceeding before a department or agency of the United States, or Congress. In 1996 Congress enacted a clarifying amendment to 18 U.S.C. § 1515, which defines the term "corruptly" as used in section 1505 to mean "acting with an improper purpose, personally or by influencing another, including making a false or misleading statement, or withholding, concealing, altering, or destroying a document or other information." False Statements Accountability Act of 1996, Pub. L. No. 104-292, §3, 110 Stat. 3459, 3460.
Section 1505 also specifically prohibits anyone from withholding, misrepresenting, removing from any place, concealing, covering up, destroying, mutilating, altering, or by other means falsifying any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony that is the subject of a proper investigative demand under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1311-14, with the intent of avoiding, evading, preventing, or obstructing compliance, in whole or in part, with that demand."
See:
https://www.justice.gov/archives/jm/...-proceeding-18
See also:
https://www.everycrsreport.com/reports/RL34304.html
2. Abuse of Power, which is covered by the High Crimes and Misdemeanors clause of the Constitution.
Although the US Senate found President Trump 'not guilty' of these two offenses, by the wording of the Constitution Mr. Trump cannot be pardoned for these offenses.
So, if Mr Trump resigns, and Mr. Pence becomes President (based on hypothetical of Mr. Trump losing the election), Mr. Pence can certainly pardon Mr. Trump (as Ford did Nixon) but he cannot pardon Mr. Trump for those impeached offenses (hence Mr. Nixon, a very good attorney, resigned before he could be impeached by the House).
I also think that post-Trump investigation will reveal his violating the emoluments clause of the Constitution.
What would Justice Scalia say about the meaning of 'emolument'? Would he not want to know how the word was defined back when the Constitution was drafted? Yes, he would have.
From an article:
"John Mikhail, a professor at Georgetown Law School, set out last winter to research that evolution. "Prior to maybe December of 2016, I had not given much thought to the word," he said.
Mikhail told NPR he and his researchers looked at
all the known dictionaries between 1604 and 1806 that define
emolument -- 40 books in all. He said only three gave definitions in ways favorable to Trump, "kind of a narrow, even technical meaning, tied to the salary or official duties of an office," while the other 37 used "a broader meaning that would encompass sort of the profits of ordinary market transactions."
Almost all of the dictionaries used the word
profit in their definitions. The two other go-to words were
advantage and
gain."
See:
https://www.npr.org/2017/09/05/54800...n-of-emolument
Thus, if Justice Scalia were alive, and if he were being honest with his theory of originalism, then he would go with the 37 definitions.
I imagine that the post-Trump investigations will reveal other crimes concerning his children (look for Mr. Trump, if he decides to resign, to pardon his children first), as well as himself.
.
Of course, the cases being investigated by the State of New York must not be ignored.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
