Laurence Tribe

On July 25, just a day after former Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified before Congress and essentially concluded his investigation of President Donald Trump’s various intersections with Russia, Trump asked Ukraine’s leader to find dirt on a political opponent – indulging in some of the very behavior that Mueller had been investigating but couldn’t prove. In other words, Trump escaped Mueller’s probe and then turned right around and hit a self-destruct button...Laurence Tribe, a professor at the Harvard Law School and a leading constitutional scholar, told me that he sees some method in Trump’s madness on the White House lawn. “He obviously believes that if he commits his felonies in broad daylight and out in the open that he hasn’t done anything wrong -- and that no one would think he’s stupid enough to commit an impeachable offense in front of everyone,” he said. If Trump is muddying the waters by giving Democrats too many impeachable acts to track, Tribe suggests that they focus solely on building their case around two articles of impeachment that involve his Ukraine and Russia dealings: betrayal of country and stonewalling Congress. Trump’s comments Thursday about China can inform those charges, Tribe says, but he thinks it would be a strategic mistake for it to be turned into a standalone article of impeachment.

President Trump urged his party to “get tougher and fight” against his impeachment Monday as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) distributed a “fact sheet” outlining what her office called a gross abuse of presidential power, including a “shakedown,” “pressure campaign” and “cover up.” A Republican effort to censure House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) for his handling of the inquiry failed Monday, with the House voting along party lines to block a floor vote on the measure...Matz, who clerked for former Supreme Court Justice Anthony M. Kennedy, recently wrote a book, “To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment,” with another impeachment scholar Democrats are consulting, Laurence Tribe. Tribe, while not on staff or being paid, has also become a regular source of advice for House Democrats, particularly for his former students who are now in the thick of the impeachment probe: Schiff and Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), both of whom studied under Tribe at Harvard Law School.

Pressure is mounting on Senate Republicans to do something about the Trump administration’s human rights violations, blatant corruption, Giuliani-hackery, and mounting counterintelligence problems, mostly thanks to the House Democrats finally opening an impeachment inquiry into the president’s behavior. While the idea of 20 GOP senators openly defecting to support a vote to convict Donald Trump in the Senate still remains whimsical, we’re seeing significant cracks in the wall of support for any and all Trump-y conduct...As professor Laurence Tribe of Harvard Law School (also a Slate contributor) noted in an email to me: "Sen. Graham does seem to be parroting WH talking points, and not the most effective ones, either. Saying he needs to be 'shown' that 'Trump was actually engaging in a quid pro quo, outside the phone call,' is particularly bizarre. What about the call itself? It was hardly chopped liver. Its explicit use of the word 'though' to link (a) the president’s willingness to release the aid that Congress had voted and that Ukraine was desperately seeking to defend itself from Putin’s aggression, to (b) the favor Trump wanted in return was enough in itself to establish that Trump was conditioning the aid package on assistance in his political quest both to erase Russia’s influence on his original election and to undermine his most likely 2020 opponent. If that’s not 'quid pro quo,' nothing is."

The White House on Thursday confirmed that next year’s Group of Seven (G-7) summit will be held at the Trump National Doral Golf Club in Miami, Florida. The announcement immediately prompted accusations from legal experts that such a move would be a violation of the U.S. Constitution’s Emoluments Clause. Director of the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) and acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney quickly went into damage control mode to defend the decision, saying that President Donald Trump was “not making any profit” by hosting the confab and that his property would accommodate the event “at cost.” ...“Mulvaney’s statement that Trump will not profit personally from this decision is total BS,” Harvard Law Professor Laurence Tribe said in an email to Law&Crime and on Twitter. “This will violate the Domestic Emoluments Clause of Article II for sure. Of course it will also violate the Foreign Emoluments Clause of Article I.”

President Trump has been on quite a losing streak in court, especially. Last Friday, he lost a total of five cases concerning his snatching funds from the Pentagon to pay for his border wall, Congress’s power to subpoena documents from the accounting firm Mazars USA, and his attempt to expand the definition of public charge, which would have denied green cards to those who used government benefits to which they were legally entitled. His losing streak continued on Tuesday. The Post reports: “A federal appeals court on Tuesday revived a lawsuit claiming that President Trump is illegally profiting from foreign and state government visitors at his hotel in downtown Washington. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit agreed to rehear the lawsuit, brought by the attorneys general of Maryland and the District, which was dismissed over the summer by a three-judge panel of the court.” The case will be heard on Dec. 12 and breathes life into one of three ongoing suits against Trump for receipt of foreign emoluments...Constitutional scholar Laurence H. Tribe (who is counsel in a different emoluments case) tells me, “I was convinced the panel’s decision denying standing to Maryland and D.C. in the Emoluments Clause challenge was legally wrong and am pleased to see the full Fourth Circuit seems inclined to agree, bringing it in line with the Second Circuit.” Tribe noted Trump’s run of court losses. “With the stonewall the president had interposed to the impeachment inquiry crumbling as Fiona Hill and others testify despite Trump’s effort to silence them, it’s hard not to sense the tide turning rapidly and decisively.”

Dahlia Lithwick is joined by all-star SCOTUS experts to walk us through this week’s biggest legal and constitutional developments. First, Laurence Tribe answers the questions Amicus listeners have been asking about the next steps in the impeachment process. Next, Pamela Karlan takes us inside the chamber for Tuesday’s oral arguments in a trio of Title VII cases at the high court.

Donald Trump’s refusal to cooperate with the House’s impeachment inquiry, in addition to his decisions on Syria, are the types of actions many believe could drive the president towards being impeached as an inevitable consequence. Constitutional law professor Laurence Tribe joins Joy Reid to discuss.Oct. 12, 2019

President Donald Trump who pledged in April to fight “all the subpoenas”, has been dealt another blow in his battle to keep his tax returns private. In May, a federal judge in Washington, DC refused to quash a subpoena directing Mazars USA, the president's accounting firm, to give eight years of financial records to the House of Representatives. Mr Trump called that ruling “crazy”, blamed it on “an Obama-appointed judge” and took his case to the Appeals Court for the District of Columbia Circuit. ... Laurence Tribe, a law professor at Harvard, expects “at least five votes” among the justices to affirm Judge Tatel’s ruling. He does not reckon that Justices Neil Gorsuch or Brett Kavanaugh—Mr Trump’s two high-court appointees—would agree with Judge Rao's analysis.

A nugget of political arithmetic is suddenly everywhere: “Two-thirds majority.” This is the share of votes required to convict President Trump in an impeachment trial in the United States Senate. That’s 67 senators, if you’re counting—or, in the glass-half-empty variation, the number of Republican senators required to jump ship is 20. ... “The Constitution contains quorum requirements [elsewhere] and clearly distinguishes between percentages of a particular chamber and percentages of ‘members present,'” said Laurence Tribe, a professor of constitutional law at Harvard Law School and the co-author of the book To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment. “That language in the provision for Senate conviction on impeachment charges is quite deliberate, creating precisely the possibility” described above.

The White House tried to justify its refusal to comply with Democrats' subpoenas by claiming that their impeachment inquiry is unconstitutional. Laurence Tribe explains to Lawrence O'Donnell why that White House argument is "legally vacuous" and would rebuffed by the courts for putting the president above the law.

Since the release of the astonishing transcript of the call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Zelensky, Democrats have, as one would expect, zeroed in on the multiple legal problems Trump created for himself. ... The Justice Department is trying to deny Barr has any role in this fiasco. (“An initial Justice Department statement on Barr’s role issued at the same moment the call notes were made public seemed only to rule out the attorney general being asked to work with Ukraine on such a probe, but a subsequent clarification broadened the denial to cover any presidential request to Barr to launch an inquiry into Biden.”) Even if this is true, the Justice Department found there was nothing wrong with Trump’s conduct. Are we to believe Barr didn’t know about that either? Constitutional scholar Larry Tribe tells me, “It’s inconceivable that Barr didn’t know, and the decision to treat the president’s manifestly criminal conversation with Ukraine’s leader, a mix of bribery and extortion, as not worthy of a referral for further investigation seems to me inexplicable unless one assumes either corrupt motives or gross stupidity or both.”

An op-ed by Laurence H. Tribe: The White House’s blanket stonewalling of the House impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump isn’t just deeply troubling or further indirect evidence of the president’s underlying abuse of public power for private gain. It signals another clear ground for his impeachment: obstruction of Congress. Article III of the Nixon articles of impeachment provides the closest precedent to what Trump did here: He directed the State Department to prevent Gordon Sondland, the U.S. ambassador to the European Union, from testifying about what his texts revealed to corroborate the whistleblower complaint about a scheme to withhold military aid in order to extort Ukraine into meddling in the 2020 election. The White House counsel followed up by telling House leaders there would be no cooperation with an inquiry he called illegitimate and unfair.

... John Dean, the former Chief White House Counsel to Richard Nixon during the Watergate scandal, said Trump’s actions were contradictory to 230 years of American legal traditions. “URGENT: Trump wants to end America sovereignty by allowing foreign governments to help him win. It is against the law and 230 years of practice,” Dean Tweeted. “He wants American voters to choose elected leaders beholden to foreign powers, not Americans. The act of a dictator!,” he added. ... Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe’s reaction invoked a similar tone. “So now Trump is openly asking CHINA to go after the Bidens!,” Tribe Tweeted. “He’s poking the nation in the eye and daring us to hold him accountable for repeatedly violating American law and sovereignty. We have no choice but to remove him if we want to preserve our country.”

President Donald Trump has encouraged another foreign country to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter, this time publicly calling on China to look into the 2020 Democratic frontrunner—a move legal experts say is "still illegal." ... Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe told Newsweek that Trump is "proceeding on the premise that he can get away with murder if he commits it often enough and in front of everybody. It's a daring strategy and one we can't let him pull off if we care about our country and want to have a legal system that applies to everyone."

Since the Democrats gained control of the House, the Trump administration has taken the most extreme position on congressional oversight in American history: In essence, it has argued that no demand from Congress, for information about anything, to anyone in the executive branch, is binding on the president. While many presidents have struggled with the reach of congressional oversight, this administration has been particularly defiant. ... As I wrote on Tuesday, the beginning of a formal impeachment inquiry should strengthen Congress’s hand as it seeks court enforcement of its demands for information. But should Congress even pursue such requests? Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School, (whose recent book, To End a Presidency, co-written with Joshua Matz, explores many political and legal aspects of impeachment) told me in an email: The expectation that the evidence thereby made available will be explosive makes the impeachment process more difficult in circumstances like this, where the publicly known facts already justify a conclusion that the president committed high crimes and misdemeanors. That creates something of a paradox. The way in which a formal impeachment inquiry makes potentially incriminating evidence much more readily available tends to raise expectations and indirectly raises the bar for what it takes to impeach a president who abuses his powers for personal gain.

The percentage of Americans in favor of impeachment is increasing — quickly. It has gone from a clear minority view to a majority or plurality in recent polling. Part of that progress is directly attributable to President Trump acting more unhinged by the day — dishing out profanity, threatening the whistleblower and accusing House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) of treason. He sounds like a wounded animal howling in pain. But some of the credit goes to Democrats, who have a much better hand to play than they did in the Russia investigation and have learned from experience. ...Constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe agrees. “I think the Intelligence Committee is doing exactly what the situation calls for by treating the refusals by [Attorney General William P.] Barr and [Secretary of State Mike] Pompeo to let people testify as obstruction of Congress plain and simple,” he says. “If the Trump cabinet members or other officials want to go down the path of the third Article of Impeachment against Richard Nixon, that’s a choice the Democratic committee chairs are sensibly leaving to them. The chairs would play into the hands of the stonewalling Trump administration by taking Trump officials to court to seek orders compelling testimony or document production or to enforce subpoenas.” He concludes, “The days for those litigation strategies are now long since behind us.”

Constitutional scholar and Harvard Law Professor, Laurence Tribe, explains why the impeachment of President Trump is warranted and the path the House should take in drafting articles of impeachment. He speaks to Bloomberg’s June Grasso.

When Representative Adam B. Schiff was a Harvard Law School student in the 1980s, the campus was bitterly divided. Student protests erupted over apartheid in South Africa, the lack of diversity on the faculty, and the long line of polarizing speakers — including Jerry Falwell, Jesse Jackson, and Phyllis Schlafly — who trooped through campus. Old-guard faculty, meanwhile, were warring with a new crop of professors who wanted students to see the law as part of an oppressive status quo. ... Schiff learned constitutional law from Laurence H. Tribe, a veteran Harvard law professor who also taught Barack Obama. Schiff said that when he and his friends would see Tribe in Harvard Square, “we would literally genuflect.” Tribe eventually hired Schiff to be one of his student research assistants. “He was very similar to what he is like now – extremely brilliant, very well organized, very thoughtful, and cautious,” Tribe recalled this week.

It could also be grounds for impeachment, according to Harvard Law professor John Coates, who responded to the president’s tweet with a little bit of constitutional law. "This tweet is itself an independent basis for impeachment - a sitting president threatening civil war if Congress exercises its constitutionally authorized power." So far, no congressional lawmakers have commented publicly over whether Coates’ legal opinion is a path worth pursuing. But fellow Harvard Law faculty member Laurence Tribe did support the idea in theory ― though he suggested it may not be practical. I agree with @jciv here, though this is far from the strongest ground for impeachment because it’s much too easy to dismiss as typical Trumpian bloviating, not to be taken seriously OR literally.

A president, his congressional opponents, foreign leaders, and the U.S. Supreme Court first tangled over executive privilege toward the end of George Washington’s first term. They are almost certainly headed for a collision again in 2019. ...Impeachment strengthens Congress’s hand in these disputes—just ask Presidents Washington, Andrew Johnson, Tyler, or Polk. Still, Congress isn’t in the clear; the Trump administration will likely continue fighting to preserve its privileges, real and imagined. The Harvard law professor Laurence Tribe told me in an email that “the law and history make clear that a formal impeachment inquiry maximizes the willingness of courts to release essential information requested by congressional committees engaged in that inquiry.”

People in President Donald Trump’s orbit are already suggesting they may defy cooperating with House Democrats’ impeachment investigation. Most notably, Rudy Giuliani has claimed he has to “consider” whether to comply with it. On MSNBC’s “All In” Monday, Harvard Law professor Laurence Tribe offered a stark warning to Trump’s team: This isn’t like the previous battles with Democrats in court. This will move fast — and steamroller anyone who gets in the way.