If Trump wins, will he be immediately impeached? One law professor seems to think so...

23 September 2016   
If Trump wins, will he be immediately impeached? One law professor seems to think so...

The prospect of a Trump presidency has brought about an unprecedented level of conversation within the political community about how to prevent the brash businessman from wreaking the havoc he has espoused from the stump along the campaign trail. Some pundits claim that it is not too late for Trump to step down and leave a vacancy for the Republican presidential nominee position. Evan McMullin even launched a third-party campaign to try to steal votes from Trump. Between these last-ditch attempts and outlandish assumptions that a magic show will take place within the Republican Party in the next 50 days, one law professor has constructed a very legitimate argument to quell the concerns of those who are worried about stopping Trump before Election Day.

According to a 23-page report from University of Utah Law Professor Christopher Lewis Peterson, there are very legitimate grounds for impeaching Trump if he manages to reach the Oval Office. Peterson argues that Trump has evidently engaged in practices that would qualify as “high crimes and misdemeanors,” thus leaving him vulnerable to impeachment.

“Unlike his promised crimes yet to come, the illegal acts in Trump’s high pressure wealth seminars have already occurred. Indeed, a federal judge appointed under Article III of the U.S. Constitution has already determined that Trump’s alleged actions, if true, constitute fraud and racketeering.” Peterson contends that, while there will be substantial legal technicalities to tackle, the Constitution does not inhibit the U.S. Congress from impeaching a president for actions taken prior to entering the White House.

“Congress would be well within its legal rights under the Constitution to insist upon a President who is not a fraudster or a racketeer as defined in its own law,” he explains. He furthers that an immediate impeachment might appear to be a reversal of the public’s decision to elect Trump and thus a violation of the democratic process. He negates this by noting that “Trump appears to have lied about his role in Trump University to students, he has throughout the election continued to misrepresent the cases that focus on his misrepresentations.”

At present, Trump finds himself tangled in three separate lawsuits involving his shady role in Trump University, which has come under immense scrutiny for frauding hard-working Americans out of their money under the pretense that they , too, could be as successful as Trump if they take his course.

What do you think about this argument? Does Peterson have a point?