Le­gal ex­pert: Prez Needn’t Fear the Word ‘Im­peach­ment’

New York Post - - POST OPINION -

Team Trump thinks the word “im­peach­ment” must be re­sisted to avoid cre­at­ing “po­lit­i­cal con­di­tions in which it could actually hap­pen.” But that’s a mis­take, writes Na­tional Re­view’s An­drew McCarthy. First, “there is no le­gal ob­struc­tion case” against Trump, be­cause pres­i­dents have “pros­e­cu­to­rial dis­cre­tion” to in­flu­ence or even “shut down an in­ves­ti­ga­tion” and Trump “did not act cor­ruptly.” Sec­ond, though Congress has the right to im­peach the pres­i­dent, his ac­tions “do not ap­proach the abuse-of-power pred­i­cate for high crimes and mis­de­meanors.” Still, Trump & Co. can’t “make the first part of the ar­gu­ment and pre­tend the sec­ond need not be ad­dressed.” Trump’s spokes­men “must con­cede” that the pres­i­dent “is not above the law.” But rather than avoid the “I-word,” his folks should stress that “he has not done any­thing im­peach­able.”

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from USA

© PressReader. All rights reserved.