Harvard lawyers think Donald Trump may have done enough to be impeached

Disclosure of sensitive information ‘most serious charge ever made against a sitting president’

A host of top US lawyers have penned an article in which they suggest Donald Trump may have breached his presidential oath.

Writing under a joint by-line in Lawfare, US security law experts legally analysed the “stunning” accusations made against Trump this week.

Briefly, the allegations are that the former reality TV star disclosed highly classified information to Russian officials. The information in question reportedly related to an ISIS operation. Deputy national security advisor Dina Powell said: “this story is false.”

The authors of the piece — Jack Goldsmith, Susan Hennessey, Quinta Jurecic, Matthew Kahn, Benjamin Wittes and Elishe Julian Wittes — appear content to conclude that Trump’s alleged actions were not criminal. This is because the president is exempt from criminal laws on the disclosure of classified information. But, they continued:

Questions of criminality aside… If the president gave this information away through carelessness or neglect, he has arguably breached his oath of office.

The article, whose authors include a Harvard professor, went on:

There’s thus no reason why congress couldn’t consider a grotesque violation of the president’s oath as a standalone basis for… This is particularly plausible in a case like this, where the oath violation involves giving sensitive information to an adversary foreign power… [L]egally speaking, the matter could be very grave for Trump even though there is no criminal exposure.

This latest article is one of many that have explored the legal issues surrounding a potential Trump impeachment. Another came from Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard. Writing in The Washington Post, he said: “the country is faced with a president whose conduct strongly suggests that he poses a danger to our system of government.”

Fellow Harvard Law School-er Alan Dershowitz seems to share these concerns. The former professor has described the reported disclosure of sensitive information as the “most serious charge ever made against a sitting president”.

But will the president care about these lawyers’ opinions? Maybe, maybe not, but it is worth noting Lawfare is already on Trump’s radar.

Earlier this year, the Republican namechecked Lawfare — a blog which has links to Washington research and policy institute Brookings — in a tweet about his travel ban litigation.

Though the quote appears to support Trump, what wasn’t mentioned was that the piece ended with a dig about “the incompetent malevolence with which [the travel ban] was promulgated.”

Maybe he’ll read the latest Lawfare article more carefully.

For all the latest commercial awareness info, and advance notification of Legal Cheek’s careers events, sign up to the Legal Cheek Hub here.

27 Comments

Dimwit

Isn’t Harvard a special needs university? Dubya Bush went there

(2)(9)
Trumpenkrieg

Fake news.

The Washington Post was so salty about Trump, they changed their motto because of him, and we’re supposed to rely their reporting of unnamed sources?

Get the fuck out.

(3)(20)
Libeturd Leftie

Yeah you are right we should continue to believe the word of a pathological liar and megalomaniac over a news organization, strike that, news organizations that fact check and demand at least two separate yet credible sources.

(14)(5)
Trumpenkrieg

And how can i “fact check” what these traitors are writing if every major “exposure” of Trump is based on anonymous sources which for all i know are made up.

(1)(6)
Libeturd Leftie

And how many times did you “fact check” Trumps assertions (read as lies, misstatements,misdirection and subterfuge). Trump as you accuse the news outlets, has been less than forthcoming regarding his sources as well… and who nowadays believes what the White House has to say, that’s right no one, because they lost all of the pie capital (political, honesty and otherwise) almost immediately after the inauguration

(5)(0)
Anonymous

How does this have anything to do about Clinton? Are you high?

(9)(1)
Anonymous

What it has to do with Clinton is that she serves as a point of comparison to demonstrate the extent of the descent of the once mighty Harvard Law Faculty into the wilder fringes of Trump Derangement Syndrome.

As Sec of State, Clinton conducted all her email correspondence through an unsecured server located in her house. If it may be alleged that Trump disclosed sensitive intelligence in his meeting with Russian diplomats (despite the denials of those actually present), it may certainly be alleged, with rather more credibility, that Clinton’s server, a honeypot to a swarm of hostile intelligence services, was hacked (in the true sense of the word, rather than the hysterical “the Russians hacked the election” hyperbole) and that much, much more intelligence was disclosed through that than through Trump’s meeting.

There are also Federal statutes making an office holder’s failure to preserve all records a felony, but that didn’t inhibit the untouchable Clinton from shredding 30,000 of her emails and destroying various devices that contained data from her time in office. The reaction to this from the tinpot titans of the Harvard Law Faculty? Silence.

(3)(2)
Anonymous

Clinton’s email correspondence was stored in accordance with protocol established by previous secs of state. There was nothing unusual about using a personal server. Neither did she destroy 30,000 emails.

Do your research properly, stop spreading misinformation and then get your Clinton Derangement Syndrome checked out.

(3)(3)
Anonymous

Presumably you were asleep when Clinton’s use of BleachBit to erase 30,000 emails from her server was all over the news and when James Comey castigated Clinton for he email handling?

(2)(0)
Anonymous

Seems as though this article has been invaded by Donald fan boys…

(9)(1)
Anonymous

You’d be surprised how many of them are in City firms… One in particular comes to my mind…

(0)(0)
Good SJW

Fan boys? You’re amusing that only males can be Trump fans, thus alienating and discriminating against all females and non-binary people who supported him. You’re simply sexist.

Taste some of your own divisive liberal rhetoric… delicious isn’t it?

(1)(2)
Not Amused

Right. First, I generally think we should leave America to their fate – they vote these people in, we don’t. Secondly what happens in America as a result of Trump will most likely have very little impact on us. Thirdly, and just to be clear, I thought both US presidential candidates were awful this time around.

But it occurs to me that as a legal website, we ought to be living up to the standards we expect of lawyers. As a result I have a few questions:

– why are they describing Russia as an “adversary foreign power”?
– In what way is it profitable for America or Russia to fall out?
– Does anyone else remember the Cold War?
– Did Russia unilaterally disarm its nuclear bombs?

Now those are out of the way, can we just understand that Trump (allegedly) told the Russians that there is a plot to blow up aeroplanes using bombs hidden in laptops or tablets.

– is there anyone who is surprised that there is a risk of plots by terrorists to blow up aeroplanes using bombs hidden in things?
– do we imagine the Russians are surprised?
– is there a particular reason why warning the Russians about possible plots is a bad idea?
– is there a particular reason why we want terrorists to blow up Russian planes?

I do not want to have to defend Mr Trump again. Please stop making me.

(8)(8)
Anonymous

From what I understand has happened they discussed an undercover officer that has infiltrated IS. Considering that Russia are manipulating both sides, then Trump has potentially cost this person their life. The torture of their own is horrendous enough, can you imagine what they would do to a spy? Of course Trump will say that they only discussed security risks of electronic devices as that is very low key. Why he felt the need to exclude any independent press from sitting in (Russian State press were allowed) kinda gives an indication to the answer as to the nature of what was going on behind closed doors.

Even more damning than that is the fact that Countries, rightly or wrongly, will not trust or at least be hesitant is sharing intelligence with America and this will be at the detriment to everyone.

(7)(0)
Anonymous

To the citizens of the United States of America from Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II

In light of your immediate failure to financially manage yourselves and also in recent years your tendency to elect incompetent Presidents of the USA and therefore not able to govern yourselves, we hereby give notice of the revocation of your independence, effective immediately. (You should look up ‘revocation’ in the Oxford English Dictionary.)

Her Sovereign Majesty Queen Elizabeth II will resume monarchical duties over all states, commonwealths, and territories (except Kansas, which she does not fancy).

Your new Prime Minister, (TBA on 9 June), will appoint a Governor-General for America without the need for further elections.

Congress and the Senate will be disbanded. A questionnaire may be circulated sometime next year to determine whether any of you noticed.

To aid in the transition to a British Crown dependency, the following rules are introduced with immediate effect:

1. The letter ‘U’ will be reinstated in words such as ‘colour,’ ‘favour,’ ‘labour’ and ‘neighbour.’ Likewise, you will learn to spell ‘doughnut’ without skipping half the letters, and the suffix ‘-ize’ will be replaced by the suffix ‘-ise.’ Generally, you will be expected to raise your vocabulary to acceptable levels. (look up ‘vocabulary’).

————————

2. Using the same twenty-seven words interspersed with filler noises such as ”like’ and ‘you know’ is an unacceptable and inefficient form of communication. There is no such thing as U.S. English. We will let Microsoft know on your behalf. The Microsoft spell-checker will be adjusted to take into account the reinstated letter ‘u” and the elimination of ‘-ize.’

——————-

3. July 4th will no longer be celebrated as a holiday.

—————–

4. You will learn to resolve personal issues without using guns, lawyers, or therapists. The fact that you need so many lawyers and therapists shows that you’re not quite ready to be independent. Guns should only be used for shooting grouse. If you can’t sort things out without suing someone or speaking to a therapist, then you’re not ready to shoot grouse.

———————-

5. Therefore, you will no longer be allowed to own or carry anything more dangerous than a vegetable peeler. Although a permit will be required if you wish to carry a vegetable peeler in public.

———————-

6. All intersections will be replaced with roundabouts, and you will start driving on the left side with immediate effect. At the same time, you will go metric with immediate effect and without the benefit of conversion tables. Both roundabouts and metrication will help you understand the British sense of humour.

——————–

7. The former USA will adopt UK prices on petrol (which you have been calling gasoline) of roughly $10/US gallon. Get used to it.

——————-

8. You will learn to make real chips. Those things you call French fries are not real chips, and those things you insist on calling potato chips are properly called crisps. Real chips are thick cut, fried in animal fat, and dressed not with catsup but with vinegar.

——————-

9. The cold, tasteless stuff you insist on calling beer is not actually beer at all. Henceforth, only proper British Bitter will be referred to as beer, and European brews of known and accepted provenance will be referred to as Lager. New Zealand beer is also acceptable, as New Zealand is pound for pound the greatest sporting nation on earth and it can only be due to the beer. They are also part of the British Commonwealth – see what it did for them. American brands will be referred to as Near-Frozen Gnat’s Urine, so that all can be sold without risk of further confusion.

———————

10. Hollywood will be required occasionally to cast English actors as good guys. Hollywood will also be required to cast English actors to play English characters. Watching Andie Macdowell attempt English dialogue in Four Weddings and a Funeral was an experience akin to having one’s ears removed with a cheese grater.

———————

11. You will cease playing American football. There are only two kinds of proper football; one you call soccer, and rugby (dominated by the New Zealanders). Those of you brave enough will, in time, be allowed to play rugby (which has some similarities to American football, but does not involve stopping for a rest every twenty seconds or wearing full kevlar body armour like a bunch of nancies).

———————

12. Further, you will stop playing baseball. It is not reasonable to host an event called the World Series for a game which is not played outside of America. Since only 2.1% of you are aware there is a world beyond your borders, your error is understandable. You will learn cricket, and we will let you face the Australians (World dominators) first to take the sting out of their deliveries.

——————–

13. You must tell us who killed JFK. It’s been driving us mad.

—————–

14. An internal revenue agent (i.e. tax inspector) from Her Majesty’s Revenue and Customs will be with you shortly to ensure the acquisition of all monies due (backdated to 1776).

—————

15. Daily Tea Time begins promptly at 4 p.m. with proper cups, with saucers, and never mugs, with high quality biscuits (cookies) and cakes; plus strawberries (with cream) when in season

God Save the Queen!

(4)(1)

Comments are closed.