查尔斯·弗里德是里根革命前线的一名热情的高级军官。从1985年到1989年，作为美国的副检察长，他敦促美国最高法院推翻他那个时代对堕胎、民权、行政权和宪法解释等自由正统观念的控制。

但是特朗普革命已经证明是一座太远的桥梁。正如他在接受采访时透露的那样新闻周刊在罗杰·帕洛夫下面，弗里德已经打破了常规。他谴责一位“也许是白宫里最不诚实的人”的总统尽管弗里德对唐纳德·特朗普总统感到厌恶，但如果可能的话，他对特朗普现任司法部长威廉·巴尔(William Barr)挺身而出担任特朗普的首席辩护律师感到更加沮丧。弗里德谈到巴尔。"他的名声没了。"

弗里德1935年出生于捷克斯洛伐克，这个国家很快被法西斯分子占领，后来又被共产主义者占领。他的家人于1939年逃到英国，并于1941年来到美国。弗里德于1948年成为美国公民，1956年在普林斯顿获得学士学位，在牛津获得两个法学学位，1960年在哥伦比亚获得法学学位。1961年，他在哈佛法学院担任教员职务，此后一直断断续续地在那里工作，撰写了九本关于法律和道德哲学的书。他在美国最高法院辩论了20多起案件，并在1995年至1999年间担任马萨诸塞州最高法院助理法官。

查尔斯·弗里德在2011年。

1月14日，在哈佛的办公室(参议院前审判)，在采访开始时，弗里德问道，他能否就特朗普对总统权力的理解中导致他被弹劾的一些根本性错误发表一些开场白。他提供新闻周刊美国最高法院在1952年钢铁扣押案中具有里程碑意义的裁决副本(扬斯敦薄板和管材公司诉索耶)，他用黄色荧光笔标记了它。

这种情况发生在朝鲜战争期间，当时一场劳工罢工威胁要阻碍国家的钢铁生产，而钢铁生产是战争中不可或缺的。哈里·杜鲁门总统“为了避免一场国家灾难”和“严重的紧急情况”，他的律师当时认为，他发布了一项行政命令，命令商务部长控制国家的钢铁生产。钢铁厂提起诉讼，声称总统越权。杜鲁门的副检察长在最高法院为总统的命令辩护，辩称宪法第2条授予他“政府有能力授予的所有行政权力”法院以6比3驳回了杜鲁门的论点。

油炸然后读给新闻周刊罗伯特·杰克逊法官著名的赞同意见的关键摘录。杰克逊写道，尽管宪法确实让总统成为“陆军和海军总司令”，但并没有让他成为“国家、工业和居民的总司令”

问答随即开始，弗里德完成了他关于特朗普对总统权力的基本误解的介绍性发言。编辑摘录:

查尔斯·弗里德:决定背景的第一件事是总统的言辞，无论是在他竞选期间还是此后。他可以在第五大道开枪杀人并逍遥法外的著名声明。他的假设是，由于2016年11月的选举，他被授权成为国家领导人。这个国家的总司令。德语单词是元首。意大利语是领袖。

他谈到忠诚。他要求忠诚。为了什么？对他个人来说。不是法律，而是他应该忠实执行的法律。这个问题一遍又一遍地出现。如果一名官员——例如告密者——遵循法律，履行法律规定的职责，遵循一系列命令，做了损害特朗普个人处境的事情，他将此定义为间谍活动，即破坏。他回忆起人们因为这样做而被枪杀的日子。

现在，如果你想想我们历史上的几次事件——例如，[总统富兰克林]罗斯福在1936年的压倒性胜利——这种观点可能会有些色彩。在这种情况下，这是不必要的，因为国会和他完全是一个想法。但是特朗普的对手比他多获得了280万张选票。所以这个人没有明显的大众授权。他是根据宪法当选的。好吧。这意味着，他拥有宪法赋予他的权力。这些是行政权。

正如杰克逊法官在“钢铁扣押案”中所说，这个术语并不是“所有可想象的行政权的大部分”它只是规定的行政权力。

主要的一点是“注意法律得到忠实的执行”国会制定的法律。并忠实地这样做。不狡猾。不是秘密的。不是通过把[的钱从一个预算转移到另一个预算]和召集紧急情况——比如修建隔离墙。

现在还有许多其他的力量。有建议和同意的提名权。赦免权。总司令。总司令意味着他是军队中所有军官的上级军官。但这并不意味着他能做将军或上校做不到的事情。正如杰克逊法官在钢铁扣押案中所说，他是陆军和海军的总司令。但不是国家、工业和人民。

困扰这位总统的幻想完全误解了这一点。

最高法院法官罗伯特·杰克逊在1941年秋天——他在法院的第一个任期。

新闻周刊:司法部长巴尔谈到了单一行政机构——

查尔斯·弗里德:是的，那很好。这意味着什么非常清楚。制宪者们担心王室统治者的权力。各个殖民地所做的就是让议会和州长坐在一起。至于州长的一些权力，他们必须批准。这在美国宪法中被[拒绝]。想法是在联邦行政部门有一个结构，总统坐在它的顶端。但是他坐在最高的位置去做宪法命令他做的事情:即执行法律。这并不意味着单一的行政机构在某种程度上凌驾于法律之上。他是忠实执行国会制定的法律的单一行政人员。

在巴尔看来，由于总统是司法部的负责人，某些类型的司法障碍是不可能的。如果他解雇[联邦调查局局长詹姆斯]科米，即使是出于不正当的理由，或者如果他要求科米放弃对前国家安全顾问迈克尔·弗林的调查，甚至是为了保护他自己，这些行为都是无法审查的。他们不可能妨碍司法公正。

这是个难题。显然还没有判决。显而易见的是，不管是否如此犯罪的妨碍司法公正——这是一个悬而未决的问题——肯定是滥用权力，因此弹劾是有道理的。

下面呢？亚马逊网络服务公司在最近的一项诉讼中声称，由于总统干预了公正的竞标过程，该公司失去了一份价值100亿美元的国防合同。据称，他这样做是为了惩罚亚马逊的首席执行官杰夫·贝佐斯，他拥有该公司华盛顿邮报他不喜欢他的政治报道。政府否认了这些指控，但为了证明特朗普真的这么做了，假设特朗普作为一个单一的行政机构，会不受制裁吗，因为他是国防部和司法部的负责人。

这是有法律规定的。这些法律旨在防止在第三世界国家和黑帮政权中发生的事情，在这些国家，合同是给你的朋友而拒绝给你的敌人的。这就是竞标的目的。干涉是非法的。无论如何，这样做是为了政治惩罚，同样是腐败，同样是可以弹劾的。

你认识比尔·巴尔吗？

不，我想我在走廊见过他一次。

这次你支持他竞选司法部长吗？

不，我没有。

为什么？

因为我听到的事情让我相信他最关心的是权力。

行政权还是个人权力？

两者都有。但是读到这里——[指着他桌子上的文本，巴尔在11月联邦主义者协会上发表了主旨演讲]—令人震惊。让我给你举几个例子。他说，“特朗普总统赢得选举后，[的反对者们]立即发起了他们所谓的‘抵抗运动’，而不是像反对党过去所做的那样‘忠诚的反对派’。”[巴尔说这“非常危险——确实具有煽动性”。...他们基本上认为自己卷入了一场战争，以任何必要手段削弱一个正式选举产生的政府。...在对本届政府发动一场毫无保留的焦土“抵抗”战争时，是左派在有系统地粉碎规范和破坏法治。”]

他似乎忘记了是[参议院多数党领袖米奇·麦康奈尔在2010年说过[“我们想要实现的最重要的事情是[·巴拉克总统]奥巴马成为一届总统。”在演讲的另一点上，他说，是的，参议院在总统候选人问题上有建议和同意[的权力]，但是他们不应该阻碍这个过程。但是看看麦康奈尔对[最高法院提名人]梅里克·加兰做了什么。

巴尔知道这一切。他应该是一个非常有道德的人，等等。但是成为白宫里最不诚实的人的辩护者呢？我的意思是，不诚实的意思是他撒谎的方式别人呼吸。你会认为保护总统权力的项目会提供一个比这更有价值的主题，尤其是对一个本应可敬的人来说。但事实是，内阁中所有可敬的人都离开了。你所剩下的就是像巴尔一样愿意说任何话的人。你也看到了他对待穆勒报告的方式，他歪曲了这一点，因为这是他老板想要的。

你和狗一起躺下，你和跳蚤一起起床。他的名声没了。

美国司法部长威廉·巴尔在一月份。

巴尔在他的联邦主义者协会演讲中争辩说，法院已经侵犯了行政权力。他声称法院甚至不应该审查总统拒绝服从国会传票的决定。“法院应该如何决定，”他说，“国会在行使其立法职能时收集信息的权力是否凌驾于总统在行使其行政职能时接受机密建议的权力之上？《宪法》中没有任何内容为解决这一问题提供可管理的标准。”

这是否意味着总统应该说法律是什么？在马布里诉麦迪逊案首席大法官[·约翰·马歇尔(1803年，[)说，“司法部门有责任明确说明法律是什么。”这是一个咆哮。这不是一个合理的陈述。巴尔知道这一切。他是个非常聪明的人，什么都愿意说。

关于巴尔还有一个问题。据报道，纽约南区的联邦检察官正在对总统的私人律师鲁道夫·朱利安尼进行刑事调查。几乎任何对朱利安尼的审查都会引起对特朗普行为的审查。你对巴尔愿意让检察官去任何事实导致他们去的地方有信心吗？

我认为他不敢干涉。我肯定他会非常乐意的。但我认为他不敢。他是个聪明人。

你在巴尔11月份的联邦主义者协会演讲上吗？

不，我没有。

你是会员吗？

我曾是哈佛大学[分校联邦主义者协会的教员顾问自20世纪80年代初该协会成立以来】。这里一直是一群最令人钦佩的学生。在他们几乎所有的演讲中，他们都在努力让对方有一个公平的辩论。他们是好人。我保守主义的导师是我为之服务的法官约翰·马歇尔·哈兰，我认为他是20世纪下半叶最伟大的保守主义法官。但是很难想象他会像这个流氓那样说话。

参考—

特朗普。这不是保守主义。威廉·巴尔的演讲也是如此。那是咆哮。

从报道来看，巴尔的演讲似乎受到了非常热烈的欢迎。他似乎受到了热烈的欢迎。

我不在那里。

您已加入“制衡”组。（乔治·康威于2018年11月共同创立了该组织，该组织由一群杰出的保守派和自由意志主义律师组成，致力于法治，尽管任务声明中没有提到这一点，但反对特朗普。)你为什么加入？

正如赞美诗所说:

“每个人和每个国家都有一次决定的时刻，
在真理与谬误的斗争中，为了善或恶。"

这个人使办公室和国家蒙羞:他是一个品格低下、令人厌恶的人。它一成立，我就加入了。

该组织现在有21个签署方——都非常突出。但是联邦主义者协会有将近7万名律师成员。制衡很小。保守派律师像共和党其他人一样团结在特朗普周围了吗？

我不知道。

你在联邦主义者协会看到的哈佛学生支持特朗普吗？

我不知道，也不会问。

我想你认为弹劾特朗普是对的。

确实如此。

他应该被撤职吗？

确实如此。

众议院书记员和弹劾经理于2020年1月15日将弹劾唐纳德·特朗普总统的条款从众议院带到参议院。

有些人认为我们离选举不远了。也许我们应该让选举进程顺其自然。

首先，腐败的总统每天都有能力造成严重的破坏。另一件事是:在我看来，既然众议院已经发布了正确制定的弹劾条款，参议院的职责就是尝试一下。审判意味着公正地考虑指控是否合理，如果是，要说明。无论是2020年1月，还是2020年11月，甚至是2020年12月。

一些人认为，目前针对特朗普的弹劾文章不够充分，因为它们没有具体指控犯罪。你会有什么反应？

《[宪法》案文太笼统，先例太少，无法给出有把握的答案。我不认为宪法要求对特定的联邦罪行进行指控，在制定宪法时，联邦罪行很少。特朗普被指控的罪名类似于贿赂——敲诈，如果技术上不是这样的话。这又是杰克逊在《钢铁扣押案》中的陈述:“正如我们的祖先所设想的，或者如果他们预见到现代条件，他们会设想的，必须从几乎像约瑟夫被召唤为法老解释的梦一样神秘的材料中预言。一个半世纪的党派辩论和学术推测没有产生任何净结果，只是在任何问题的每一方提供了或多或少恰当的引用。他们在很大程度上相互抵消。”

一些人认为，目前对特朗普的弹劾指控没有达到可弹劾罪行的“水平”。你的观点？

我不同意。他们认为总统权力被严重、协调和腐败地用于个人政治利益。

一些人认为这些指控没有得到充分证实。

我不明白你还想要多少证据。但是，无论如何，还有其他证据。只是总统不会提供。这是弹劾的另一个理由。他已经发出全面命令，任何人不得在任何方面合作。现在有各种各样的有效特权。这些都可以被调用。而是一揽子特权，因为这是一个“非法的过程”？他没资格这么说。这一总括命令本身就是一种可弹劾的滥用权力。

REAGAN'S SOLICITOR GENERAL SAYS 'ALL HONORABLE PEOPLE' HAVE LEFT TRUMP'S CABINET: 'HE IS CAPABLE OF DOING SERIOUS DAMAGE'

Charles Fried was a fervent, superior officer on the frontlines of the Reagan Revolution. As solicitor general of the United States from 1985 to 1989, he urged the U.S. Supreme Court to overturn the reining liberal orthodoxies of his day—on abortion, civil rights, executive power and constitutional interpretation.

But the Trump Revolution has proven a bridge too far. As he reveals in a scorching interview with Newsweek's Roger Parloff below, Fried has broken ranks. He denounces a president who is "perhaps the most dishonest person to ever sit in the White House." As disgusted as he is by President Donald Trump, Fried is, if possible, even more dismayed by William Barr, Trump's current attorney general, for having stepped up as Trump's chief apologist. Fried says of Barr. "His reputation is gone."

Fried was born in Czechoslovakia in 1935, a country soon overrun by fascists and, later, by communists. His family escaped to England in 1939 and came to the United States in 1941. Fried became a U.S. citizen in 1948, got his B.A. from Princeton in 1956, two jurisprudence degrees from Oxford, and then a law degree from Columbia in 1960. He took a faculty position at Harvard Law School in 1961, and has been affiliated there, on and off, ever since, authoring nine books on law and moral philosophy. He has argued more than two dozen cases in the U.S. Supreme Court, and served as an associate justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court from 1995 to 1999.

Charles Fried in 2011.

At the outset of this interview, at his office at Harvard on January 14 (pre-Senate trial), Fried asked if he could make a few prefatory observations about the fundamental errors in Trump's understanding of presidential power that have led to his impeachment. He provided Newsweekwith a copy of the landmark U.S. Supreme Court ruling in the Steel Seizure Case of 1952 (Youngstown Sheet & Tube Co. v. Sawyer), which he'd marked up with a yellow highlighter pen.

That case arose during the Korean War, when a labor strike threatened to hobble the nation's production of steel, which was indispensable to the war effort. President Harry Truman, "to avert a national catastrophe" and meet a "grave emergency," his lawyers argued at the time, issued an executive order commanding the secretary of commerce to seize control of the nation's steel production. The steel mills sued, claiming the president had exceeded his powers. Truman's solicitor general defended the president's order in the Supreme Court by arguing that Article 2 of the Constitution gave him "a grant of all executive powers of which the Government is capable." The Court rejected Truman's arguments, 6-3.

Fried then read to Newsweek key excerpts from the celebrated concurring opinion of Justice Robert Jackson. Though the Constitution did make the president the "Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy," Jackson wrote, it did not make him "Commander in Chief of the country, its industries and its inhabitants."

The Q&A then commenced, with Fried completing his introductory remarks about Trump's basic misunderstandings of presidential power. Edited excerpts:

Charles Fried: The first thing, which sets the context, is the rhetoric of the president, both when he was running and ever since. The famous statement that he could shoot somebody on Fifth Avenue and get away with it. The assumption he makes is that by virtue of the November election of 2016, he has a mandate to be the leader of the country. The commander in chief of the country. The German word is fuhrer. The Italian word is duce.

He talks about loyalty. He asks for loyalty. To what? To him personally. Not to the law, which he is supposed to be faithfully executing. This comes up over and over again. Where an official—for instance, the whistleblower—following the law, performing a legally defined duty, following a chain of command, does something that undermines Trump's personal situation, he defines it as espionage, as sabotage. He looks back to the days when people could get shot for doing that.

Now, maybe if you think of a few occasions in our history—for instance, [President Franklin] Roosevelt's landslide in 1936—there would have been some color for this view. Unnecessary, in that instance, because Congress and he were absolutely of one mind. But Trump's opponent got 2.8 million more votes than he did. So there is no remarkable popular mandate to this man. He was constitutionally elected. Fine. What that means is, he has such powers as the Constitution gives him. And those are the executive powers.

As Justice Jackson said in the Steel Seizure Case, that term is not a "grant in bulk of all conceivable executive power." It is only such executive powers as are specified.

The principal one is "to take care that the laws be faithfully executed." The laws made by Congress. And to do so faithfully. Not trickily. Not underhandedly. Not by transferring [money from one budget to another] and calling emergencies—as with the building of the wall.

Now there are a number of other powers. The power of nomination, with advice and consent. The pardon power. And the commander in chief power. Commander in chief means that he is the superior officer of all the officers in the military. But it doesn't mean he can do things which no general or colonel could do. And as Justice Jackson said in the Steel Seizure Case, he is the commander in chief of the Army and Navy. But not of the nation, its industries and its people.

This fantasy, which obsesses this president, completely misunderstands that.

Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson in the fall of 1941—his first term on the Court.

Newsweek: Attorney General Barr talks about the unitary executive—

Charles Fried: Yes, that's fine. What that means is very clear. The framers were concerned about the powers of the royal governors. And what the various colonies had done was to have councils which sit with the governor. As to some of the powers of the governor, they had to approve. That was rejected [in the U.S. Constitution]. The idea is that in the federal executive department there is one structure, and the president sits at the top of it. But he sits at the top of it to do that which the Constitution commands him to do: namely, to execute the laws. It doesn't mean that the unitary executive is somehow above the law. He is the unitary executive to execute faithfully the laws as written by Congress.

In Barr's view, since the president is head of the Justice Department, certain sorts of obstruction of justice aren't possible. If he's removing [FBI Director James] Comey, even for bad reasons, or if he's asking Comey to drop the investigation of former National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, even to protect himself, those actions are beyond scrutiny. They can't be obstruction of justice.

And that's a difficult question. It's obviously not been adjudicated. What is clear is that, whether or not that is criminal obstruction of justice—and that's an open question—surely it is an abuse of power such that impeachment would be warranted.

What about the following? Amazon Web Services alleges in a recent lawsuit that it lost a $10 billion defense contract because the president interfered with the impartial bidding process. It alleges he did that to punish Amazon's CEO, Jeff Bezos, who owns The Washington Post, whose political coverage he hasn't liked. The government denies the allegations, but assuming for the sake of argument that Trump really did that, would Trump, as the unitary executive, be beyond sanction, because he's the head of the Department of Defense and Department of Justice.

There are laws about this. The laws are meant to prevent what happens in Third World countries and in gangster regimes, where contracts are given to your friends and denied to your enemies. That's what competitive bidding is for. Interference with that is unlawful. In any case, to do that for political punishment is, again, corruption and, again, impeachable.

Do you know Bill Barr?

No, I think I met him in the corridor once.

Did you support him for attorney general this time?

No, I did not.

Why?

Because I'd heard things that led me to believe his principal concern is power.

Executive power or personal power?

Both. But to read this—[pointing to the text, lying on his desk, of the keynote speech Barr gave before the Federalist Society in November]—is shocking. Let me just give you a few examples. He says that "immediately after President Trump won election, [opponents] inaugurated what they called 'The Resistance,'" instead of the "loyal opposition, as opposing parties have done in the past." [Barr said this was "very dangerous—indeed incendiary. ... They essentially see themselves as engaged in a war to cripple, by any means necessary, a duly elected government. ... In waging a scorched earth, no-holds-barred war of 'Resistance' against this Administration, it is the Left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law."]

He seems to have forgotten that it's [Senate Majority Leader] Mitch McConnell who said [in 2010] "the single most important thing we want to achieve is for President [Barack] Obama to be a one-term President." At another point in this speech he said that, yes, the Senate has the power of advice and consent [on presidential nominees], but they shouldn't be obstructing the process. But look at what McConnell did with [Supreme Court nominee] Merrick Garland.

Barr knows all of this. And he's supposed to be a very moral man, and so on and so forth. But to be the apologist for perhaps the most dishonest person to ever sit in the White House? I mean, dishonest in the sense that he lies the way other people breathe. You would think that the project of protecting presidential powers would provide a worthier subject than that, particularly for a supposedly honorable man. But the fact is, all the honorable people in the Cabinet have left. And what you have left is people who are willing to say anything, as Barr is. And you saw the way he treated the Mueller Report, which he misrepresented, because that is what his boss would have wanted.

You lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas. His reputation is gone.

U.S. Attorney General William Barr in January.

Barr argued in his Federalist Society speech that courts have been encroaching on executive powers. He asserted that courts should not even be reviewing the president's refusals to comply with Congressional subpoenas. "How is a court supposed to decide," he said, "whether Congress's power to collect information in pursuit of its legislative function overrides the president's power to receive confidential advice in pursuit of his executive function? Nothing in the Constitution provides a manageable standard for resolving such a question."

Does that mean the president is supposed to say what the law is? In Marbury v. Madison [in 1803], Chief Justice [John] Marshall said, "It is emphatically the duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is." This is a rant. This is not a reasoned statement. And Barr knows all this. He's a very intelligent man, who's willing to say anything.

One remaining question about Barr. It's been reported that federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York are criminally investigating Rudolph Giuliani, the president's personal lawyer. Almost any scrutiny of Giuliani will draw into scrutiny of Trump's conduct, too. Are you confident in Barr's willingness to let the prosecutors go wherever the facts lead them?

I don't think he would dare to interfere. I'm sure he would dearly love to. But I don't think he would dare to. He's a smart man.

Were you at Barr's Federalist Society speech in November?

No, I wasn't.

Are you a member?

I have been a faculty adviser of the Federalist Society at Harvard [since the Society's formation in the early 1980s]. It has always been a group of the most admirable students here. At almost all of their presentations, they studiously seek to get people on the other side, to have a fair debate. And they are good people. My tutor in conservatism is the justice for whom I clerked, John Marshall Harlan, who I think is the greatest conservative justice of the latter half of the 20th century. But it's unimaginable to think of him speaking the way that this hoodlum speaks.

Referring to—

Trump. This is not conservatism. And neither is William Barr's speech. That is a rant.

From the reporting, it seems that Barr's speech was very warmly received. It seemed like he got an enormous ovation.

I wasn't there.

You've joined the group Checks & Balances. (Co-founded by George Conway in November 2018, it is a group of prominent conservative and libertarian attorneys devoted to the rule of law and—though the mission statement doesn't say it—opposed to Trump.) Why did you join?

As the hymn goes:

"Once to every man and nation comes the moment to decide,
In the strife of Truth with Falsehood, for the good or evil side."

The man shames the office and the nation: he is a man of low character and repellent personality. I joined as soon as it came into being.

The group now has 21 signatories—all very prominent. But the Federalist Society has close to 70,000 lawyer members. Checks & Balances is tiny. Have conservative lawyers rallied around Trump the way the rest of the Republican Party has?

I don't know.

Do the Harvard students you see in the Federalist Society support Trump?

I have no idea, and I wouldn't ask.

I assume you think it was right to impeach Trump.

Indeed.

And that he should be removed?

Indeed.

The House clerk and impeachment managers bring the articles of impeachment of President Donald Trump from the House to the Senate on January 15, 2020.

Some people argue that we're near an election. Maybe we should let the electoral process take its course.

First of all, every day that a corrupt president sits, he is capable of doing serious damage. The other thing is: now that the House has issued—to my mind—correctly formulated articles of impeachment, the Senate's duty is to try that. Trial means fair consideration of whether the charges are justified and, if so, so to state. Whether it's January 2020, or November 2020, or, indeed, December 2020.

Some argue that the current impeachment articles against Trump are insufficient because they don't specifically allege a crime. What would your response be?

The [Constitutional] text is too general and the precedents too few to permit a confident answer. I don't believe the Constitution requires the charge of a specified federal crime, of which, at the time of the framing there were very few. What Trump is charged with is analogous to bribery—extortion, if not technically so. Here again is Jackson in the Steel Seizure Case: "Just what our forefathers did envision, or would have envisioned had they foreseen modern conditions, must be divined from materials almost as enigmatic as the dreams Joseph was called upon to interpret for Pharaoh. A century and a half of partisan debate and scholarly speculation yields no net result, but only supplies more or less apt quotations from respected sources on each side of any question. They largely cancel each other."

Some argue that the current impeachment allegations against Trump don't "rise to the level" of an impeachable offense. Your view?

I don't agree. They argue a serious, concerted and corrupt use of presidential power for personal political gain.

Some argue the allegations haven't been adequately proven.

I don't understand how much more proof you want. But, in any event, additional proof is available. It's just that the president will not supply it. That is an additional grounds for impeachment. He has issued blanket orders not to cooperate in any respect by anyone. Now there are all kinds of valid privileges. And those could be invoked. But a blanket privilege because this is an "illegitimate process"? Well, he doesn't get to say that. That blanket order is itself an impeachable abuse of power.