@revelette1,
As has been noted by giujohn the term is somewhat vague and likely deliberately so in order to allow the Senate to not be tightly restrained by the technicalities of a statue, but I think you are wrong in reading that an illegality would not be required.
First of all, if the House is held by the president's party (as it is with Trump) there is no way he would be impeached without clear evidence of a serious violation of a significant statute.
Even if the opposition party holds the House they are not likely to attempt impeachment without clear evidence of
illegality in the sense of how most ordinary people (would understand the term) (Although at this time in America, all sorts of outrageous things are possible).
No matter how immoral and offensive anyone might have considered Bill Clinton's fellatio in the Oval Office, the Republican House would never have proceeded with Impeachment if that's all they had. The evidence of perjury was crucial and even it didn't sit right with a great many Americans.
If the Dems held the house and attempted to impeach Trump solely on the basis of what we know about either the Comey meeting or the Russian meeting, the American public would, in my opinion, react vehemently if not violently. A few lawyers who can fashion a possible argument for obstruction of justice based on an alleged memo that no one has seen and even if it exists might lead to a he said/he said contest isn't even close to what would be needed to make a case most Americans would be willing to consider.
This isn't to say that the Dems wouldn't try it or wouldn't be successful given the partisan hysteria of DC, but to then expect even a Dem controlled Senate to go along? No way (at least I sincerely hope not).
There have been numerous call for the production of the Comey memo...if it exists. I concur with them. To some extent it would be playing into the strategy of a Trump Opposition that is prepared to constantly throw false or hyped allegations from even dubious sources, against the wall in the hope something will stick, but if that is the Opposition strategy, the only way to put a stop to it is to reveal the full extent of its pernicious nature.
Clearly, if the memo cannot be produced the NYT should suffer a significant blow to their credibility and reputation. What are they going to argue? Their "reliable" source managed to lose or destroy it shortly after leaking its existence and contents?
Even if it can be produced, its mere existence isn't a smoking gun that will take down the president. While it is unlikely that Comey would have written a memo about a conversation that didn't happen, the fact that there is a memo isn't proof positive that one occurred.
Obviously the content of the memo will be critical as well. It might prove what has been suggested that Trump was merely trying to suggest to Comey that he might find a way to ease up on
good guy like Flynn. (Comey supposedly agreed with Trump that Flynn is a
good guy). While you can always find an "expert" to make a case for just about anything, most of the legal opinions I've so far read, are that simply advocating discretion on behalf of a friend or colleague is not obstruction. What would be required would be evidence that Trump ordered Comey to drop the investigation or somehow threatened him with some consequence (firing?) if he did not.
If the memo exists and its contents are so explosive that an effort to obstruct can reasonably be inferred, a very important question must be asked. Why didn't Comey tell anyone? Virtually everyone agrees that if faced with a clearly deliberate effort by the president to obstruct an investigation, it's almost inconceivable that the FBI Director would not feel it his duty to bring such action to the attention of others, whether in the DOJ or Congress. Some have even suggested that Comey would have been legally bound to do so and by not, might be criminally charged.
Federal institutions have become worse than sieves, and even if Comey felt too intimidated to directly report the president's efforts to Congress or the DOJ, does anyone believe he would have felt restrained from leaking it to the media? How an FBI Director could be so intimidated is difficult to imagine too. Did Trump threaten him with his death and the deaths of his family members, or does anyone believe that Comey is so lacking in character and principle that he would ignore criminal acts of the president to preserve his job?
While they are at it, Congress should find out for certain if conversations in the Oval Office are being taped, and if so demand copies from the day Trump met with Comey.
Technology is such that the authenticity of any tapes can be verified. Editing attempts can reliably discovered.
If there is no memo or it is innocuous and/or a tape of the Trump/Comey conversation contains nothing about the Flynn investigation or only a simple statement and question like "Flynn's such a good guy, a real patriot. Are you sure his investigation has to continue?" the sleazy strategy of the NYT reporter and his editors will be exposed.
I can appreciate any president's desire to protect executive privilege for himself and the office, and when you back off on any privilege or protection you have, you weaken it for the future, but it is crucial that the White House put not only the Comey story to bed, but expose the Opposition's strategy so that public reaction and pressure might put an end to it. At the very least it will finish off what little credibility the MSM still has.
And if Trump did try and obstruct the Flynn investigation and threatened Comey with any consequence if it continued, we obviously need to know that too. An authenticate tape could be a smoking gun or disprove claims entirely. The memo won't tell us for certain unless there were witnesses to the conversation who confirm its content, but I understand Trump cleared his office of other visitors before concluding his conversation with Comey. Still, even though the memo cannot be the smoking gun it can be exculpatory and if it doesn't even exist...? In any case it is absurd and harmful to be in a situation where members of Congress and prominent members of the MSM are flinging all sorts of extreme allegations and conclusions based on the account of an anonymous source reading excerpts of a memo no one has even seen to a NYT reporter over the phone. Is this really the way we want our government to run?
Clearly, the Democrats and the MSM are all too willing to base very serious charges on the most flimsy evidence, but there's no reason they should simply be allowed to continue doing so and they will if Trump doesn't confront it or encourage Republicans in Congress to do so. If he doesn't, even valid reasons concerning executive privilege, will understandably be perceived as part of a cover-up. The Opposition will continue with their strategy until the Trump White House dies the death of a thousand cuts.
Personally, I've reached a point where my support for Trump is on shaky ground. If he doesn't grab the bull by the horns and force the issue to a conclusion that can't be denied it will tell me that he is either a) Dirty as claimed, or b) such an egotistical fool that he can't recognize the danger his administration and his agenda are in. Clearly
a is worse than
b, but both are bad. It may be
unfair that the Administration must get sucked into the machinations of the Opposition, but that's DC and if he has any chance of draining the swamp and transforming the DC culture he has to do a lot more than he has thus far in substantively confronting his accusers. Tweeting childish insults is certainly not the way.
Britt Hume was on TV last night and made the comment that he has never seen this level of hysteria and vitriol in the response of the MSM and the opposition party to any president. If you dismiss Hume as a FOX hack you reveal your foolishness. He's been around a long time, seen a lot, and is as much of a straight shooter as someone like Bob Woodward. He added to his observation that while Trump's treatment is grossly unfair, it is what it is and the president has to start properly responding to it, and more importantly, stop the unforced errors and self-inflicted wounds.
Some will argue that Trump can't win, that an Opposition willing to resort to unethical tactics are creating pitfalls that can't be avoided. Baloney, and if he can't find a way to win (especially when half the battle is to stop shooting himself in the foot) he should resign. Like it or not, fair or unfair, these incessant attacks and the WH's poor handling of responses will prevent him from getting anything done and will eventually erode the support of his base. The notion that his supporters wouldn't care if he shot someone in Times Square may have had some validity in the past, but it can't continue and especially if the person he's shooting is himself.
I really couldn't care less about Trump the person. I don't like Trump the public person, but I don't care about that either. What I care about is the current state of this nation and the dangerous hybrid leviathan of a corrupt political Establishment, a news media that has abandoned any pretense of objectivity and ethics, and a growing Deep State. I never believed he was even close to the champion we need, but he was the only one available. With his team of advisers and measure of self-discipline I believe he' capable of being a good president and making some important changes, but someone needs to smash the recording of "My Way" that plays in his head because if he continues on his current path he is going to blow it and not just for his presidency, but for anti-establishment conservatives and future efforts to right the American ship.
